You own Marvel comics (RAR!)

[Crazedwraith]

Although the whole "Iron Man quits using the armour" thing at the end meshed awkwardly with subsequent films. But that's an issue with lack of overall editorial oversight/story direction, not the film in and of itself.

What in Valen's name are you talking about? The final scene of the movie is Tony picking up a screwdriver, kissing it, and driving away with the remains of his workshop, presumably to build a new one. His very last words (well before the inevitable post-credits scene ) are 'The one thing you can't take away? I AM Iron Man'. There's no indication he intends to give up the armour.

Maybe but that's not the way he describes in Civil War to Steve. Not the way a lot of people read the 'blank slate' scene.

[The Romulan Republic]

Although the whole "Iron Man quits using the armour" thing at the end meshed awkwardly with subsequent films. But that's an issue with lack of overall editorial oversight/story direction, not the film in and of itself.

What in Valen's name are you talking about? The final scene of the movie is Tony picking up a screwdriver, kissing it, and driving away with the remains of his workshop, presumably to build a new one. His very last words (well before the inevitable post-credits scene ) are 'The one thing you can't take away? I AM Iron Man'. There's no indication he intends to give up the armour.

There's a scene throughout the film of Tony being over-dependent on his armor, then learning to function without it, with him blowing up all his extra suites at the end, as best I can recall.

The "I am Iron Man" could be taken two ways, in the context of the film: one, that he's going to rebuild his armor. 2. That he has recognized that he doesn't need the armor to be a hero, and that he is Iron Man with or without the suite.

[JLTucker]

Fuck you. Winter Soldier, the first avengers film and Guardians has ALL of that. Then again you defend Armond White even though the man's a complete idiot.

I defend Mr. White because he's one of the few critics out there who doesn't follow the status quo. His reviews are ALWAYS insightful and not about a Rotten Tomatoes blurb to appease fanboys who shit their pants when someone doesn't like a work. For example, his review of The Dark Knight is spot on.

Guardians is a series ruined by a Hamlet-wannabe plot that adds absolutely nothing of value to the theme. Winter Soldier is indeed good, I'll give you that, but its impact is lessened by Civil War, an Avengers knockoff that was amazingly worse than the Avengers. I didn't think the latter would be possible.

[SpottedKitty]

Hell, maybe think about the implications of a world where death is not a real worry, or at least not permanent, at least not for the special people.

Ever read Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld stories? The scenario includes a method of resurrection for any characters killed during the story. One character (the Victorian explorer Sir Richard (not the actor) Burton) takes advantage of this as a means of travel, to explore the world — he calls it the "Suicide Express". Been a while since I read the books, but I remember some angst about loss of identity and the pointlessness of life in a prison you can't even escape by dying.

[Batman]

The "I am Iron Man" could be taken two ways, in the context of the film: one, that he's going to rebuild his armor. 2. That he has recognized that he doesn't need the armor to be a hero, and that he is Iron Man with or without the suite.

1. If he DOESN'T want to rebuild his armour (nevermind we know from the later movies that he DOES), why bring the remains of his workshop?
2. He ISN'T Iron Man without the suit. He's Reed Richards with no superpowers. Can he be a hero without the suit? Absolutely. But that hero isn't going to be Iron Man. Iron Man is DEFINED by the suit.

[Gandalf]

Guardians is a series ruined by a Hamlet-wannabe plot that adds absolutely nothing of value to the theme. Winter Soldier is indeed good, I'll give you that, but its impact is lessened by Civil War, an Avengers knockoff that was amazingly worse than the Avengers. I didn't think the latter would be possible.

I think where Winter Soldier went massively wrong was making it a Hydra plot as opposed to people who happen to disagree with Captain America, going to far as to retcon Senator Larry Sanders form IM2 into a Hydra guy. The first half or so of the film was about an interesting dialogue of what the shit a government is supposed to do when comic book power villains start showing up. But about halfway the film takes a turn and suddenly everyone who was opposed to the absurd and largely unchecked power held by a drunken billionaire became a part of a secret pseudo-Nazi cult. So long interesting theme about security and freedom, because now it's time for the superpowered guy to punch a lot of bad guys for freedom!

