|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 8, 2023 2:36:29 GMT
Sam paused but it didn't stop him. He continued to give his speech WITHOUT addressing the point the UN personnel made. And he gave a fairly long speech after that point without it ever being addressed again. As for right and wrong, I'm not talking about what you or me define as right or wrong, I'm talking about how the scene was set-up so that it was clearly favoring Sam's take over the UN's. After all, who got to do almost all the talking? Who had contrite looks on their faces? Who looked ashamed? Who was talking when the rest of the people around them started nodding their heads in agreement? Sam's first words after the UN guy made his point was "you know what, you're right".
Yes, and then he proceeded to berate the UN official without addressing the official's point. Simply saying "you're right" isn't addressing the point. Especially if you continue on talking while ignoring the raised point.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 8, 2023 2:42:20 GMT
Sam's first words after the UN guy made his point was "you know what, you're right".
Yes, and then he proceeded to berate the UN official without addressing the official's point. Simply saying "you're right" isn't addressing the point. Especially if you continue on talking while ignoring the raised point. It's more like conceding the point than ignoring it.
What I don't understand is why you think that should have been the end of their discussion. If it's not that simple for either of them, why would it be that simple for us, the viewer?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 8, 2023 4:14:22 GMT
Sam's first words after the UN guy made his point was "you know what, you're right".
Yes, and then he proceeded to berate the UN official without addressing the official's point. Simply saying "you're right" isn't addressing the point. Especially if you continue on talking while ignoring the raised point. The point is, the GRC provoked the Flag Smashers into existence because of their incompetence. Whatever their reasoning, the fact that the GRC's actions created the Flag Smashers is proof enough they did something wrong and have to figure it out before they provoke others in the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 8, 2023 4:32:19 GMT
Yes, and then he proceeded to berate the UN official without addressing the official's point. Simply saying "you're right" isn't addressing the point. Especially if you continue on talking while ignoring the raised point. It's more like conceding the point than ignoring it.
What I don't understand is why you think that should have been the end of their discussion. If it's not that simple for either of them, why would it be that simple for us, the viewer?
Who said anything about that being the end of their discussion? I'm saying the scene should have equally highlighted both sides of the argument so that the audiences could truly see the dilemma and allowed a fair consideration of all points. That would have been the balanced way to do it. Instead, what you have is the UN official being given a single line whereas Sam goes on for minutes explaining his. That's why I'm saying that scene was clearly championing Sam's side. Thus my disagreement with you that it was an unbiased scene.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 8, 2023 5:42:38 GMT
It's more like conceding the point than ignoring it.
What I don't understand is why you think that should have been the end of their discussion. If it's not that simple for either of them, why would it be that simple for us, the viewer?
Who said anything about that being the end of their discussion? I'm saying the scene should have equally highlighted both sides of the argument so that the audiences could truly see the dilemma and allowed a fair consideration of all points. That would have been the balanced way to do it. Instead, what you have is the UN official being given a single line whereas Sam goes on for minutes explaining his. That's why I'm saying that scene was clearly championing Sam's side. Thus my disagreement with you that it was an unbiased scene. "Unbiased scene" is not in my vocabulary.
It sounds to me like the scene started a dialogue with you and the show. I don't see a bad thing here. Your biggest grievance here seems to me that Sam talked longer and the UN guy had one line. My response to this fact is sometimes less is more. Word-count doesn't make the argument. It seems like you understood the dilemma just fine.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 8, 2023 6:20:50 GMT
Who said anything about that being the end of their discussion? I'm saying the scene should have equally highlighted both sides of the argument so that the audiences could truly see the dilemma and allowed a fair consideration of all points. That would have been the balanced way to do it. Instead, what you have is the UN official being given a single line whereas Sam goes on for minutes explaining his. That's why I'm saying that scene was clearly championing Sam's side. Thus my disagreement with you that it was an unbiased scene. "Unbiased scene" is not in my vocabulary.
It sounds to me like the scene started a dialogue with you and the show. I don't see a bad thing here. Your biggest grievance here seems to me that Sam talked longer and the UN guy had one line. My response to this fact is sometimes less is more. Word-count doesn't make the argument. It seems like you understood the dilemma just fine.
