ETERNALS THEORY DISCUSSION – Millenia of Memories, Now Running Out of Time

Marvel’s ETERNALS are the first MCU characters to really experience existential dread. And I love them for it. Imagine a story about an ancient family that has been living and fighting together (sometimes each other) for over 7000 years, but suddenly finds itself on the brink of revelation that redirects their purpose and makes them re-evaluate their precious centuries and millennia on planet earth. Life’s purpose is an oddly relatable existential question for any person on this planet.

Only in ETERNALS these questions are magnified x100 or even x1000. The Eternals suddenly have to ask the same questions we might: was their time spent wisely? Did they learn anything about the planet’s inhabitants that taught them anything more about their own existence? And if they did, what does that mean?

And much like our own lives, for these ancient superheroes, the longer you live, the less it all makes sense. ETERNALS had some interesting stuff in it. And I want to write about it. The movie was one of my favorites this year. And it tackles a load of thought provoking questions:

But why are these questions important – and is it important to write about them? Shouldn’t movies always ask questions? Yeah they should, but they don’t and when they do, it is often very messy and rarely poetic (see WESTWORLD) and it is rarely if ever done so well in a comic book or superhero film. But this begs the question and the distinction: are all comic book films necessarily superhero films? Of course not. And maybe more importantly, our first topic:

1.) Are the Eternals even superheroes?

It’s interesting to try and define what makes a superhero story vs. what makes a comic book story. Superhero films are about extraordinarily gifted beings (not necessarily humans – see Green Lantern Corps – and not necessarily organic – see Marvel’s Vision) whose abilities are either “gifted” (Superman/Captain Marvel) or “honed” (Batman/Hawkeye) and sometimes both (Daredevil).

But “a comic book film” is a film based on a comic book or graphic novel and may not involve any superheroes (see “300” and “V For Vendetta”). But the millenia-spanning existence of this ancient superhero family known as “Eternals’ encompasses so much more in the story of humanity, that it almost removes them from the superhero genre. Why? Well I guess moreover what I’m trying to say is that their place in history means more than them just being “superheros”, it seems also reductive to just think of them as that only.  Sure, at the end of the day, I think the Eternals are superheroes.

But then again, what about purpose? It seems the purpose of a superhero is to protect humanity, and on one prima-facie level, Eternals are protecting humanity – but only to a point. Because (SPOILER) the big reveal in the film is that Eternals are not human and are not organic and are not protecting humanity – in fact they are merely farming them to allow for a new celestial named Tiamut, now gestating in the bowels of the earth, to be born. So while their story could be a “superhero” film on the surface, I would argue that at their core purpose Eternals are superpowered but may not be superHEROES. In fact only about half make the choice to become superHEROES by the end of the film and truly protect humanity, the others fight for their original purpose – the birth of celestial Tiamut. Now this, you have to admit, is a lot more complicated and closer to a “300” or “V For Vendetta” underneath. Some have made the comparison to “Watchmen” and I don’t think that’s crazy.

2.) Is ETERNALS a metaphor for our society reaching its terminus point? Will the ETERNALS save the planet? And is their earth or OUR earth worth saving?

Like the first, (and many to come) another question that begs even bigger questions with bigger implications. We see in ETERNALS that the world is necessarily rocked by the second “snap”, the snap that brought have the earth’s population and universe back to life after Thanos’ original snap in INFINITY WAR. And this second snap has energized the planet post Tony’s snap. That energy causes both a re-evaluation from ETERNALS leader Ajak about the “worth” of the true purpose of their mission – something she and only her acolyte Ikaris are aware of. And further the second snap has jump-started Tiamut’s emergence from the planet core. It is an amazing way to write a bit of hope into this universe – just as the birth of a celestial is about to wipe out the planet in its entirety. Because the second snap in the MCU was a way to unequivocally showcase that the humans on this planet are worth saving – for Ajak and many of the other Eternals (though not Ikaris, Sprite or Kingo). But what about the planet we live on? The 2021 earth that we, you, reader, and I, writer, call home?