Is this because I insulted Galvatron in that thread about Return of the Jedi?

No, there's a lot more to it than that largely related to your ongoing habit of finding internet articles and seemingly going "This guy said things about IPs we all like! Isn't he silly? Aren't we great? Pay attention to meee!" Why would I be fussed that you insulted another forum user?

[The Romulan Republic]

The "I am Iron Man" could be taken two ways, in the context of the film: one, that he's going to rebuild his armor. 2. That he has recognized that he doesn't need the armor to be a hero, and that he is Iron Man with or without the suite.

1. If he DOESN'T want to rebuild his armour (nevermind we know from the later movies that he DOES), why bring the remains of his workshop?
2. He ISN'T Iron Man without the suit. He's Reed Richards with no superpowers. Can he be a hero without the suit? Absolutely. But that hero isn't going to be Iron Man. Iron Man is DEFINED by the suit.

Not going to argue the second point, but to the first point: He can do a lot of shit in that workshop that has nothing to do with power armour. He was a genius inventor years before he ever thought of Iron Man.

And that, to me, was the point of the film, or one of its points- that Tony didn't need Iron Man to be a hero. It was about him realizing that.

Edit: Which, since I finally just saw the new Spiderman, was nicely echoed in that film: when Peter says he's nothing without the suit, and Tony replies that if you're nothing without the suit, you shouldn't have it.

[Darth Yan]

Guardians is a series ruined by a Hamlet-wannabe plot that adds absolutely nothing of value to the theme. Winter Soldier is indeed good, I'll give you that, but its impact is lessened by Civil War, an Avengers knockoff that was amazingly worse than the Avengers. I didn't think the latter would be possible.

I think where Winter Soldier went massively wrong was making it a Hydra plot as opposed to people who happen to disagree with Captain America, going to far as to retcon Senator Larry Sanders form IM2 into a Hydra guy. The first half or so of the film was about an interesting dialogue of what the shit a government is supposed to do when comic book power villains start showing up. But about halfway the film takes a turn and suddenly everyone who was opposed to the absurd and largely unchecked power held by a drunken billionaire became a part of a secret pseudo-Nazi cult. So long interesting theme about security and freedom, because now it's time for the superpowered guy to punch a lot of bad guys for freedom!

Is this because I insulted Galvatron in that thread about Return of the Jedi?

No, there's a lot more to it than that largely related to your ongoing habit of finding internet articles and seemingly going "This guy said things about IPs we all like! Isn't he silly? Aren't we great? Pay attention to meee!" Why would I be fussed that you insulted another forum user?

The problem is that oftentimes the "security" guys are utterly full of shit and just want power; The Patriot Act and the AEDPA (two of the stupidest and most damaging laws in recent memories) occurred because people were scared and wanted to feel safe. In that regards the films message (people who support giving up freedom are idiots) is the right one. The people who opposed Cap were advocating extrajudicial murder and killing people because they were suspected of being terrorists. That kind of thing can EASILY go wrong so in that case Cap was right to tell them to go fuck themselves. Cap was actually correct. And Senator Stern was implied to have selfish motives even back in the first one (They just wanted the US army to have it so they could be the big kid on the block).

Avengers 1 is also a fine film; the characters grow and are likable, the final battle is well shot and tense and the story, while somewhat cliche, is done with enough panache and uniqueness that it manages to rise above it. Guardians is also a good film.

Fuck you. Winter Soldier, the first avengers film and Guardians has ALL of that. Then again you defend Armond White even though the man's a complete idiot.

I defend Mr. White because he's one of the few critics out there who doesn't follow the status quo. His reviews are ALWAYS insightful and not about a Rotten Tomatoes blurb to appease fanboys who shit their pants when someone doesn't like a work. For example, his review of The Dark Knight is spot on.