"Unbiased" should be in everyone's vocabulary. And I don't think you're getting my point at all. I already mentioned that it wasn't just the length of the speech but the reactions of the people around them, the guilty and shamed expressions of the UN officials, the way Sam never really addresses their point, etc. My biggest grievance here is that the scene was clearly championing Sam's point of view even though the UN personnel had a very valid point of his own. My greviance here is that Sam was written to make a speech which, when you get right down to it, was all about finger pointing but without really contributing anything of substance. It's basically the equivalent of a kid throwing a tantrum over spilled milk, complaining about a crap situation but not really doing anything to help. Expecting the adults to just magically fix the problem for him. It certainly isn't heroic behavior, yet the show is clearly trying to depict it as such. It was meant to be Sam's "mic drop" moment. If you don't agree then I won't force you, but you asked me to explain why I disagreed with you and so I did. And it's not like I'm the only one who had issues with that speech. Even professional critics had problems with it.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 8, 2023 8:55:14 GMT
"Unbiased scene" is not in my vocabulary.
It sounds to me like the scene started a dialogue with you and the show. I don't see a bad thing here. Your biggest grievance here seems to me that Sam talked longer and the UN guy had one line. My response to this fact is sometimes less is more. Word-count doesn't make the argument. It seems like you understood the dilemma just fine.
"Unbiased" should be in everyone's vocabulary. And I don't think you're getting my point at all. I already mentioned that it wasn't just the length of the speech but the reactions of the people around them, the guilty and shamed expressions of the UN officials, the way Sam never really addresses their point, etc. My biggest grievance here is that the scene was clearly championing Sam's point of view even though the UN personnel had a very valid point of his own. My greviance here is that Sam was written to make a speech which, when you get right down to it, was all about finger pointing but without really contributing anything of substance. It's basically the equivalent of a kid throwing a tantrum over spilled milk, complaining about a crap situation but not really doing anything to help. Expecting the adults to just magically fix the problem for him. It certainly isn't heroic behavior, yet the show is clearly trying to depict it as such. It was meant to be Sam's "mic drop" moment. If you don't agree then I won't force you, but you asked me to explain why I disagreed with you and so I did. And it's not like I'm the only one who had issues with that speech. Even professional critics had problems with it. I can't force you to believe I understand your point. It just doesn't bother me, nor do I feel persuaded out of both Sam and the UN having valid points to make. If you don't think Sam had a single valid point, then we've got a discussion. Otherwise it seems you feel the show cheated the UN out of a rebuttal that you supplied, and like I said I don't see anything wrong with that.
If your biggest grievance is that the scene champions Sam's point of view then it seems your issue is with Sam's point of view, and if you disagree with it at its core, then no speech from Sam will change that. I thought it was clear as day Sam misled himself by responding to their tone, particularly at the beginning, and found himself caught off guard by a rebuttal from a man he was in the middle of labeling while lecturing about labels not helping. Kinda understandable. He was fighting for his life a minute earlier.
Fact is it didn't seem written like a mic drop moment to me, so it didn't feel like one either. I can't hold failing to be a mic drop moment against it when it wasn't untouchable enough to be a mic drop. Steve Rogers announcing he's taking down Hydra over the intercom. That's a mic drop. No one (probably) is criticizing that movie for not letting Hydra get a rebuttal in there. Mic drops are untouchable and Sam's speech got touched.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jun 8, 2023 9:39:15 GMT
I don't honestly don't see what the issue is, unless you think the UN should be free of critisms. I think that 1. Karli and the Flagsmashers should definitely be called terrorists based on what they did. Yes they had their own reasons for what they did but so too did every other villain in the MCU. You don't see the movies trying to not call them villains. 2. Sam should not really criticize unless he has a better solution to suggest, because it just makes him look preachy and hypocritical. This is more a failing of the writers. Yes the UN should be criticized, but the writers should have been smart enough to give an actual compromise or at the very least, shine an equal light on both sides of the argument so that people can appreciate the dilemma (like how Civil War was handled). In Sam's speech, there was no compromise, no alternative solution, no equal representation of both sides of the argument. It's basically him pointing a finger at the UN and saying "you should do better" and that was it. I didn't get the vibe that the show wasn't calling them villains. They're made to have a sympathetic background, but that's about it. Captain America has always been preachy in the comics. I see no reason why Sam shouldn't be preachy as well.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 8, 2023 12:33:05 GMT
"Unbiased scene" is not in my vocabulary.
It sounds to me like the scene started a dialogue with you and the show. I don't see a bad thing here. Your biggest grievance here seems to me that Sam talked longer and the UN guy had one line. My response to this fact is sometimes less is more. Word-count doesn't make the argument. It seems like you understood the dilemma just fine.
