|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 16, 2018 16:52:14 GMT
You don't let them get away. You track them and wait until you can move in with little or no risk to civilian lives. That's what the FBI did when they went after John Dillinger. Dillinger was #1 on the FBI's Most Wanted List. The FBI knew DIillinger was inside that theater. Sure, they could've stormed into the theater with dozens of armed FBI agents, but if Dillinger had a weapon and they got into a shootout, civilians would've most likely been killed. But they didn't let Dillinger get away either. They waited outside the theater for Dillinger to come out and for the crowd to disperse and then they moved in on Dillinger. They got Dillinger without any civilian casualties. That's how to apprehend a dangerous criminal while minimizing civilian casualties, not the way that Cap's team recklessly disregarded civilian lives. And yes, they should be chastised. When cops act recklessly and get civilians killed, somebody gets reprimanded or suspended or demoted or fired (or at worst, even prosecuted). Cops are supposed be trusted by the people to protect and serve so cops have a responsibility to protect civilian lives and when cops act recklessly and endanger civilian lives, they have to be held accountable. The Avengers want to be "heroes" but they don't want the responsibility of protecting civilian lives and they want to be able to act recklessly without regard for civilian lives and not be held accountable. That's why Cap didn't want to sign the Accords. Because Cap wanted to be a tyrant with no oversight or limitation on his power and authority. That's kinda the point of the film, if you didn't notice. The Accords are to hold the Avengers responsible for their mistakes and to dictate/control when their involvement is needed. Cap's unwillingness to sign is because it takes away their right to choose That's why Civil War is such a huge failure as a movie. It fails to address the consequences of a super-powered beings acting on their own without any supervision or any accountability for their actions. That's why BvS is a much better movie than Civil War. Because BvS does bring up those questions: "To have an individual engaging in these state-level interventions should give us all pause." "I'm not saying he shouldn't act. I'm saying he shouldn't act unilaterally." "In a democracy, good is a conversation, not a unilateral decision." "How far will he take his power? Does he act by our will or by his own?"These questions bring up 2 important points, that MCU fans who defend Cap's tyrannical behavior fail to understand: 1. The Accords isn't saying the Avengers shouldn't take action. The Accords is only saying the Avengers shouldn't take action unilaterally. Think back to the Cuban missile crisis. Soviet ships are transporting nuclear missiles to Cuba. American ships have formed a blockade around Cuba. The whole world is watching anxiously to see if a nuclear war might be started. Fortunately, the Kremlin ordered their ships to turn around and no shots were fired by either side. But imagine if 1 of the Soviet ship captains had unilaterally decided that he was going through the blockade and nothing would stop him. Or imagine if 1 of the American ship captains had unilaterally decided that he was going to fire first. That is why there is oversight and supervision and a clear command structure. So that nobody makes a unilateral decision that results in massive unwanted consequences. But Cap didn't want any oversight or supervision because he wants to be a tyrant with no oversight or limitation on his power and authority. And anyone who defends Cap is basically saying that when the world is on the brink of a nuclear war, a single ship captain should have unilateral power to make the decision to fire first and start a war. 2. Cap is a former soldier in the US Army. So when Cap orders the Avengers to invade Sokovia and attack residents of Sokovia, is he doing that as an independent mercenary/solder-of-fortune or is he doing that on behalf of the US government? Since Cap is a former soldier in the US Army, Sokovia could easily accuse the US government of violating Sokovia's rights as a sovereign nation and call the UN to denounce/admonish the US government for sanctioning an illegal invasion of Sokovia. So Cap wants to act unilaterally and wants to be able to choose, but his choices affect others and have consequences for others. But Cap doesn't give a shit about that because Cap just wants to be a tyrant with no oversight or limitation on his power and authority.