Guardians is a series ruined by a Hamlet-wannabe plot that adds absolutely nothing of value to the theme. Winter Soldier is indeed good, I'll give you that, but its impact is lessened by Civil War, an Avengers knockoff that was amazingly worse than the Avengers. I didn't think the latter would be possible.

Armond White condemned Toy story for commercialism.....yet praised Transformers Revenge of the Fallen even though Fallen was WORSE on that score. He also defended NORBIT and other stupid ass films. So again. The man was a complete idiot

As for the Dark Knight it had problems but nihilism isn't one of them. The climax has the joker loosing his cool because the people refuse to do what he expects and ultimately take the moral high road rather than saving themselves. Bruce even tells him "you're alone." That's....actually hopeful.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, the Nolan Batman films are absolutely not nihilistic, or even particularly dark or cynical. People mistake a dark visual tone for thematic darkness- in fact, the Nolan films are quite idealistic at times, being notable both for the above-mentioned refusal of the passengers (and even the convict) to play the Joker's game, and the fact that DKR is the only Batman continuity I can think of off-hand that actually allows Bruce to win, and retire for a happily ever after ending.

The darkest point is probably Dent turning into Two Face and Bruce lying to cover it up, but their are plenty of counter points to that.

[FaxModem1]

Yeah, the Nolan Batman films are absolutely not nihilistic, or even particularly dark or cynical. People mistake a dark visual tone for thematic darkness- in fact, the Nolan films are quite idealistic at times, being notable both for the above-mentioned refusal of the passengers (and even the convict) to play the Joker's game, and the fact that DKR is the only Batman continuity I can think of off-hand that actually allows Bruce to win, and retire for a happily ever after ending.

After, you know, radiating the entire eastern seaboard and leaving Gotham in shambles from the economic collapse of Bane's siege, to try and rebuild if they don't all die of radiation poisoning. It's a rather dour ending, all things considered.

[The Romulan Republic]

Considering that the bomb doesn't work like any real-world bomb I've ever heard of, who knows what the radiation effects are. Its clearly intended to be a fairly optimistic ending, so I take that at face value unless I have good reason to believe otherwise.

The damage to the city is substantial, certainly, but not necessarily any worse than what a major earthquake would deal, except that Bane's occupation delayed reconstruction efforts. Recoverable, given a few years and billions of Federal aid dollars (and I'd imagine that political outrage over the government's inability to rescue the city, and the fact that a vigilante had to almost single-handedly save everyone, would probably create a big incentive to pour money generously into reconstruction.

I can pretty much guarantee that if that happened in the real world, whichever party was in power at the time would get crushed in the next federal election (or next two or three elections), and their opponents would campaign endlessly on "Rebuild Gotham" and "Prevent Another Gotham".

Also that if Bruce's survival ever becomes public knowledge, he's getting a Presidential pardon before the week is out, and probably Selina too.

Edit: Well, I suppose you could look to 9/11 as the opposite happening- a disastrous terror attack rallying everyone behind the government, and being used to bolster said government. And that's probably what would happen initially. But after months of a major city under occupation with no progress made, and Bane parading dead American soldiers on television... yeah. Say what you will about George W. Bush, he never failed that hard on American soil until the Great Recession (I don't think even Katrina really compares, though it probably comes closes, and incidentally did a number on his public support). And even the Great Recession didn't have such viscerally dramatic visual evidence of his failure.

[MKSheppard]

Basically, mash up the old Punisher 2099 continuity ideas with the current MCU; and have Captain Castle, SHIELD; secretly moonlighting as a vigilante, knocking off supervillains when they get a little bit too crazy as a reminder to other writers to not go full superjoker with their villains.

[FaxModem1]

Considering that the bomb doesn't work like any real-world bomb I've ever heard of, who knows what the radiation effects are. Its clearly intended to be a fairly optimistic ending, so I take that at face value unless I have good reason to believe otherwise.