"Unbiased" should be in everyone's vocabulary. And I don't think you're getting my point at all. I already mentioned that it wasn't just the length of the speech but the reactions of the people around them, the guilty and shamed expressions of the UN officials, the way Sam never really addresses their point, etc. My biggest grievance here is that the scene was clearly championing Sam's point of view even though the UN personnel had a very valid point of his own. My greviance here is that Sam was written to make a speech which, when you get right down to it, was all about finger pointing but without really contributing anything of substance. It's basically the equivalent of a kid throwing a tantrum over spilled milk, complaining about a crap situation but not really doing anything to help. Expecting the adults to just magically fix the problem for him. It certainly isn't heroic behavior, yet the show is clearly trying to depict it as such. It was meant to be Sam's "mic drop" moment. If you don't agree then I won't force you, but you asked me to explain why I disagreed with you and so I did. And it's not like I'm the only one who had issues with that speech. Even professional critics had problems with it. Those "Professional Critics" were ones who couldn't let go of how 20 years of brainwashing made them hear the word "Terrorist" and think "Irredeemable Evil" and that the Government must always be in the right if facing any resistance. They probably thought Antifa burned down cities too.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 8, 2023 12:34:12 GMT
I think that 1. Karli and the Flagsmashers should definitely be called terrorists based on what they did. Yes they had their own reasons for what they did but so too did every other villain in the MCU. You don't see the movies trying to not call them villains. 2. Sam should not really criticize unless he has a better solution to suggest, because it just makes him look preachy and hypocritical. This is more a failing of the writers. Yes the UN should be criticized, but the writers should have been smart enough to give an actual compromise or at the very least, shine an equal light on both sides of the argument so that people can appreciate the dilemma (like how Civil War was handled). In Sam's speech, there was no compromise, no alternative solution, no equal representation of both sides of the argument. It's basically him pointing a finger at the UN and saying "you should do better" and that was it. I didn't get the vibe that the show wasn't calling them villains. They're made to have a sympathetic background, but that's about it. Captain America has always been preachy in the comics. I see no reason why Sam shouldn't be preachy as well. Keep in mind that a lot of folks bought into that "Antifa are evil and burn cities" nonsense, so that's the kind of mindset a lot of people had against the Flag Smashers too.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 8, 2023 14:47:01 GMT
I think that 1. Karli and the Flagsmashers should definitely be called terrorists based on what they did. Yes they had their own reasons for what they did but so too did every other villain in the MCU. You don't see the movies trying to not call them villains. 2. Sam should not really criticize unless he has a better solution to suggest, because it just makes him look preachy and hypocritical. This is more a failing of the writers. Yes the UN should be criticized, but the writers should have been smart enough to give an actual compromise or at the very least, shine an equal light on both sides of the argument so that people can appreciate the dilemma (like how Civil War was handled). In Sam's speech, there was no compromise, no alternative solution, no equal representation of both sides of the argument. It's basically him pointing a finger at the UN and saying "you should do better" and that was it. I didn't get the vibe that the show wasn't calling them villains. They're made to have a sympathetic background, but that's about it. Captain America has always been preachy in the comics. I see no reason why Sam shouldn't be preachy as well. Sam specifically told the UN officials to stop calling them terrorists or criminals.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 8, 2023 14:52:31 GMT
"Unbiased" should be in everyone's vocabulary. And I don't think you're getting my point at all. I already mentioned that it wasn't just the length of the speech but the reactions of the people around them, the guilty and shamed expressions of the UN officials, the way Sam never really addresses their point, etc. My biggest grievance here is that the scene was clearly championing Sam's point of view even though the UN personnel had a very valid point of his own. My greviance here is that Sam was written to make a speech which, when you get right down to it, was all about finger pointing but without really contributing anything of substance. It's basically the equivalent of a kid throwing a tantrum over spilled milk, complaining about a crap situation but not really doing anything to help. Expecting the adults to just magically fix the problem for him. It certainly isn't heroic behavior, yet the show is clearly trying to depict it as such. It was meant to be Sam's "mic drop" moment. If you don't agree then I won't force you, but you asked me to explain why I disagreed with you and so I did. And it's not like I'm the only one who had issues with that speech. Even professional critics had problems with it. I can't force you to believe I understand your point. It just doesn't bother me, nor do I feel persuaded out of both Sam and the UN having valid points to make. If you don't think Sam had a single valid point, then we've got a discussion. Otherwise it seems you feel the show cheated the UN out of a rebuttal that you supplied, and like I said I don't see anything wrong with that.