Undeniably up until about 2008 our planet and Earth 616 in the MCU basically lived the same existence and the ETERNALS further proves that (showing Babylong, Tenochtitlan, and Hiroshima). Then Tony Stark came along and the Avengers initiative jump started the superheroes that then caught the attention of Thanos and it goes on and away from our own history. But what if, like on 616 earth, there was no Tony, no Avengers, no snap – from either Thanos or Tony? What if it was OUR earth? Would we still be worth saving by the Eternals who live on our planet?

It is a deep question that I am sure more enlightened viewers are thinking about, and one which I think Chloe Zhao also wanted us to think about. We have the potential to be the humans of Earth 616, saving half the universe, but we’re not there yet. So what if there was an emergence now – on our earth, at this point in time? Would things be different? It is a chilling and dark question but asking those questions is a big part of what makes me love ETERNALS so much.

Besides the big macro question of the world, its also something that can be placed on the micro of the individual. You see, you also have to wonder if Eternals have fallen in love with their OWN existence so much that they are willing to sacrifice their own objectives to continue their life. The film opens with Pink Floyd’s TIME over the Marvel logo. It is a bold statement – has this all mattered or was it just a way to tick of the days and hours as the Eternals wait to go home. Has it mattered for us or is it just a way to tick off another month, another year? As humans, again, this is something we deal with on a daily basis. Is it ok to go to work to earn money to continue living, even though 80% of our life is sacrificed to trade off time for a paycheck in a job that most people find unfulfilling? Most of the time, we say yes. And why? Are we just waiting for the next vacation, the next “great job” down the road? Are we sacrificing for our family and our loved ones? Are we sacrificing for the future? The Eternals have all been sitting around waiting for 500 years to go back to their home planet. When they find out that’s a lie and that they’re all actually created to farm humans to cultivate a sleeping celestial, gestating in the bowels of the earth, its a huge blow – to say the LEAST lol. Their was no waiting after all – there was no miracle, only oblivion. That’s life, for ancient celestial beings – or even for humans like you and me. Anyway… on to more comic book canon topics…

3.) Was Thanos supposed to be  related to the Eternals and/or the Deviants in the MCU and if he was did the Eternals know it?

In Marvel comics, Thanos is the cousin of Thena and he is also technically at least half-deviant and half Eternal. Also, in Marvel comics, Deviants are portrayed differently than they are in ETERNALS. They have consciousness, can talk, and have a keen sense of style, see below.

Boy how I wanted to see Kro sport a pair of sunglasses in ETERNALS but alas it was not to be. After all, this was not a James Gunn flick. Although, by the end of the film, it seemed liked the MCU version of Kro, had achieved some form of consciousness beyond being just an augmented outrider – even if he had to kill his Deviant brothers and multiple eternals to do so and ingest their powers and life force to presumably “evolve.” Because Deviants have the power to evolve. That was what made them a problem for Arishem. Remember Arishem tells Sersi that he created the Eternals as super-powerful, super-intelligent beings but also incapable of evolution. They are kind of like the brand new iphone – eventually they are going to outlive their purpose, because their purpose was just to see this celestial emerge and destroy the planet. But I digress.

Anyway it stands to reason that Thanos is NOT a deviant in this version of events, or maybe he is part Deviant. Because Deviants are not capable of higher level thoughts it is difficult to draw even that conclusion as one would really have to think about what it would take for an Eternal and a Deviant to have a child in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

But then again, some things point to Thanos being related to the Eternals if not being an Eternal. At the end of the Eternals, Eros appears, aka Starfox, and asserts that he is Thanos’ brother. So it appears that Thanos IS probably at least PARTLY an Eternal. How, if at all, Thanos might be related to any of the earth Eternals will hopefully be expanded on in future MCU installments. I think Thanos might even be part Eternal and part Deviant, like in the comics – but Eternals on earth did not know that. Eternals on earth seem to be very limited in their knowledge beyond Earth. At the end of the film, in the Domo, the remaining Eternals’ search for other Eternals on other planets does not seem to be going well and they have no clue which Eternals might exist on other planets. Remember Arishem played it pretty close to the vest and limited their knowledge, even limited their understanding of their true purpose. Arishem may have been gambling to see if Thanos’ snap and the effects may have actually help Tiamut’s emergence, and what do you know, they did.