The damage to the city is substantial, certainly, but not necessarily any worse than what a major earthquake would deal, except that Bane's occupation delayed reconstruction efforts. Recoverable, given a few years and billions of Federal aid dollars (and I'd imagine that political outrage over the government's inability to rescue the city, and the fact that a vigilante had to almost single-handedly save everyone, would probably create a big incentive to pour money generously into reconstruction.

I can pretty much guarantee that if that happened in the real world, whichever party was in power at the time would get crushed in the next federal election (or next two or three elections), and their opponents would campaign endlessly on "Rebuild Gotham" and "Prevent Another Gotham".

Also that if Bruce's survival ever becomes public knowledge, he's getting a Presidential pardon before the week is out, and probably Selina too.

Edit: Well, I suppose you could look to 9/11 as the opposite happening- a disastrous terror attack rallying everyone behind the government, and being used to bolster said government. And that's probably what would happen initially. But after months of a major city under occupation with no progress made, and Bane parading dead American soldiers on television... yeah. Say what you will about George W. Bush, he never failed that hard on American soil until the Great Recession (I don't think even Katrina really compares, though it probably comes closes, and incidentally did a number on his public support). And even the Great Recession didn't have such viscerally dramatic visual evidence of his failure.

You're also not taking into consideration how bad it would be if the New York Stock Exchange, the companies that have their headquarters in New York, the billions that go into the city on a regular basis, etc., was destroyed and held hostage for months and unable to do any trading, moving, investing, etc. Gotham in the Nolan-verse is supposed to be just as important as New York City is, if not more-so.

This would be 9/11 and a worldwide recession combined, with things getting uglier as the longer Bane's occupation occurs.

[Gandalf]

The problem is that oftentimes the "security" guys are utterly full of shit and just want power; The Patriot Act and the AEDPA (two of the stupidest and most damaging laws in recent memories) occurred because people were scared and wanted to feel safe. In that regards the films message (people who support giving up freedom are idiots) is the right one. The people who opposed Cap were advocating extrajudicial murder and killing people because they were suspected of being terrorists. That kind of thing can EASILY go wrong so in that case Cap was right to tell them to go fuck themselves. Cap was actually correct.

Fun fact: People can want power without being part of a pseudo-Nazi cult. They just need to be scared.

Also, if operating extrajudicially is an issue then shouldn't Captain America fight basically the whole MCU, himself included?

And Senator Stern was implied to have selfish motives even back in the first one (They just wanted the US army to have it so they could be the big kid on the block).

He was a politician who saw a one man Manhattan Project in the hands of a drunken billionaire, and in others around the world to various degrees. It's pretty rational that he would want it for his own country's armed forces.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fun fact: People can want power without being part of a pseudo-Nazi cult. They just need to be scared.

True.

Although in light of the whole Trump/Russia thing, Charlottsville, and the web of Right-wing corporate backers and media (notably Brietbart) connecting various far Right campaigns (La Penn, Brexit, Trump, etc.), the idea of a global neo-Nazi syndicate covertly hijacking our government has moved from "comic book silliness" to "creepily prescient". Though Trump hasn't turned hover-carriers on the American people, of course.

Yet.

Also, if operating extrajudicially is an issue then shouldn't Captain America fight basically the whole MCU, himself included?

Yeah.

This is why I maintain that superheroes only work as a concept if they are either under government authority, or are in a setting where the authorities are either utterly corrupt or completely inadequate to deal with the threats at hand. Batman would be a villain in a city less corrupt than Gotham.

Ties into the MCU's Civil War, as well. I don't think Iron Man was wrong to want to put the Avengers under some degree of oversight, and I couldn't really identify with Cap's opposition to that. It struck me as unreasonable and selfish (I can empathize with him trying to save Buckey, because Buckey was his life-long long-lost friend who was going to be killed for something he'd had no control over, and I would probably have enjoyed the film more if it had been a more personal conflict over that, without the overtones of "Captain America champions unaccountable vigilantism").

He was a politician who saw a one man Manhattan Project in the hands of a drunken billionaire, and in others around the world to various degrees. It's pretty rational that he would want it for his own country's armed forces.

