Captain America: Winter Soldier (2014)

[Goffe]

Without reading the rest that blurb shows the writer didn't understand the film's message because Steve Rogers' view (and the film's) is nothing like the blurb's conclusion.

"And “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” returns time and time again to the idea that the biggest issue in national security is who controls the apparatus, rather than whether we should use certain technologies or techniques at all. ”What if Pakistan marched into Mumbai, and you knew they were going to drag your daughters into a soccer stadium and shoot them, and you could just stop it. With the flip of a switch. Wouldn’t you?” Pierce asks a member of the World Security Council who is horrified at the uses to which Pierce intends to put Project Insight. “Not if it was your switch,” the man tells him.We are supposed to be fine with Fury’s choice to shoot Pierce because we trust him. And when Steve, Romanoff, and Fury send the Project Insight helicarriers into deadly crashes, we are not supposed to be bothered by the massive, indiscriminate loss of life they just caused both because they are our heroes, and because the movie tells us that everyone on board is a bad guy. “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” at least avoids the destruction so many blockbusters visit on major cities with surprisingly little mention or consequence by sending the helicarriers into the Potomac, and the Triskelion, the S.H.I.E.L.D. headquarters, which is full of Hydra agents. But even if they avoid civilian casualties, the movie shows the same lack of interest in criminal proceedings that characterizes the targeted killing program. In comparison to all this carnage, Rogers’ decision not to kill the Winter Soldier, a Hydra agent who turns out to be his old friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), is not exactly a reassuring sign of restraint."

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

"And “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” returns time and time again to the idea that the biggest issue in national security is who controls the apparatus, rather than whether we should use certain technologies or techniques at all. ”What if Pakistan marched into Mumbai, and you knew they were going to drag your daughters into a soccer stadium and shoot them, and you could just stop it. With the flip of a switch. Wouldn’t you?” Pierce asks a member of the World Security Council who is horrified at the uses to which Pierce intends to put Project Insight. “Not if it was your switch,” the man tells him.We are supposed to be fine with Fury’s choice to shoot Pierce because we trust him. And when Steve, Romanoff, and Fury send the Project Insight helicarriers into deadly crashes, we are not supposed to be bothered by the massive, indiscriminate loss of life they just caused both because they are our heroes, and because the movie tells us that everyone on board is a bad guy. “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” at least avoids the destruction so many blockbusters visit on major cities with surprisingly little mention or consequence by sending the helicarriers into the Potomac, and the Triskelion, the S.H.I.E.L.D. headquarters, which is full of Hydra agents. But even if they avoid civilian casualties, the movie shows the same lack of interest in criminal proceedings that characterizes the targeted killing program. In comparison to all this carnage, Rogers’ decision not to kill the Winter Soldier, a Hydra agent who turns out to be his old friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), is not exactly a reassuring sign of restraint."

Why should we have  an issue with Fury killing Hydra's lead guy? CA never argued against that. It argued against spying on civilians, and that's what we must have an issue with.

[Sam]

I'm quite disappointed that we didn't get this actually 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marvel makes an effort to get close though.

[4815162342]

Yep, the writer's misinterpreting facts and drawing wrong conclusions to fit a preconceived political notion.Steve flat out says that Project Insight is flouting American notions of justice and law. They leak all of the SHIELD mainframe to the public precisely so nation-states could root out with their criminal justice apparatus the HYDRA personnel who have infected security structures around the globe. Fury shoots Pierce as he's about to try and kill Natasha (having proven he can get his hands dirty by murdering the other WSC members in front of them). The Helicarriers are reprogrammed to target one another because there's no off-switch to the Insight Program they can jury-rig in time, they can only re-direct the targeting data. The writer ignores that there were SHIELD allies on the Helicarriers who tried to help and not necessarily all of them died at HYDRA hands. We know that lots of good guys died trying to stop Project Insight's mass-murder program.Between the stuff shown Avengers and Cap 2, we're not supposed to be on the side of the WSC because they've been shown to make bad decisions sacrificing lives and liberty for "expediency." So the "switch" comment by Indian WSC man is not the film's statement at all.

[rukaio101]

Ultimately, “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is a movie about the targeted killing program that reaches essentially the same answer as the Obama administration: As long as Barack Obama, or Steve Rogers, or Nick Fury is deciding who should be killed, things are essentially all right."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2014/04/10/what-captain-america-the-winter-soldier-gets-very-wrong/

I... I... What?... Just what?....

 

I disturbs me that the persons who wrote that article is allowed to talk about movies or politics.

 

Okay, let's run through some of that article's arguments. Fury shot Pierce (not in the heart, I might add, since that would've killed him immediately) instead of taking him in for trial/etc, obviously showing that the movie supports trial less murder if 'the good guys are doing it'... Except that, had Pierce not been shot then, he would've electrocuted Natasha. So it was closer to self-defence. And surely, if the movie was trying to suggest what this article claims it is, they would've shot Pierce the second he became unnecessary.

 

Secondly, Cap and co crashed a helicarrier into the Triskelion, again obviously showing a disdain for criminal proceedings, etc etc. I'm sorry, last I checked, Cap and co didn't deliberately set the helicarrier to crash into the Triskelion and couldn't really do anything to stop it. It was just an unavoidable side-effect of stopping the helicarriers from murdering 20 million people.

 

HYDRA's involvement relieves SHIELD and thus our own intelligence communities of all blame. I'm sorry, last I checked SHIELD still let HYDRA infiltrate them. Even if that doesn't clears them of any deliberate malice it still shows them as criminally incompetent. And, like Von Strucker says, SHIELD and HYDRA are two sides of the same coin. It's not the case that SHIELD and only SHIELD are representative of out intelligence system, both are.