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Nov 16, 2018 17:01:28 GMT
That's kinda the point of the film, if you didn't notice. The Accords are to hold the Avengers responsible for their mistakes and to dictate/control when their involvement is needed. Cap's unwillingness to sign is because it takes away their right to choose That's why Civil War is such a huge failure as a movie. It fails to address the consequences of a super-powered beings acting on their own without any supervision or any accountability for their actions. That's why BvS is a much better movie than Civil War. Because BvS does bring up those questions: "To have an individual engaging in these state-level interventions should give us all pause." "I'm not saying he shouldn't act. I'm saying he shouldn't act unilaterally." "In a democracy, good is a conversation, not a unilateral decision." "How far will he take his power? Does he act by our will or by his own?"These questions bring up 2 important points, that MCU fans who defend Cap's tyrannical behavior fail to understand: 1. The Accords isn't saying the Avengers shouldn't take action. The Accords is only saying the Avengers shouldn't take action unilaterally. Think back to the Cuban missile crisis. Soviet ships are transporting nuclear missiles to Cuba. American ships have formed a blockade around Cuba. The whole world is watching anxiously to see if a nuclear war might be started. Fortunately, the Kremlin ordered their ships to turn around and no shots were fired by either side. But imagine if 1 of the Soviet ship captains had unilaterally decided that he was going through the blockade and nothing would stop him. Or imagine if 1 of the American ship captains had unilaterally decided that he was going to fire first. That is why there is oversight and supervision and a clear command structure. So that nobody makes a unilateral decision that results in massive unwanted consequences. But Cap didn't want any oversight or supervision because he wants to be a tyrant with no oversight or limitation on his power and authority. And anyone who defends Cap is basically saying that when the world is on the brink of a nuclear war, a single ship captain should have unilateral power to make the decision to fire first and start a war. 2. Cap is a former soldier in the US Army. So when Cap orders the Avengers to invade Sokovia and attack residents of Sokovia, is he doing that as an independent mercenary/solder-of-fortune or is he doing that on behalf of the US government? Since Cap is a former soldier in the US Army, Sokovia could easily accuse the US government of violating Sokovia's rights as a sovereign nation and call the UN to denounce/admonish the US government for sanctioning an illegal invasion of Sokovia. So Cap wants to act unilaterally and wants to be able to choose, but his choices affect others and have consequences for others. But Cap doesn't give a shit about that because Cap just wants to be a tyrant with no oversight or limitation on his power and authority. First of all, BVS a better film than Civil War? Said no one ever. Again, no one is saying Cap isn't wrong about his decisions and no one is saying he's perfect. Maybe he is wrong and his actions can have deadly consequences. It's not going to stop him from following his natural instinct to help people in need. That conflict and flaw is what makes him interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2018 17:02:05 GMT
That's kinda the point of the film, if you didn't notice. The Accords are to hold the Avengers responsible for their mistakes and to dictate/control when their involvement is needed. Cap's unwillingness to sign is because it takes away their right to choose That's why Civil War is such a huge failure as a movie. It fails to address the consequences of a super-powered beings acting on their own without any supervision or any accountability for their actions. That's why BvS is a much better movie than Civil War. Because BvS does bring up those questions: "To have an individual engaging in these state-level interventions should give us all pause." "I'm not saying he shouldn't act. I'm saying he shouldn't act unilaterally." "In a democracy, good is a conversation, not a unilateral decision." "How far will he take his power? Does he act by our will or by his own?"These questions bring up 2 important points, that MCU fans who defend Cap's tyrannical behavior fail to understand: 1. The Accords isn't saying the Avengers shouldn't take action. The Accords is only saying the Avengers shouldn't take action unilaterally. Think back to the Cuban missile crisis. Soviet ships are transporting nuclear missiles to Cuba. American ships have formed a blockade around Cuba. The whole world is watching anxiously to see if a nuclear war might be started. Fortunately, the Kremlin ordered their ships to turn around and no shots were fired by either side. But imagine if 1 of the Soviet ship captains had unilaterally decided that he was going through the blockade and nothing would stop him. Or imagine if 1 of the American ship captains had unilaterally decided that he was going to fire first. That is why there is oversight and supervision and a clear command structure. So that nobody makes a unilateral decision that results in massive unwanted consequences. But Cap didn't want any oversight or supervision because he wants to be a tyrant with no oversight or limitation on his power and authority. And anyone who defends Cap is basically saying that when the world is on the brink of a nuclear war, a single ship captain should have unilateral power to make the decision to fire first and start a war. 2. Cap is a former soldier in the US Army. So when Cap orders the Avengers to invade Sokovia and attack residents of Sokovia, is he doing that as an independent mercenary/solder-of-fortune or is he doing that on behalf of the US government? Since Cap is a former soldier in the US Army, Sokovia could easily accuse the US government of violating Sokovia's rights as a sovereign nation and call the UN to denounce/admonish the US government for sanctioning an illegal invasion of Sokovia. So Cap wants to act unilaterally and wants to be able to choose, but his choices affect others and have consequences for others. But Cap doesn't give a shit about that because Cap just wants to be a tyrant with no oversight or limitation on his power and authority. One post it's all about the peas and mashed taters having to be apart, then the next you're mixing the peas with the mashed taters! And I just went out and bought those melamine trays to keep 'em apart!