If your biggest grievance is that the scene champions Sam's point of view then it seems your issue is with Sam's point of view, and if you disagree with it at its core, then no speech from Sam will change that. I thought it was clear as day Sam misled himself by responding to their tone, particularly at the beginning, and found himself caught off guard by a rebuttal from a man he was in the middle of labeling while lecturing about labels not helping. Kinda understandable. He was fighting for his life a minute earlier.
Fact is it didn't seem written like a mic drop moment to me, so it didn't feel like one either. I can't hold failing to be a mic drop moment against it when it wasn't untouchable enough to be a mic drop. Steve Rogers announcing he's taking down Hydra over the intercom. That's a mic drop. No one (probably) is criticizing that movie for not letting Hydra get a rebuttal in there. Mic drops are untouchable and Sam's speech got touched.
Before we go further with this, I want to clarify something. Are you telling me that you believe that scene gave both Sam's point and the UN official's point equal focus? Equal presentation?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 8, 2023 15:31:11 GMT
I didn't get the vibe that the show wasn't calling them villains. They're made to have a sympathetic background, but that's about it. Captain America has always been preachy in the comics. I see no reason why Sam shouldn't be preachy as well. Sam specifically told the UN officials to stop calling them terrorists or criminals. Yes, because doing so gives them the Okay to ignore anything those people said and paint them as Pure Evil. Which is just stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jun 8, 2023 17:23:14 GMT
Sam specifically told the UN officials to stop calling them terrorists or criminals. Yes, because doing so gives them the Okay to ignore anything those people said and paint them as Pure Evil. Which is just stupid. But they were, by definition, terrorists. It's not like they were just squatting in a house or stealing food. They were responsible for bombings.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 8, 2023 17:28:16 GMT
Yes, because doing so gives them the Okay to ignore anything those people said and paint them as Pure Evil. Which is just stupid. But they were, by definition, terrorists. It's not like they were just squatting in a house or stealing food. They were responsible for bombings. And they were injuring and killing civilians.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 8, 2023 19:00:57 GMT
I can't force you to believe I understand your point. It just doesn't bother me, nor do I feel persuaded out of both Sam and the UN having valid points to make. If you don't think Sam had a single valid point, then we've got a discussion. Otherwise it seems you feel the show cheated the UN out of a rebuttal that you supplied, and like I said I don't see anything wrong with that.
If your biggest grievance is that the scene champions Sam's point of view then it seems your issue is with Sam's point of view, and if you disagree with it at its core, then no speech from Sam will change that. I thought it was clear as day Sam misled himself by responding to their tone, particularly at the beginning, and found himself caught off guard by a rebuttal from a man he was in the middle of labeling while lecturing about labels not helping. Kinda understandable. He was fighting for his life a minute earlier.
Fact is it didn't seem written like a mic drop moment to me, so it didn't feel like one either. I can't hold failing to be a mic drop moment against it when it wasn't untouchable enough to be a mic drop. Steve Rogers announcing he's taking down Hydra over the intercom. That's a mic drop. No one (probably) is criticizing that movie for not letting Hydra get a rebuttal in there. Mic drops are untouchable and Sam's speech got touched.
Before we go further with this, I want to clarify something. Are you telling me that you believe that scene gave both Sam's point and the UN official's point equal focus? Equal presentation? No. Are you going to ask if me I think it's necessary? If you did, I'd say no too. What I don't understand is why you feel the UN's point is so indiscernible when you got it just fine.
It seems to me that you're staking your argument in what the casual fan took away from the show, but you're not a casual fan. Not only does your casual fan perspective argument not apply to me, but it doesn't apply to you either. You don't need to stake your dissatisfaction with the scene on the reactions of casual fans. Are you watching for your benefit or theirs?
Keep in mind Sam was not only talking about the Flag Smashers, but the people who inhabited the homes of the departed. Of course it's complicated, immensely complicated. Sam's not going to have the answers for this. If you've been gone for 5 years and return to find someone living in your house you don't call Captain America. You call a lawyer.
Personally, the scene left me with the feeling that Sam is doing his best to channel Steve Rogers while becoming his own Captain America. He's just not there yet. No one wakes up one day and becomes Captain America. Not even Steve Rogers can do that.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 8, 2023 19:42:14 GMT
Before we go further with this, I want to clarify something. Are you telling me that you believe that scene gave both Sam's point and the UN official's point equal focus? Equal presentation? No. Are you going to ask if me I think it's necessary? If you did, I'd say no too. What I don't understand is why you feel the UN's point is so indiscernible when you got it just fine.