Another hint that Thanos might be an Eternal is that he may have access to Celestials tech. His ship looks somewhat like a cross between the Eternals’s Domo and a standard Guardians of The Galaxy ship, in color and geometric design. While they do have standard rocket boosters, the exterior and use of not-traditional shapes for space-flight seem like they could be a nod towards some kind of repurposing of Celestials-tech.

It looks like Thanos has built both the Sanctuary II mother ship and the smaller Q ship above, however, I think it is not necessarily crazy to think that they were derived from Celestials-tech. It may be a reach, however.

One other indication of Thanos’ relation to the Eternals is the look of his Outriders which look like genetic derivatives of Deviants in the MCU. Just take a look at the two different creatures:

I think, for me at least, this is the biggest indicator outside of Eros’ status as both an Eternal and a brother to Thanos that Thanos is an Eternal and further has access to Celestials tech. Again, not saying that Sanctuary II, the Q ship, or the Outriders are from the Celestials or directly related to the Eternals but rather that they are derived from access to that technology.

I don’t think they are but it’s interesting to speculate that at the very least they might be. Who knows. Perhaps we’ll find out more when we get to know Starfox in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY 3 or ETERNALS 2 (fingers are crossed on the latter).

4.) Do we still need to care about whether or not villains like Karli Morgenthau, Dreykov, Doc Ock or even Mysterio are thwarted – when there is a DEAD CELESTIAL IN THE INDIAN OCEAN?!

I have a friend who thinks that there are four distinct MCU types of content these days. He calls them the “guns quadrant” (BLACK WIDOW, FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER), the “magic quadrant” (DOCTOR STRANGE, WANDAVISION, SHANG-CHI), the “cosmic quadrant” (CAPTAIN MARVEL, THOR, GOTG, ETERNALS), and the “multiverse quadrant” (SPIDER-MAN NWH, ANT-MAN 3, LOKI). Now the different quadrants can definitely intertwine – especially the cosmic, multiverse and magic quadrants. The “guns quadrant” kind of exists in its own space at present as it’s a little difficult to bring any of those characters into a narrative that features characters at the level of power of Thor, Arishem – The Judge, or even Doctor Strange. And to be honest its a little hard for me to rationalize caring about whether or not John Walker becomes US Agent when there’s a dead CELESTIAL IN THE INDIAN OCEAN.

And yet, I think outside of ETERNALS, the Marvel content I care about the most usually resides in the guns quadrant. I loved BLACK WIDOW and I loved FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER because it was the characters that matter and had to matter. Why? Exactly why I’m asking this question in the first place: because the stakes were not as blown up as they are in the usual MCU film or TV series that exists in one of the other quadrants. In fact, ETERNALS was the first film in that cosmic quadrant that really captured the gravity of the stakes IN that quadrant because the characters in ETERNALS were so well drawn and were taken seriously. Usually Marvel likes to inject a ton of comedy and humor into the cosmic/magic/multiverse quadrants. Almost as if de-escalating the stakes makes the characters more relatable. And it might, but that’s kind of a cheap shortcut. These are HUGE stakes. Let’s make great characters to go with those stakes. And for me, other than INFINITY WAR, the ETERNALS was the first film in the MCU to present a cosmic dilemma where the stakes really felt (literally) earth shattering.

Don’t get me wrong, the guns quadrant has humor as well but I do think FATWS and BLACK WIDOW are muted and a lot more grounded emotionally when you compare them to movies like RAGNAROK, GOTG or even SHANG-CHI. And I think the reason for that Keving Feige and/or the MCU higher-ups do not totally trust the stories in these magic/cosmic quadrants is because the cosmic quadrant is by nature so wild and out there. And yet, in the ETERNALS, we see real characters dealing with events on the biggest scale and because of that, I was so drawn to this eon spanning tale in ways that I had not even been drawn to stories from Thor or even Doctor Strange.

5.) So, are the two most interesting and human characters in the cosmic MCU “robots”?

Look I won’t go so far as to say ALL of the MCU – at least not yet. I still think John Walker and Yelena Belova are the best new characters introduced in the MCU this year but I think Sersi and Ikaris are giving them a run – and the Arishem/Tiamut saga portrayed in ETERNALS is probably my favorite storyline in the MCU to date.