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 16, 2018 18:32:20 GMT
Is this a real post? I mean, is this supposed to be a real conversation about the dangers of superheros when left unchecked or is it about the dangers of the Avengers; and NOT say....The Justice League? This is the MCU board and the title of this thread is "The Avengers bloody rampages". Any discussion of the Justice League in this thread is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. You're concerned about the state of this board?
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 16, 2018 18:36:44 GMT
You don't let them get away. You track them and wait until you can move in with little or no risk to civilian lives. That's what the FBI did when they went after John Dillinger. Dillinger was #1 on the FBI's Most Wanted List. The FBI knew DIillinger was inside that theater. Sure, they could've stormed into the theater with dozens of armed FBI agents, but if Dillinger had a weapon and they got into a shootout, civilians would've most likely been killed. But they didn't let Dillinger get away either. They waited outside the theater for Dillinger to come out and for the crowd to disperse and then they moved in on Dillinger. They got Dillinger without any civilian casualties. That's how to apprehend a dangerous criminal while minimizing civilian casualties, not the way that Cap's team recklessly disregarded civilian lives. And yes, they should be chastised. When cops act recklessly and get civilians killed, somebody gets reprimanded or suspended or demoted or fired (or at worst, even prosecuted). Cops are supposed be trusted by the people to protect and serve so cops have a responsibility to protect civilian lives and when cops act recklessly and endanger civilian lives, they have to be held accountable. The Avengers want to be "heroes" but they don't want the responsibility of protecting civilian lives and they want to be able to act recklessly without regard for civilian lives and not be held accountable. That's why Cap didn't want to sign the Accords. Because Cap wanted to be a tyrant with no oversight or limitation on his power and authority. That's kinda the point of the film, if you didn't notice. The Accords are to hold the Avengers responsible for their mistakes and to dictate/control when their involvement is needed. Cap's unwillingness to sign is because it takes away their right to choose and limits their ability to help when it's desperately needed. Not so that he can be a "tyrant". Maybe he's wrong and his actions sometimes make things worse, but this is what makes him and all of these characters interesting. This statement makes me insanely angry. Not because you personally said it, because I hate Cap's argument. "Right to choose", lol. Cops can't kick down doors without a warrant. One country can't just march into another and "take out the bad guys" because it's the right thing to do. There are laws prohibiting such things - specifically so that authority doesn't become too powerful. Cops and soldiers can't just pick and choose when and who they want to bust. There's a chain of command. But yeah... "But Bucky!!!" and their "feelings and all.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 16, 2018 18:37:46 GMT
Little Jimmy definitely didn't like that. He got got. Dat's right, innit mang?
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Nov 16, 2018 18:39:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 16, 2018 18:48:50 GMT
That's kinda the point of the film, if you didn't notice. The Accords are to hold the Avengers responsible for their mistakes and to dictate/control when their involvement is needed. Cap's unwillingness to sign is because it takes away their right to choose and limits their ability to help when it's desperately needed. Not so that he can be a "tyrant". Maybe he's wrong and his actions sometimes make things worse, but this is what makes him and all of these characters interesting. This statement makes me insanely angry. Not because you personally said it, because I hate Cap's argument. "Right to choose", lol. Cops can't kick down doors without a warrant. One country can't just march into another and "take out the bad guys" because it's the right thing to do. There are laws prohibiting such things - specifically so that authority doesn't become too powerful. Cops and soldiers can't just pick and choose when and who they want to bust. There's a chain of command. Exactly! That's the point that I've been trying to explain here for 2 years! There has to be a clear chain of command and supervision/oversight. But Cap thinks that since he's stronger than any cop, he has the right to kick down doors without a warrant and Cap doesn't want any supervision/oversight because he wants to be a tyrant who has unlimited power and authority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2018 18:56:38 GMT
This statement makes me insanely angry. Not because you personally said it, because I hate Cap's argument. "Right to choose", lol. Cops can't kick down doors without a warrant. One country can't just march into another and "take out the bad guys" because it's the right thing to do. There are laws prohibiting such things - specifically so that authority doesn't become too powerful. Cops and soldiers can't just pick and choose when and who they want to bust. There's a chain of command. Exactly! That's the point that I've been trying to explain here for 2 years! There has to be a clear chain of command and supervision/oversight. But Cap thinks that since he's stronger than any cop, he has the right to kick down doors without a warrant and Cap doesn't want any supervision/oversight because he wants to be a tyrant who has unlimited power and authority. That's ignoring any reason he has to distrust that supervision/oversight. There's more to the story, and it was presented in the narrative.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 16, 2018 19:13:50 GMT
Exactly! That's the point that I've been trying to explain here for 2 years! There has to be a clear chain of command and supervision/oversight. But Cap thinks that since he's stronger than any cop, he has the right to kick down doors without a warrant and Cap doesn't want any supervision/oversight because he wants to be a tyrant who has unlimited power and authority. That's ignoring any reason he has to distrust that supervision/oversight. So Robert Redford was going to be in charge of the supervision/oversight? I thought the Accords said the UN would be in charge of the supervision/oversight. So Cap distrusts the UN? Or is it really because Cap wants to be a tyrant with no supervision/oversight on his power and authority?