Yeah.

I mean, Hollywood action films being laced with anti-government libertarian-esque undertones so that they can have their lone hero go off and save the day after the authorities fuck up is pretty much par for the course, but its hard for me to root for the billionaire who wants to have his private military without oversight.

Also interesting, how Tony basically did a complete about-face on the subject. Even when events in his universe, the events of Winter Soldier ought to have made him less trusting of authority, not more.

But then, Tony generally comes off as a reactionary who's driven by his emotions, less than reason. Which is a terrible kind of person to have control over a massive private arsenal which they use unilaterally.

[Darth Yan]

The problem is that oftentimes the "security" guys are utterly full of shit and just want power; The Patriot Act and the AEDPA (two of the stupidest and most damaging laws in recent memories) occurred because people were scared and wanted to feel safe. In that regards the films message (people who support giving up freedom are idiots) is the right one. The people who opposed Cap were advocating extrajudicial murder and killing people because they were suspected of being terrorists. That kind of thing can EASILY go wrong so in that case Cap was right to tell them to go fuck themselves. Cap was actually correct.

Fun fact: People can want power without being part of a pseudo-Nazi cult. They just need to be scared.

Also, if operating extrajudicially is an issue then shouldn't Captain America fight basically the whole MCU, himself included?

And Senator Stern was implied to have selfish motives even back in the first one (They just wanted the US army to have it so they could be the big kid on the block).

He was a politician who saw a one man Manhattan Project in the hands of a drunken billionaire, and in others around the world to various degrees. It's pretty rational that he would want it for his own country's armed forces.

The difference is that Captain America doesn't take the place of the courts; he hauls the guys in but lets the courts punish them and make the decision. With Insight the people wouldn't have even had a trial (which is also why he opposes the attempts to kill Bucky). The groups they fight also tend to be the kind of guys who can level city blocks with their minds and against whom most people have no defense.

The other point is that most people who spout "good intentions" really DON'T have good intentions and either gleefully want power or are deluding themselves otherwise.

Fun fact: People can want power without being part of a pseudo-Nazi cult. They just need to be scared.

True.

Although in light of the whole Trump/Russia thing, Charlottsville, and the web of Right-wing corporate backers and media (notably Brietbart) connecting various far Right campaigns (La Penn, Brexit, Trump, etc.), the idea of a global neo-Nazi syndicate covertly hijacking our government has moved from "comic book silliness" to "creepily prescient". Though Trump hasn't turned hover-carriers on the American people, of course.

Yet.

Also, if operating extrajudicially is an issue then shouldn't Captain America fight basically the whole MCU, himself included?

Yeah.

This is why I maintain that superheroes only work as a concept if they are either under government authority, or are in a setting where the authorities are either utterly corrupt or completely inadequate to deal with the threats at hand. Batman would be a villain in a city less corrupt than Gotham.

Ties into the MCU's Civil War, as well. I don't think Iron Man was wrong to want to put the Avengers under some degree of oversight, and I couldn't really identify with Cap's opposition to that. It struck me as unreasonable and selfish (I can empathize with him trying to save Buckey, because Buckey was his life-long long-lost friend who was going to be killed for something he'd had no control over, and I would probably have enjoyed the film more if it had been a more personal conflict over that, without the overtones of "Captain America champions unaccountable vigilantism").

He was a politician who saw a one man Manhattan Project in the hands of a drunken billionaire, and in others around the world to various degrees. It's pretty rational that he would want it for his own country's armed forces.

Yeah.

I mean, Hollywood action films being laced with anti-government libertarian-esque undertones so that they can have their lone hero go off and save the day after the authorities fuck up is pretty much par for the course, but its hard for me to root for the billionaire who wants to have his private military without oversight.

Also interesting, how Tony basically did a complete about-face on the subject. Even when events in his universe, the events of Winter Soldier ought to have made him less trusting of authority, not more.