But are the ETERNALS robots? I mean maybe by our limited understanding as humans, they arguably are. I brushed on this a bit above. And I don’t know if I can say that definitively – or if anyone can, considering our limited understanding of Celestials technology. They seem to be more like genetically engineered beings that may function more closely to what we consider a mechanical framework vs. organic but to call them “robots” seems somewhat limiting. Although, it is hard to think that Chloe Zhao did not know that this comparison would be drawn. I think ETERNALS wants to, at its core, question the value of the human experience. And who better to do that than interlopers like the ETERNALS who are not only NOT human, but also may not even be organic beings. But honestly when Celestials create the universe itself, who is to say that farmed beings coming from the World Forge are robots or not – at least by our standards and limited knowledge.

6.) The love of Ikaris and Sersi is the boss-level fight in the ETERNALS and at the dramatic core and climax of the film – but how do you dramatize that? Enter Chloe Zhao’s cinematography and editing – oh yeah!…

So at the end of ETERNALS we do not see the classic MCU fight or face-off where one character fights another character – usually another version of themselves (Ant-Man vs. Yellow Jacket or Iron Man vs Obidiah Stane). Sure there is a fight amongst the ETERNALS and another fight between Kro and Thena. But these all seem like sub-fights to the greater threat of Tiamut being born into the universe and destroying the earth during his “emergence”. As such, the only person who even has a shot of stopping the emergence is Sersi, who may be able to transform Tiamut from a living being into a kind of marbleized stone.

But before she can do that, Ikaris stands in her way. He has been fighting all along, on the side of celestial Arishem – as he hopes to ensure the birth of Tiamut. It was his original purpose, and while he loves Sersi, he has not found humans on this planet worth saving that would justify his saving it from total destruction. And ironically, Ikaris is, at the climax of the film, the only person who can stop Sersi from saving the planet… by destroying her. As the two lock eyes we will either buy that they are in love and Ikaris will let Sersi proceed or he will destroy her with his laser eyes. But how to dramatize this choice?

Enter Chloe Zhao, who has done some of the most thoughtful and provocative works about loners in recent cinema. THE RIDER was one of my favorite films of 2017 and I liked NOMADLAND a lot. One film is about a solitary rodeo rider fighting through a debilitating injury that might cause him to lose his life if he continues riding. The other film is about a purposeful loner that values her solitary existence far more than a material or societally approved existence would allow or value. And one thing that Zhao has demonstrated through these two films and their protagonists is that she knows how to do well is to dramatize their inner awe and reflection through the use of cinematography through close-ups and montage. It’s something that others have tried but no one (save for maybe Terence Malick) has mastered like Chloe. And you do not see a ton of it in ETERNALS – but when you do, oh boy. Because to dramatize the Sersi/Ikaris confrontation, in the finale we see a long montage of the millennia spanning love affair between Ikaris and Sersi. In a weird way, that can be told only in film, the photos, their memories become both the protagonist and antagonist. It’s a beautiful and wonderful moment that has brought me to tears both times I have seen the film. 

So in essence, Chloe’s montage of the shared history of these two characters becomes the big grand dramatic confrontation or “fight” of ETERNALS and honestly that choice is such an awesome departure and one fo the things that made me love the film so much.

The montage is less a confrontation and more the shared memories getting in the way of Ikaris’ purpose, emotion vs. directive, a true fight and laid beautifully to rest here. Ikaris’ only choice is to let Sersi live and his directive fails, a choice that will leave him reeling.

7.) So does Ikaris really die at the end of the film?

As a result of Ikaris remembering his love for Sersi and letting her proceed but also having to reconcile that with his sense of duty to Arishem, he ends up flying into the sun and – at least attempts – to commit suicide at the end of the film.

Now we all know that no one really ever dies in the MCU – from Coulson to Gamora, it’s rare that we see the end of a character, and even if we haven’t yet, I don’t think there’s a character in the MCU that we’ve closed the door on yet. So did Ikaris really die?

Who’s to say, but I think Zhao’s real point is that Ikaris WANTS to. And an attempted suicide is in many ways just as devestating. This character no longer wants to live. And seeing an MCU character so racked with guilt and confusion that death is the best alternative is, oddly, a real step forward in terms of maturity and dramatic storytelling in the MCU. It doesn’t matter if we bring Ikaris back because the point of his suicide is that it WAS suicide. He was so troubled by his life choices that he wanted to die – which is a real dramatic choice from Zhao that is both mature and scary and like nothing we’ve seen before in the MCU (and something I dare say we may never see again).