This is why Civil War is such a huge failure of a movie. Saying "I don't trust the supervision/oversight" is the STUPIDEST excuse ever. It's like someone saying "I don't trust Donald Trump so I won't trust whoever wins the election in 2020 or 2024 or any future Presidential elections."
Governments are NOT corrupt. Individuals are corrupt. When Richard Nixon broke the law, the people didn't say "The Presidency is corrupt. Let's abolish the Presidency and have no President anymore." The people said "Nixon is corrupt. Let's get rid of Nixon and bring in a new President."
There was NO REASON for Cap to not sign the Accords other than the fact that Cap thinks that since he's more powerful than the rest of the people, he should rule over the people like a tyrant and he shouldn't have any supervision/oversight on his power and authority.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Nov 16, 2018 19:17:26 GMT
That's kinda the point of the film, if you didn't notice. The Accords are to hold the Avengers responsible for their mistakes and to dictate/control when their involvement is needed. Cap's unwillingness to sign is because it takes away their right to choose That's why Civil War is such a huge failure as a movie. It fails to address the consequences of a super-powered beings acting on their own without any supervision or any accountability for their actions. That's why BvS is a much better movie than Civil War. Because BvS does bring up those questions: "To have an individual engaging in these state-level interventions should give us all pause." "I'm not saying he shouldn't act. I'm saying he shouldn't act unilaterally." "In a democracy, good is a conversation, not a unilateral decision." "How far will he take his power? Does he act by our will or by his own?"These questions bring up 2 important points, that MCU fans who defend Cap's tyrannical behavior fail to understand: 1. The Accords isn't saying the Avengers shouldn't take action. The Accords is only saying the Avengers shouldn't take action unilaterally. Think back to the Cuban missile crisis. Soviet ships are transporting nuclear missiles to Cuba. American ships have formed a blockade around Cuba. The whole world is watching anxiously to see if a nuclear war might be started. Fortunately, the Kremlin ordered their ships to turn around and no shots were fired by either side. But imagine if 1 of the Soviet ship captains had unilaterally decided that he was going through the blockade and nothing would stop him. Or imagine if 1 of the American ship captains had unilaterally decided that he was going to fire first. That is why there is oversight and supervision and a clear command structure. So that nobody makes a unilateral decision that results in massive unwanted consequences. But Cap didn't want any oversight or supervision because he wants to be a tyrant with no oversight or limitation on his power and authority. And anyone who defends Cap is basically saying that when the world is on the brink of a nuclear war, a single ship captain should have unilateral power to make the decision to fire first and start a war. 2. Cap is a former soldier in the US Army. So when Cap orders the Avengers to invade Sokovia and attack residents of Sokovia, is he doing that as an independent mercenary/solder-of-fortune or is he doing that on behalf of the US government? Since Cap is a former soldier in the US Army, Sokovia could easily accuse the US government of violating Sokovia's rights as a sovereign nation and call the UN to denounce/admonish the US government for sanctioning an illegal invasion of Sokovia. So Cap wants to act unilaterally and wants to be able to choose, but his choices affect others and have consequences for others. But Cap doesn't give a shit about that because Cap just wants to be a tyrant with no oversight or limitation on his power and authority. That's Cap's character, that's the whole point of the film. Everything you're describing and what you hate about it; It's. The. Fucking. Point. You're meant to side with one or the other. You're overexaggerating Cap's intentions, but you hate him and what he does, that's fine, but it means Civil War did it's job and it's why it's a great film.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2018 20:11:58 GMT
That's ignoring any reason he has to distrust that supervision/oversight. So Robert Redford was going to be in charge of the supervision/oversight? I thought the Accords said the UN would be in charge of the supervision/oversight. So Cap distrusts the UN? Or is it really because Cap wants to be a tyrant with no supervision/oversight on his power and authority?