It seems to me that you're staking your argument in what the casual fan took away from the show, but you're not a casual fan. Not only does your casual fan perspective argument not apply to me, but it doesn't apply to you either. You don't need to stake your dissatisfaction with the scene on the reactions of casual fans. Are you watching for your benefit or theirs?
Keep in mind Sam was not only talking about the Flag Smashers, but the people who inhabited the homes of the departed. Of course it's complicated, immensely complicated. Sam's not going to have the answers for this. If you've been gone for 5 years and return to find someone living in your house you don't call Captain America. You call a lawyer.
Personally, the scene left me with the feeling that Sam is doing his best to channel Steve Rogers while becoming his own Captain America. He's just not there yet. No one wakes up one day and becomes Captain America. Not even Steve Rogers can do that.
Ok look, you keep saying I said things that I never said. This conversation is not going to go anywhere if you don't read and understand what I'm saying. I never said that the UN's point was indiscernible. What I said was that the scene obviously set it up so that Sam's point was given far more focus and presented in a more positive light than the UN's point. Do you disagree with this? Because if you actually agree with me that the scene didn't give equal focus to both Sam's and the UN official's point of views then I don't know why you're even arguing with me, as that has been my point all along. Exactly, thus my comparison to a child crying over spilled milk and asking their parents to magically make everything right. Sam himself has no answer to the situation but that doesn't stop him from blaming the UN officials for the situation and expecting them to fix it (when he himself has no idea of how to fix it). And right now, all I'm doing is looking at this scene from a purely objective point of view, similar to what a casual fan will see. I haven't started to give you what my actual opinion of this is based on me being an MCU and superhero fan. We can get into that later if you want. Because from a purely objective point of view, anyone can see that Sam was given the spotlight in his speech, made to look like the voice of reason, made to look like he was telling the UN officials how to be better people. Objectively, you can easily tell that the UN officials were definitely not portrayed in a positive light in this scene.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 8, 2023 20:25:31 GMT
No. Are you going to ask if me I think it's necessary? If you did, I'd say no too. What I don't understand is why you feel the UN's point is so indiscernible when you got it just fine.
It seems to me that you're staking your argument in what the casual fan took away from the show, but you're not a casual fan. Not only does your casual fan perspective argument not apply to me, but it doesn't apply to you either. You don't need to stake your dissatisfaction with the scene on the reactions of casual fans. Are you watching for your benefit or theirs?
Keep in mind Sam was not only talking about the Flag Smashers, but the people who inhabited the homes of the departed. Of course it's complicated, immensely complicated. Sam's not going to have the answers for this. If you've been gone for 5 years and return to find someone living in your house you don't call Captain America. You call a lawyer.
Personally, the scene left me with the feeling that Sam is doing his best to channel Steve Rogers while becoming his own Captain America. He's just not there yet. No one wakes up one day and becomes Captain America. Not even Steve Rogers can do that.
Ok look, you keep saying I said things that I never said. This conversation is not going to go anywhere if you don't read and understand what I'm saying. I never said that the UN's point was indiscernible. What I said was that the scene obviously set it up so that Sam's point was given far more focus and presented in a more positive light than the UN's point. Do you disagree with this? Because if you actually agree with me that the scene didn't give equal focus to both Sam's and the UN official's point of views then I don't know why you're even arguing with me, as that has been my point all along. Exactly, thus my comparison to a child crying over spilled milk and asking their parents to magically make everything right. Sam himself has no answer to the situation but that doesn't stop him from blaming the UN officials for the situation and expecting them to fix it (when he himself has no idea of how to fix it). And right now, all I'm doing is looking at this scene from a purely objective point of view, similar to what a casual fan will see. I haven't started to give you what my actual opinion of this is based on me being an MCU and superhero fan. We can get into that later if you want. Because from a purely objective point of view, anyone can see that Sam was given the spotlight in his speech, made to look like the voice of reason, made to look like he was telling the UN officials how to be better people. Objectively, you can easily tell that the UN officials were definitely not portrayed in a positive light in this scene.
"Ok look, you keep saying I said things that I never said. This conversation is not going to go anywhere if you don't read and understand what I'm saying."
Well you seemed to think my position is that the scene was unbiased. How do think I feel about that?
"And right now, all I'm doing is looking at this scene from a purely objective point of view"
With all due respect, starting the conversation as you did with my opinion is based on personal views while yours is based in objectivity was a non-starter.
