Why Wouldn't the Avengers Use Mjolnir to Pin Down Thanos in Endgame?

The cinematic culmination of the Avengers' journey in 'Avengers: Endgame' sees them attempt to rectify the mistake of 'Infinity War.' However, one intriguing question persists: why didn't anyone place Mjolnir, the iconic hammer wielded by Thor, on Thanos to neutralize him? This article explores the various factors contributing to this decision and the impact it had on the film's narrative.

The Gauntlets and the Avengers

The gauntlet, a powerful device that collects the Infinity Stones, is another crucial component in the battle against Thanos. Unlike Mjolnir, the gauntlet requires a specific 'worthy' protector to activate it. However, the focus on using it against Thanos largely remains theoretical. Regardless, the gauntlet played a pivotal role in 'Avengers: Endgame,' with the heroes using it to reverse time and address the past mistakes that led to Thanos' rise.

The Physical Limitations and Strategic Failures

In the heat of the battle, Captain America and other Avengers face significant challenges in neutralizing Thanos. Captain America, wielding Mjolnir, tries to subdue Thanos but is defeated given Thanos' overwhelming strength and agility. Thor, Thor's hammer's rightful owner, is preoccupied with slaying his father and completing his duty. Other characters like Tony Stark, while capable, didn't use Mjolnir as it was not their primary choice of weapon.

Why Not Pin Thanos Down with Mjolnir?

The idea of placing Mjolnir on Thanos might seem straightforward in theory, but it would have dramatically altered the narrative and felt anticlimactic. Here are some reasons why this wasn't a feasible solution:

Moved Along Swiftly: The immediate use of Mjolnir to pin Thanos down would have simplified the conflict, leading to a quick victory. This would have made the movie lacking in suspense and excitement, which is central to both the characters and the audience's engagement. Thanos' Resilience: Thanos, portrayed as a resilient and strategic opponent, would not be easily subdued. His agility and experience make it nearly impossible to encase him in a manner that doesn’t allow him to counterattack. Rules of Combat: Placing something heavy like Mjolnir over an opponent is not a standard combat technique in real life or even in the realistic depiction of superhero battles. It would make the Avengers seem less skilled and more passive in a time of crisis. Symbolic Significance of Mjolnir: As a symbol, Mjolnir represents power and legacy. Using it to subdue Thanos would strip it of its symbolic importance, turning it from a symbol of Thor's power to a mere tool. This shift in perspective wouldn't align with the film's thematic elements. Thanos' Virtue Argument: Thanos, despite his villainous actions, has redeeming qualities that make him difficult to simply subdue. His belief in a higher purpose adds complexity to the narrative, making him more than just an evil adversary.

Conclusion

The decision not to use Mjolnir to pin down Thanos was a deliberate choice that aimed to maintain the tension and dramatic complexity of 'Avengers: Endgame.' While it might seem like a missed opportunity, it served the narrative and thematic goals of the film. The stakes were raised, and the challenges faced by the Avengers were more intense, leading to a satisfying and emotionally impactful conclusion to the Avengers' journey.

Key Takeaways:

The gauntlet, with its strict 'worthy' requirement, remains a more strategic choice. Mjolnir's symbolic significance adds depth to the battle and the narrative. Thanos' strength and agility make subduing him with Mjolnir impractical, even theoretically. The complexity of Thanos' character makes a straightforward solution less effective.