This is why Civil War is such a huge failure of a movie. Saying "I don't trust the supervision/oversight" is the STUPIDEST excuse ever. It's like someone saying "I don't trust Donald Trump so I won't trust whoever wins the election in 2020 or 2024 or any future Presidential elections."
Governments are NOT corrupt. Individuals are corrupt. When Richard Nixon broke the law, the people didn't say "The Presidency is corrupt. Let's abolish the Presidency and have no President anymore." The people said "Nixon is corrupt. Let's get rid of Nixon and bring in a new President."
There was NO REASON for Cap to not sign the Accords other than the fact that Cap thinks that since he's more powerful than the rest of the people, he should rule over the people like a tyrant and he shouldn't have any supervision/oversight on his power and authority.
That was a flaw in the character's thinking, that corruption in authority made him think he was above it. He saw enough corruption and attempts to take advantage of their power to lead him to believe that he needed to be his own decision maker in how he used his power. Authority thought elsewise. That's no flaw in the movie's narrative. Iron Man saw the need to answer to the authority even if corrupt, because he saw how taking on too much power almost undid everything with the Ultron debacle he created. Caps flaw is what drove this story and divided the heroes. Caps did end up a fugitive from justice didn't he? All you are doing is making a case for Iron Man's stance, not one against the film.
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Nov 16, 2018 22:12:00 GMT
So Robert Redford was going to be in charge of the supervision/oversight? I thought the Accords said the UN would be in charge of the supervision/oversight. So Cap distrusts the UN? Or is it really because Cap wants to be a tyrant with no supervision/oversight on his power and authority?
This is why Civil War is such a huge failure of a movie. Saying "I don't trust the supervision/oversight" is the STUPIDEST excuse ever. It's like someone saying "I don't trust Donald Trump so I won't trust whoever wins the election in 2020 or 2024 or any future Presidential elections."
Governments are NOT corrupt. Individuals are corrupt. When Richard Nixon broke the law, the people didn't say "The Presidency is corrupt. Let's abolish the Presidency and have no President anymore." The people said "Nixon is corrupt. Let's get rid of Nixon and bring in a new President."
There was NO REASON for Cap to not sign the Accords other than the fact that Cap thinks that since he's more powerful than the rest of the people, he should rule over the people like a tyrant and he shouldn't have any supervision/oversight on his power and authority.
That was a flaw in the character's thinking, that corruption in authority made him think he was above it. He saw enough corruption and attempts to take advantage of their power to lead him to believe that he needed to be his own decision maker in how he used his power. Authority thought elsewise. That's no flaw in the movie's narrative. Iron Man saw the need to answer to the authority even if corrupt, because he saw how taking on too much power almost undid everything with the Ultron debacle he created. Caps flaw is what drove this story and divided the heroes. Caps did end up a fugitive from justice didn't he? All you are doing is making a case for Iron Man's stance, not one against the film. I think he knows this. He just enjoys pushing everyone's buttons by nitpicking and creating these so-called issues of "contrived writing", going as far as comparing aspects of these fantasy films to real-word scenarios, just so that he can continue trolling with his anti-MCU agenda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2018 22:55:35 GMT
That was a flaw in the character's thinking, that corruption in authority made him think he was above it. He saw enough corruption and attempts to take advantage of their power to lead him to believe that he needed to be his own decision maker in how he used his power. Authority thought elsewise. That's no flaw in the movie's narrative. Iron Man saw the need to answer to the authority even if corrupt, because he saw how taking on too much power almost undid everything with the Ultron debacle he created. Caps flaw is what drove this story and divided the heroes. Caps did end up a fugitive from justice didn't he? All you are doing is making a case for Iron Man's stance, not one against the film. I think he knows this. He just enjoys pushing everyone's buttons by nitpicking and creating these so-called issues of "contrived writing", going as far as comparing aspects of these fantasy films to real-word scenarios, just so that he can continue trolling with his anti-MCU agenda. Thanks, and that's ok. Maybe he just is having trouble understanding the narrative vs an agenda. Sometimes when people go in wanting to pick something apart, that's all they end up taking away from the story. When you explain the story to them, they either throw up a wall from their own bias towards the story, stop responding, or sometimes understand. I'll bet this guy is that first case from what I'm seeing, maybe the second, but you never know when the third on might sneak up on you!