But then, Tony generally comes off as a reactionary who's driven by his emotions, less than reason. Which is a terrible kind of person to have control over a massive private arsenal which they use unilaterally.

Iron Man was wrong in a way; Steve himself admits that the accords could work WITH safeguards and a lot of modern adaptations describe the hero teams working out agreements with the UN in order to be able to operate (i.e. if the country doesn't sign the heroes aren't allowed in, certain situations like natural disasters are seen as acceptable reasons for the heroes to intervene); the problem is that the people in charge of the accords (Ross) just wanted attack hounds. Also, it IS important to be able to move quickly; if they had waited for a committee in Sokovia or New York everyone would have died.

The guy who was in charge of the accords (Ross) is the LAST guy to be talking about accountability as well (he directly created the hulk when he lied to bruce about what the project was about, which caused Bruce to experiment it on himself; he also exposed Abomination to the serum, which made him go insane and become the abomination and tried to attack Bruce in a crowded college.) While the accord could have worked with more negotiation as stands they were a disaster waiting to happen.

[Darth Yan]

The problem is that oftentimes the "security" guys are utterly full of shit and just want power; The Patriot Act and the AEDPA (two of the stupidest and most damaging laws in recent memories) occurred because people were scared and wanted to feel safe. In that regards the films message (people who support giving up freedom are idiots) is the right one. The people who opposed Cap were advocating extrajudicial murder and killing people because they were suspected of being terrorists. That kind of thing can EASILY go wrong so in that case Cap was right to tell them to go fuck themselves. Cap was actually correct.

Fun fact: People can want power without being part of a pseudo-Nazi cult. They just need to be scared.

Also, if operating extrajudicially is an issue then shouldn't Captain America fight basically the whole MCU, himself included?

And Senator Stern was implied to have selfish motives even back in the first one (They just wanted the US army to have it so they could be the big kid on the block).

He was a politician who saw a one man Manhattan Project in the hands of a drunken billionaire, and in others around the world to various degrees. It's pretty rational that he would want it for his own country's armed forces.

Except that operates under the delusion that most people who advocate security are sincere. Most of them really aren't. The Dreyfus Affair saw the french military spread all sorts of lies about national security but at the end of the day it was ass covering to avoid admitting that they screwed up and imprisoned an innocent man. The Patriot Act was much the same, and many bush supporters refuse to acknowledge that Bush ignored warning signs.

Most "security advocates" are like the dreyfus affair military members; heartless scumbags who just want power. Even those with good intentions tend to be deluded. That was the point the movie was making; there is no real debate since the "security" side is morally bankrupt.

Criminal justice is much the same; a lot of the time the prosecutors arguing about "finality" are heartless sociopaths who would gleefully let an innocent man die in order to advance their careers and who don't want investigations because ah gee that would be rather inconvenient or idiots who made up their mind and refuse to accept that sometimes members of their team are lying scumbags.

[mr friendly guy]

Well if I owned Marvel, I would...

1. Let the film making division run itself for now, they seem to have done a good job.

2. Have a look at the television division. Iron fist and Inhumans seem to have had a bad reputation. Apparently they were run by the same guy.

I think the next adaptation for television should be Ghost Rider. Not sure which version though. I grew up with Danny Ketch as the spirit of vengeance, and know very little about the new one.

Edit - ok scrap the Ghost rider idea. The new GR is not the spirit of vengeance and has already appeared in Agents of Shield.

Ok here is another idea. Adapt the Eternals. Have the Eternals and Deviants undergo a secret conflict and then they become more tied in with the Marvel film universe big shots, like the Avengers. After all, Thanos is an Eternal from titan as is the Avenger Starfox. However I prefer the Eternals of Earth, namely Sersi, who did become an Avenger. And a flirtatious one at that with Captain America.

3. Steamline the comic division and get rid of books that don't make money.

As much as I like to change Marvel comics to what I like, I realise that that horse has bolted and is too far gone.

4. Start selling Crossgen books.

Crossgen was purchased by Disney, who then purchased Marvel. Since then Marvel has tried to reimagine the CG books Mystic and Ruse, and I am not too interested.