8.) Do the Eternals still have the power to heal now that Ajak has passed and Kro has seemingly assimilated her power (and is now also dead)?

Well, it seemed like when Sersi was imbued with cosmic powers via the emergence and the unimind, she or the cosmic power, were able to heal up all of the Eternals to bring them back to at least their original states of existence. I do think that Eternals have the power to heal, like humans, they may not be 100% after an injury – but they will get there over time. However Ajak kind of accelerated that AND also did maybe a more complete job as opposed to their bodies’ natural healing power.

I think a lot of this can be answered by whatever powers Sersi has and whether or not they are going to last beyond the little time that she spent healing up Sprite on the island. It is unknown. Moreover I can also see a world where in future installments of ETERNALS (fingers crossed) that they find a new healer on another planet who, like Ajak, can accelerate and perfect their healing capabilities – since there may be some degree of Eternal interchangeability in the MCU. Take a look at the “World Forge” scene again and see how the size and outlines of the Eternals in the forge seem to be repeated over and over again. Therefore I think it is pretty likely there is another Eternal healer out there in the universe, if not necessarily another Ajak – and Sersi, Sprite, etc…

9.) That being said, ETERNALS had the most deaths per capita for major protagonist characters of any MCU film yet…

The Eternals seem to be far from immortal. In the course of the film, Gilgamesh and Ajak are both killed by Deviants and at the end of the film, as previously mentioned, Ikaris sails into the sun. And Sprite chooses to become a human – which will lead to her eventual death, as Sersi so truthfully tells her when changing her. It is an interesting and definitive choice to introduce 10 new characters into the MCU and almost ⅓ of them go in a single film. So what is Chloe Zhao trying to say?

Moreover, I think the choice was made to show that even when you are one of the universe’s oldest and most powerful beings and are fighting for the survival of a planet, life is still precious and is still a gift. Mortality is always at the doorstep. And I think this principle is at the core of the film. Each Eternal knows that the survival of the planet is something that they are willing to give their life for so that billions will survive in return.

And as Arishem explains in his World Forge monologue, the universe is a constant cycle of living and dying, death brings more life. One end is another beginning. And presumably each death in the film meant life and a new beginning for billions more. But also its important to note that thwarting the emergence may have caused billions of potential life forms from ever emerging on the other side. And maybe stopping the emergence caused something right here on earth…

10.) Could other things come (ahem Mutants cough) from the energy generated from the failed emergence of Tiamut?

Many people have been waiting for years for a little group of mutants called the X-Men to enter the MCU. Countless words in blogs and minutes on youtube videos have been spent theorizing that these mutants are going to show up in WANDAVISION, LOKI, and even FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER. But no X-Men yet. But what if the energy that was expended from Tiamut’s emergence and rechanneled into the Uni-mind and Sersi – and which eventually transformed Sprite from her Eternal form into human form – was also big enough to transform other people and things on the planet?

Considering what the energy did to Sprite, I don’t think this option is so far-fetched. Now considering the moderate (by Marvel standards) box office and cool critical reception of ETERNALS, I could see Marvel shying away from this as a reason to bring mutants into the MCU, even though I think it would work perfectly. Who knows?

11.) Does Spite still have her Eternals powers after turning into a human?

I think this is one of the most immediate questions that I had coming out of the movie and both the MCU and Chloe Zhao are playing it coy – or are at least protecting their options. Their answer could have huge repercussions for the team for a few reasons. It would seem that Sprite having her powers and being human would mean that their powers might not necessarily be tied to their Celestial compositions, and rather are of more cosmic, maybe even primal origin – which may or may not beg the question of whether or not Arishem was telling the truth the entire time. After all, who created the Celestials? Sure, there is an answer in comics but the MCU cannot introduce the Celestials, give them such all-powerful capabilities and then just sort of forget about them. I’d actually like to see a Celestials show on Disney Plus more than an Eternals prequel but I feel like many MCU fans prefer more spoonfed, predictable options so if we get anything Eternals on Disney Plus its probably going to be the further adventures of Human Sprite mixed with flashbacks. Still it is interesting how much Sprite’s current form and capabilities might tell about the Eternals and the Celestials as a whole.