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 17, 2018 1:31:43 GMT
This statement makes me insanely angry. Not because you personally said it, because I hate Cap's argument. "Right to choose", lol. Cops can't kick down doors without a warrant. One country can't just march into another and "take out the bad guys" because it's the right thing to do. There are laws prohibiting such things - specifically so that authority doesn't become too powerful. Cops and soldiers can't just pick and choose when and who they want to bust. There's a chain of command. Exactly! That's the point that I've been trying to explain here for 2 years! There has to be a clear chain of command and supervision/oversight. But Cap thinks that since he's stronger than any cop, he has the right to kick down doors without a warrant and Cap doesn't want any supervision/oversight because he wants to be a tyrant who has unlimited power and authority. We've talked about this before in other similar threads. Cap is...kind of an asshole. He just has no regard for anything. Christ, Wanda (who is not my favorite) even shows remorse for what happened in Civil War. Cap is all, "Oh, well there's collateral damage sometimes and BUCKY!!!" Cap is wrong, but hating authority is cool and authority is always wrong, so most people side with him.
Where we disagree is you think the movie fails. You're wrong. The movie does a very good job of portraying the two sides. Just because you and I don't like Cap's POV doesn't mean the movie is a failure. There has to be conflict. There has to be someone to disagree with. I disagree with him to the point that I've actually grown to kinda dislike him, but that dosen't mean that character's portrayal or the movie's storyline isn't good.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Nov 17, 2018 1:48:42 GMT
Exactly! That's the point that I've been trying to explain here for 2 years! There has to be a clear chain of command and supervision/oversight. But Cap thinks that since he's stronger than any cop, he has the right to kick down doors without a warrant and Cap doesn't want any supervision/oversight because he wants to be a tyrant who has unlimited power and authority. We've talked about this before in other similar threads. Cap is...kind of an asshole. He just has no regard for anything. Christ, Wanda (who is not my favorite) even shows remorse for what happened in Civil War. Cap is all, "Oh, well there's collateral damage sometimes and BUCKY!!!" Cap is wrong, but hating authority is cool and authority is always wrong, so most people side with him.
Where we disagree is you think the movie fails. You're wrong. The movie does a very good job of portraying the two sides. Just because you and I don't like Cap's POV doesn't mean the movie is a failure. There has to be conflict. There has to be someone to disagree with. I disagree with him to the point that I've actually grown to kinda dislike him, but that dosen't mean that character's portrayal or the movie's storyline isn't good.
Okay, but you sided with Cap when they did CW in the comics, right? Back in '06 or whenever? Tony was being a hardline turd, culminating in coaxing Peter out of his long-held secret identity for the sake of political posturing. I hated that. And Cap getting shot in the head. Innit?
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 17, 2018 17:14:39 GMT
Pretty sure Superman was responsible for none of those deaths as we clearly see that he was at the OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD in the Indian ocean SAVING THE WHOLE PLANET from that stupid machine with the dumb ass tentacle things that also almost killed him.
run on sentence
Pretty sure Superman was responsible for quite a number of property damage that most probably resulted in numerous civilian casualties. How it is that we've seen the same movies and the things you're "pretty sure" about are different than reality?
"Pretty sure" it was established in MOS and BvS that the property damage resulted in only 2 known deaths (Waynes employee and the little girls mother) because the building(s) had been evacuated.
All that crap was ZOD's fault anyway. Remember the line "There is only one way this ends, Kal; either you die or I do." Superman had to fight Zod in order to stop him. Zod wasn't backing down; he had nothing left to lose and was on a rampage.
Why is it that whenever the subject of the destruction in MOS comes up no one ever mentions these extenuating circumstances? Yet there's always a defense for the collateral damage done in MCU movies? I find that curious.
A) Superman was not in Metropolis for most of the destruction. The Kryptonians and the air force did 95% of that damage while superman was on the other side of the planet (and again I repeat: Saving the world).
B) that big ass crater Superman lands in, where he kisses Lois and he faces Zod, was already there.