You don't seem to want to admit your opinion is also an opinion. I know mine is. Do you know yours is? If you don't, then we're not debating on equal footing. Making me into the person who argues from personal belief while you argue from objectivity is never going to get anywhere with me. That's why it took me a while to address the meat of the scene. From the time you opened with you think my opinion is based in personal views and not objectivity, my focus shifted to you understanding your opinions are also just that, opinions. Only from that point on can a real discussion begin.
"Because if you actually agree with me that the scene didn't give equal focus to both Sam's and the UN official's point of views then I don't know why you're even arguing with me, as that has been my point all along."
You're the one who disagreed with me. I never said the scene gave equal focus to Sam and the UN official's point of view. I didn't hint at it or imply it. You didn't get that from me. You got that from you. Far as I can tell, all we disagree with is you feel Sam was being a brat about it, and with the same facts (the same facts, it bears repeating) I surmise that Sam Wilson is an imperfect Captain America in training.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 8, 2023 22:42:59 GMT
Ok look, you keep saying I said things that I never said. This conversation is not going to go anywhere if you don't read and understand what I'm saying. I never said that the UN's point was indiscernible. What I said was that the scene obviously set it up so that Sam's point was given far more focus and presented in a more positive light than the UN's point. Do you disagree with this? Because if you actually agree with me that the scene didn't give equal focus to both Sam's and the UN official's point of views then I don't know why you're even arguing with me, as that has been my point all along. Exactly, thus my comparison to a child crying over spilled milk and asking their parents to magically make everything right. Sam himself has no answer to the situation but that doesn't stop him from blaming the UN officials for the situation and expecting them to fix it (when he himself has no idea of how to fix it). And right now, all I'm doing is looking at this scene from a purely objective point of view, similar to what a casual fan will see. I haven't started to give you what my actual opinion of this is based on me being an MCU and superhero fan. We can get into that later if you want. Because from a purely objective point of view, anyone can see that Sam was given the spotlight in his speech, made to look like the voice of reason, made to look like he was telling the UN officials how to be better people. Objectively, you can easily tell that the UN officials were definitely not portrayed in a positive light in this scene.
"Ok look, you keep saying I said things that I never said. This conversation is not going to go anywhere if you don't read and understand what I'm saying."
Well you seemed to think my position is that the scene was unbiased. How do think I feel about that?
"And right now, all I'm doing is looking at this scene from a purely objective point of view"
With all due respect, starting the conversation as you did with my opinion is based on personal views while yours is based in objectivity was a non-starter.
You don't seem to want to admit your opinion is also an opinion. I know mine is. Do you know yours is? If you don't, then we're not debating on equal footing. Making me into the person who argues from personal belief while you argue from objectivity is never going to get anywhere with me. That's why it took me a while to address the meat of the scene. From the time you opened with you think my opinion is based in personal views and not objectivity, my focus shifted to you understanding your opinions are also just that, opinions. Only from that point on can a real discussion begin.
"Because if you actually agree with me that the scene didn't give equal focus to both Sam's and the UN official's point of views then I don't know why you're even arguing with me, as that has been my point all along."
You're the one who disagreed with me. I never said the scene gave equal focus to Sam and the UN official's point of view. I didn't hint at it or imply it. You didn't get that from me. You got that from you. Far as I can tell, all we disagree with is you feel Sam was being a brat about it, and with the same facts (the same facts, it bears repeating) I surmise that Sam Wilson is an imperfect Captain America in training.
With all due respect, it is not simply "my opinion" when I say that the scene very clearly gave Sam's point a lot more focus and presented it in a positive light compared to the UN Official's stance. That's an easily observable fact for anyone who watched the show. It's also a fact when I say that Sam didn't offer any alternative solutions when he contradicted the UN Officials' methods. There's nothing opinionated about that, I'm simply describing the scene as it happened. What I originally disagreed with you on was because you said the scene didn't portray Sam as the sole voice of right. That seemed to imply you believed the scene presented the UN Officials' stance in a similar positive light, giving them enough of an equal focus so that audiences could not easily decide who was "right" in the discussion. If that's not your original stance then feel free to correct me.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jun 8, 2023 22:44:50 GMT
I didn't get the vibe that the show wasn't calling them villains. They're made to have a sympathetic background, but that's about it. Captain America has always been preachy in the comics. I see no reason why Sam shouldn't be preachy as well. Sam specifically told the UN officials to stop calling them terrorists or criminals. But that was Sam. The show still played them off as the bad guys. Sam was just trying to be sympathetic about them.
|
|