It would also mean that there is a chance that Sersi is becoming a Celestial – or with her powers of transformation and the new cosmic powers (that may have left her by the end of the film) has the potential to be at least Celestials-adjacent level power.

Like I said, if Sprite still has her powers, I have a lot more questions.

12.) Does the MCU have DC comics?

One of the more fun things about ETERNALS as Chloe Zhao’s clear love for DC comics by having her characters reference Batman, Alfred, and Superman. The MCU itself only received three references (Captain America, Iron Man, Thor) so the two universes appear to occupy a similar amount of universe real estate in the script. Some have argued that this means Superman and Batman exist in the MCU (if they do it is definitely the Reeve’s Superman and Bale’s Batman – I kid). But I think the more likely possibility is that there are DC COMICS in the MCU.

Still, there is a part of ETERNALS that feels more like the DC Universe (and not just the DCEU) than the MCU. It doesn’t have a ton of jokes and the jokes it has feel forced. It feels at home in its dramatic and angsty moments. It is dealing with an apocalyptic world and the potential harmful consequences of beings with superpowers as a greater metaphor for questioning power in our world. These all seem like topics more associated with the DC Universe and comics than Marvel which is usually about breezy, well-engineered and entertaining storytelling. Nothing wrong with that. But I also love the deeper subtext that runs through DC a bit more often than Marvel. No disrespect to Marvel, again.

13.) Did Deviants kill the dinosaurs and are the Deviants and Eternals a metaphor for magic and superstition dying off in favor of the age of enlightenment, which eventually gave way to the more familiar superheroes like the Avengers?

OK this is kind of another crazy question that gives way to a bigger and more important one. I think its safe to say that the Deviants must have at least been a contributing cause to the extinction of the dinosaurs. Arishem says as much as they needed the deviants to allow for the growth of intelligent life on a planet where it may not have been as easy or quick without their presence. Further, the animals that we see the Deviants killing in Arishem’s story during ETERNALS look a lot like dinosaurs or are at least dinosaur adjacent. Anyway, I don’t think its crazy.

But, I guess the greater question is whether or not the Deviants and Eternals are some kind of pre-superhero metaphor for the age of magic and superstition giving way to the age of enlightenment. Think about it, the last time they were seen or even used in public was during the middle ages and the last time they seem to be even super-active in human culture was around the time of Christ or just before that. Moreover I think you can line up a lot of the rise and fall of the Deviants/Eternals conflict with that pre-science rise and fall of magic, superstition and religions – pagan or otherwise. It’s an interesting comparison to look at it, and just another one of the many subtextual topics that exist in ETERNALS and make me so interested in thinking about it.

14.) You cannot get rid of any of the 10 Eternals, all representing a different human experience…

This is kind of an interesting quick topic, but think about it, each of the 10 ETERNALS has a clear human experience and emotion and they are all their for a reason:

Sersi: Empathy and defense

Ikaris: Duty and aggression

Sprite: Youthful Angst and illusion

Gilgamesh: Guilt and protecting

Ajak: Understanding and healing

Thena: Confidence and execution

Kingo: Fame and narcissism

Phastos: Intelligence and creation

Druig: Doubt and control

Makkari: Agility and results

Anyway, just something to think about…

15.) ETERNALS fight and they heal – like family, see Kingo and Sersi at the end

Think about this, the ETERNALS both fight and heal, on the surface and inside. Think about Sersi removing the knife that Sprite stuck into her and later granting Sprite her biggest wish. Think about Kingo deciding to leave and in a way offer his de-facto support to Ikaris, only to later seem to be back and friends with both Sersi and Sprite. I think the way that the ETERNALS act as family – and a family unit that can both fight and forgive – is one of my favorite parts of the film and one of the most hopeful. I also think it is interesting to compare this to 2021’s earlier MCU film BLACK WIDOW (which I kind of enjoyed), and how cavalier the familial infrastructure and relationships healed after the quite bleak opening. It was the usual MCU jokes and one-liner style of storytelling, which isn’t bad, but I will take the authenticity of emotion in ETERNALS every time if given the preference.