C) Zod wanted to kill people. Superman did what he could to stop him. In a fight between two such powerful foes, one of which doesn't give two $#!@ what he's wrecking around him, there's going to be damage.
And anyway, how boring a fight would it be if Superman took him into space where there's nothing to smash into? If you want to talk about property damage there was a crap load in Avengers. In Age of Ultron they situated the Hulk/Ironman fight in a city. The Sakovia fight in a city. The Civil War fight in an airport (none of which had been evacuated by the way). Why do you think they did that? BEcause they couldn't find a way to write the story any differently? No. Its because its more visually interesting and emotionally dramatic to see the effects of such a fight.
We've finally come to a point in movie history where the FX are good enough that we can see what a fight between super humans would really look like and you don't want to see collateral damage because its a DC movie? But Marvel movies get a pass because they're Marvel? wtf?
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 20, 2018 20:24:30 GMT
And DC-Fan is about to get my baby gravy in his mouth. If that's not gay then what is? (No offense to gay persons)
|
|
|
Post by kleinreturns on Nov 20, 2018 21:07:18 GMT
So a kill count article has come out listing the total body counts in the MCU. Is anyone alarmed by the amount of killing happens in these films, whether it be by the Avengers or from the enemies? The Avengers are supposed to protect people and bring peace but the kill count almost rises in every successive film indicating they are getting worse at their jobs. Some killings you can argue are self defence but to be judge jury and executioner so swiftly, should MCU be more considerate in this apparent licence to kill? hmm maybe general Ross was right that they do need to be kept in check because seemingly everywhere they go there is death and destruction. www.digitalspy.com/movies/feature/g25450/marvel-movie-death-count-mcu-films-ranked-infinity-war/?Did you have a problem with the millions of people Magneto willingly murdered in Ivan Ooze or the massive amount of destruction he causes, and dum dum Xavier still is his friend AND LIKE FC AND DOFP, XAVIER WILLINGLY LETS MAGNETO GO AFTER HIS CRIMES??? I guess your "concerns" only apply to movies you hate. And the number of people Wolverine killed or got killed because of how stupid he was in Logan (Xavier, The farm couple, The guys at the beginning, Reavers, etc.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 22:42:28 GMT
Pretty sure Superman was responsible for quite a number of property damage that most probably resulted in numerous civilian casualties. How it is that we've seen the same movies and the things you're "pretty sure" about are different than reality?
"Pretty sure" it was established in MOS and BvS that the property damage resulted in only 2 known deaths (Waynes employee and the little girls mother) because the building(s) had been evacuated.
All that crap was ZOD's fault anyway. Remember the line "There is only one way this ends, Kal; either you die or I do." Superman had to fight Zod in order to stop him. Zod wasn't backing down; he had nothing left to lose and was on a rampage.
Why is it that whenever the subject of the destruction in MOS comes up no one ever mentions these extenuating circumstances? Yet there's always a defense for the collateral damage done in MCU movies? I find that curious.
A) Superman was not in Metropolis for most of the destruction. The Kryptonians and the air force did 95% of that damage while superman was on the other side of the planet (and again I repeat: Saving the world).
B) that big ass crater Superman lands in, where he kisses Lois and he faces Zod, was already there.
C) Zod wanted to kill people. Superman did what he could to stop him. In a fight between two such powerful foes, one of which doesn't give two $#!@ what he's wrecking around him, there's going to be damage.
And anyway, how boring a fight would it be if Superman took him into space where there's nothing to smash into? If you want to talk about property damage there was a crap load in Avengers. In Age of Ultron they situated the Hulk/Ironman fight in a city. The Sakovia fight in a city. The Civil War fight in an airport (none of which had been evacuated by the way). Why do you think they did that? BEcause they couldn't find a way to write the story any differently? No. Its because its more visually interesting and emotionally dramatic to see the effects of such a fight.
We've finally come to a point in movie history where the FX are good enough that we can see what a fight between super humans would really look like and you don't want to see collateral damage because its a DC movie? But Marvel movies get a pass because they're Marvel? wtf?
I hadn't realized that there were only 2 casualties in that battle. That and your further argument for Superman's actions will cause me to revisit BvS. I always thought there was much more for Supes to account for, and that is what motivated Batman to try and take him out, for the safety of the masses in a just cause, at least in his head and that he really believed it. This makes me think more that he took the loss of employee and girl personally and was on a personal vendetta with protecting the world as an excuse.
|
|