I think the first thing to do, is release Negation war as a graphic novel to finish off what happened in CG before the companies bankruptcy. This is most probably not going to make money but I figure I save more than enough by getting rid of those who came up with Iron Fist and Inhumans and some shitty selling Marvel books.

There is a precedent for releasing issues years after they were due. Ghost rider did this after Marvel's bankruptcy in the 90s. So we finish the Negation war as a form of closure and then restart the CG line with similar premises based on how they should have been told (ie not rushed at the very end).

Also try and adapt one or two for television in cartoon form.

So CG might not make money, but the rest of Marvel certainly is, and since I am now the boss.... Actually it might since I don't think super heroes comics are that much of a money maker these days, but perhaps there may be a market for things non superhero, which CG certainly caters to.

[Gandalf]

Except that operates under the delusion that most people who advocate security are sincere. Most of them really aren't. The Dreyfus Affair saw the french military spread all sorts of lies about national security but at the end of the day it was ass covering to avoid admitting that they screwed up and imprisoned an innocent man. The Patriot Act was much the same, and many bush supporters refuse to acknowledge that Bush ignored warning signs.

Most "security advocates" are like the dreyfus affair military members; heartless scumbags who just want power. Even those with good intentions tend to be deluded. That was the point the movie was making; there is no real debate since the "security" side is morally bankrupt.

Criminal justice is much the same; a lot of the time the prosecutors arguing about "finality" are heartless sociopaths who would gleefully let an innocent man die in order to advance their careers and who don't want investigations because ah gee that would be rather inconvenient or idiots who made up their mind and refuse to accept that sometimes members of their team are lying scumbags.

So you concede that the whole "secret Nazi cult" thing was entirely unnecessary to the plot? Because it reads as though you're using a lot of text to fundamentally agree with me.

[Crazedwraith]

Winter Soldier stuff

How would you end that film and keep the security/liberty ambiguity intact? Or would you still have Cap come down on the side of liberty while keeping the villians ambiguous somehow?

[Darth Yan]

Except that operates under the delusion that most people who advocate security are sincere. Most of them really aren't. The Dreyfus Affair saw the french military spread all sorts of lies about national security but at the end of the day it was ass covering to avoid admitting that they screwed up and imprisoned an innocent man. The Patriot Act was much the same, and many bush supporters refuse to acknowledge that Bush ignored warning signs.

Most "security advocates" are like the dreyfus affair military members; heartless scumbags who just want power. Even those with good intentions tend to be deluded. That was the point the movie was making; there is no real debate since the "security" side is morally bankrupt.

Criminal justice is much the same; a lot of the time the prosecutors arguing about "finality" are heartless sociopaths who would gleefully let an innocent man die in order to advance their careers and who don't want investigations because ah gee that would be rather inconvenient or idiots who made up their mind and refuse to accept that sometimes members of their team are lying scumbags.

So you concede that the whole "secret Nazi cult" thing was entirely unnecessary to the plot? Because it reads as though you're using a lot of text to fundamentally agree with me.

No I'm not. The film chose the liberty side of the debate; more importantly they pointed out that most security proponents are fascist wannabes who would gleefully support authoritarianism. Having Hydra as the bad guys is basically saying "pro security people tend to be idiot or monsters";


Or as someone on tvtropes pointed out

I thought at first that the twist ruined, or at least severely hampered, the complexity of the security vs freedom/privacy debate... but then I had a second thought about it.
The theme of the film is really the counter to the implicit assumption of the security vs freedom debate, the assumption being "The people subverting our security are well intentioned extremists that are trying to protect us". Fury is certainly in that camp... but that assumption runs headlong into "Are we sure the people in power are looking out for our best interests?"
Lets be honest here: There's plenty of instances of people granted this power that end up abusing it. NSA agents spying on romantic interests, politicians outing American spies for political reasons, the office of the Presidency being used to shield political agents from investigation... those are all things that have happened in our world.
The debate, in the end, feels less like whether or not we need to sacrifice freedom for the sake of security, but instead that we can't afford to sacrifice these freedoms... because someone will come up and take advantage of it.
The film probably didn't sell that message well enough, but it did seem to be there, at least.