 

Also, from what I can tell, the only way Pierce's story about the hostage crisis is in any way part of a commentary on the Benghazi scandal is that they both involve diplomats being attacked.

[Plain Old Tele]

I didn't read that article. Oh shit, is someone actually trying to bring Benghazi into it?

[MrPink]

I didn't read that article. Oh shit, is someone actually trying to bring Benghazi into it?

 

[rukaio101]

I didn't read that article. Oh shit, is someone actually trying to bring Benghazi into it?

Yup. Apparently, one of the messages in CA:TWS is that anyone who complains about the Benghazi scandal must be on the path to becoming a Nazi.

[Goffe]

Okay, let's run through some of that article's arguments. Fury shot Pierce (not in the heart, I might add, since that would've killed him immediately) instead of taking him in for trial/etc, obviously showing that the movie supports trial less murder if 'the good guys are doing it'... Except that, had Pierce not been shot then, he would've electrocuted Natasha. So it was closer to self-defence. And surely, if the movie was trying to suggest what this article claims it is, they would've shot Pierce the second he became unnecessary.

If I remember well, Natasha electrocuted herself to deactivate that thing that would kill her.

 

 

 

'm sorry, last I checked SHIELD still let HYDRA infiltrate them. Even if that doesn't clears them of any deliberate malice it still shows them as criminally incompetent.

and SHIELD was commanded who? that's right, Nick Fury

 

"Nick Fury, after all, is an advocate for Project Insight up until the moment he discovers he does not have complete control over it. On a larger scale, he allows Hydra to infiltrate his organization, and has absolutely no idea that anything is wrong until Hydra agents try to kill him, a failure of judgement that does little to credential Fury as a spy or as an administrator.

And yet, we are still supposed to trust him to make critically important decisions. The movie builds to a climax where Fury shoots Pierce in the heart, rather than disabling him or capturing him for trial."

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Shoot the bad guy or take the bad guy to trial?Which one sounds like a more satisfying climax? 

[rukaio101]

If I remember well, Natasha electrocuted herself to momentarily deactivate that thing that would kill her.

Key word missing there. As shown on Pierce's mobile screen the weapon had reprimed itself but Fury shot him before he could use it.

 

"Nick Fury, after all, is an advocate for Project Insight up until the moment he discovers he does not have complete control over it. On a larger scale, he allows Hydra to infiltrate his organization, and has absolutely no idea that anything is wrong until Hydra agents try to kill him, a failure of judgement that does little to credential Fury as a spy or as an administrator.

And yet, we are still supposed to trust him to make critically important decisions. The movie builds to a climax where Fury shoots Pierce in the heart, rather than disabling him or capturing him for trial."

Okay, ignoring the very very obvious fact that Fury already had suspicions presumably long before the movie started (remember him hiring Batroc so he could retrieve data?), let alone before they tried to kill him, what the in the hell are you talking about? 'We are supposed to trust him to make critically important decisions?' We don't have to trust him to do anything. It's a fictional movie. The in-universe characters trust him to make important decisions, but have reasons for doing so and occasionally don't agree. And it's made very clear in the movie that Fury's belief in Project Insight, while well-meaning, is misguided and wrong.

[Sam]

Did they just conveniently ignore the whole scene where Cap was telling Fury off and step in to take charge when they're discussing the final battle plan?

[Ozymandias]

 

Good thing that person can't aim for shit because Hillary ain't George W. Bush.

 

[Jessie]

Good thing that person can't aim for shit because Hillary ain't George W. Bush.

 

 

 

My respect for George Bush went up when I first saw this.

[dashrendar44]

Astounding how someone can twist a movie to suit his agenda and project some political stance onto this movie is not saying at all...

[Jessie]

If I remember well, Natasha electrocuted herself to deactivate that thing that would kill her.

 

and SHIELD was commanded who? that's right, Nick Fury

 

"Nick Fury, after all, is an advocate for Project Insight up until the moment he discovers he does not have complete control over it. On a larger scale, he allows Hydra to infiltrate his organization, and has absolutely no idea that anything is wrong until Hydra agents try to kill him, a failure of judgement that does little to credential Fury as a spy or as an administrator.

And yet, we are still supposed to trust him to make critically important decisions. The movie builds to a climax where Fury shoots Pierce in the heart, rather than disabling him or capturing him for trial."

 

Seriously Goffe you were hating on this movie long before it was released and now that it ended up getting critical praise and great reactions you are continuing to hate on it using some of the most retarded reasons to trash it. If you paid a little more attention in the film you would realise just how dumb your points are. This is a CBM after all, it shouldn't have been too hard for you to follow

[Jessie]

Shoot the bad guy or take the bad guy to trial?Which one sounds like a more satisfying climax? 

 

He had to shoot him or he would have killed Natasha whateverhernameis

[Films]

Was that quicksilver and Scarlett witch in the post credit scene. I thought it was but my friend who knows everything about marvel says it wasn't Anyway A+Bigger review soon

[75Live]

Was that quicksilver and Scarlett witch in the post credit scene. I thought it was but my friend who knows everything about marvel says it wasn't Anyway A+Bigger review soon

Yes it was them. Your friend needs their Marvel card taken away

[Goffe]

Seriously Goffe you were hating on this movie long before it was released and now that it ended up getting critical praise and great reactions you are continuing to hate on it

how giving 55 out of 100 is hating on the movie?

using some of the most retarded reasons to trash it.

fisrt: I didn't trash the movie, 2/3 of it was enjoyableSecond: I didn't like the movie because it completely falls apart after the big evil Nazi computer.

If you paid a little more attention in the film

I could have paid more attention if the third act wasn't a complete dogshit Edited April 11, 2014 by Goffe Rises