[The Romulan Republic]

I tend to feel, personally, that "Freedom vs. Security", and the implicit assumption that you more of one must come at the price of having less of the other, is a false choice, at least once you reach a certain point.

Their can ultimately be no freedom without security, or security without freedom.

Without security, one can be deprived of one's freedom, coerced or killed outright, by the first thug with a gun who comes along. And yet, without freedom... well, ask the people who have fled a dictatorial government how safe they felt, living in a state where you could be pulled off the street and tortured and killed for saying the wrong thing, or even being the wrong race/religion/sexual orientation/nationality.

Plus, when "security"-centric governments do fail... they tend to fail hard. And violently.

Asking me to choose between freedom and security is like asking me to choose between staying alive, and having food. I can't have one for long without the other. Freedom and security have to compliment each other, or we lose both.

So that's how I'd try to handle that topic in media, rather than falling back on the tired old "noble rebels" or "ends justify the means" cliches.

[Gandalf]

Winter Soldier stuff

How would you end that film and keep the security/liberty ambiguity intact? Or would you still have Cap come down on the side of liberty while keeping the villians ambiguous somehow?

Off the top of my head;

I'd make SHIELD (Nick Fury, Black Widow, Redford guy) the villain, as opposed to having Hydra be some sort of evil presence within the otherwise benevolent SHIELD. Make it clear from the start that following the events of Avengers, people are fucking terrified and are planning against all sorts of unexpectable things, going so far as to look at the old "Operation Paperclip" stuff from when they scoured Nazi Germany for science to use against communists.

SHIELD's universal surveillance that everyone was so nonchalant about in Avengers is more of a permanent presence, and that surveillance will help them decide who to shoot with the floating death platforms (so no Hydra algorithm). I'd do this with a scene that shows how they could have identified Selvig before he became an instrumental part of Loki's scheme, or Vanko before he did whatever he did, and so on. Winter Soldier himself would have been just Captain America for the USSR, someone who they sent around the world to shoot people who needed shooting. Since the fall of the USSR he's something of a nihilistic mercenary as opposed to a perpetually brainwashed goon.

I would have Winter Soldier and Captain America team up to take down SHIELD and their new death platforms. They've each taken on a little of each other's idealism/pragmatism and decided that "burn it all down" is the best idea. Various people go to trial. No Hydra necessary.

[Gandalf]

As an addition, I'd also take advantage of Captain America having been from the age of FDR, and have him liken the actions of SHIELD to similar people in his own time whose fear overrode their good judgement.

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

So presumably the key theme would be that one can have both freedom and security in a good balance provided that fear doesn't override their reasoning. Fear is the villain, and Cap can beat that by not shying away in the face of it, as opposed to just punching someone.

[Simon_Jester]

I think I'd keep the HYDRA influence, but implicitly rather than explicitly. The Robert Redford guy doesn't have to actually say "Hail HYDRA" to be an evil dickhead who tries to abuse SHIELD's powers. Zola the '70s supercomputer upload doesn't have to have been secretly building a HYDRA conspiracy inside SHIELD to have had a disturbing amount of influence over SHIELD's evolution into what it is today. You could pretty much keep the plot and change the flavor and still get the desired result.

I mean, Fury already has characterization that he will reject solutions that involve collateral damage or Hydra-esque "tyranny through technology," as demonstrated by his reaction to the Shadowy Council ordering his forces to nuke New York during Avengers. Making Fury the villain in a story where SHIELD suddenly goes crazy and starts planning to kill people with floaty death platforms then takes that characterization and burns it.

Having Black Widow be on the side of, um, bad SHIELD instead of good SHIELD at first would be a good idea, though. Because conflicting, ambiguous loyalties is entirely how her characterization works and playing it up is almost always advantageous.