|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 8, 2023 22:47:14 GMT
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. Yes, that was the hero of the show telling the government to not call the villain (who clearly has done villainous things) a villain. Or in this case, a terrorist. I don't believe I could recall any other MCU movie from the first 3 phases that did that. We've seen the MCU create sympathetic villains before, but never did they flat out try to tell anyone that the villain wasn't a villain even after doing villainous deeds, at least not without some kind of redeeming arc.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 8, 2023 23:33:23 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."
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. If the show presented Sam as the sole voice of right then there would be no rebuttal or challenge from the UN, and certainly no push back from the audience of which we're both a part. Yes, the show gave Sam's point more focus. This is obvious. There's no special version of the scene that only you or I watched. I'm simply describing the scene as it happened too. How you feel about what you saw is up to you, and at this point, that's my point. You're not going to convince me out of my reaction by citing details from the scene I already know. Just accept that we have different opinions and move on, and next time, try not to start the exchange by disclosing you think my position is based on my biases. I'm still barely discussing the scene, even though I'd actually like to, because arguing under those circumstances is a losing proposition for me. I'm interested in conversation, not diagnoses.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 8, 2023 23:52:20 GMT
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. If the show presented Sam as the sole voice of right then there would be no rebuttal or challenge from the UN, and certainly no push back from the audience of which we're both a part. Yes, the show have Sam's point more focus. This is obvious. There's no special version of the scene that only you or I watched. I'm simply describing the scene as it happened too. My response is a result of the ingredients that make me me as are yours yours. How you feel about what you saw is up to you, and at this point, that's my point. You're not going to convince me out of my reaction by citing details from the scene I already know. Just accept that we have different opinions and move on. Dude, it was never my intention to convince you to agree with me. I disagreed with you, you asked me to explain, so I explained my side. Whether you agree or disagree with me is something I can easily respect. But I will say that just because the UN Official was allowed to make a rebuttal doesn't mean that the show was also making them a "voice of right". Every major villain in the MCU has speaking parts and are given a chance to explain their rationale. That doesn't mean that the movies are somehow portraying them immediately as a "voice of right" just because they have speaking parts. Same is true in this case. The UN official making a rebuttal doesn't change the fact that the speech was delivered in such a way that it was made clear that Sam was right and the UN officials were wrong. You can disagree with that if you want and that's your opinion. I can tell you whether I agreed with Sam or the UN official and that would also be my opinion. But what isn't an opinion is that the scene painted Sam in a positive light and painted the UN officials in a negative light.
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 9, 2023 0:18:03 GMT
If the show presented Sam as the sole voice of right then there would be no rebuttal or challenge from the UN, and certainly no push back from the audience of which we're both a part. Yes, the show have Sam's point more focus. This is obvious. There's no special version of the scene that only you or I watched. I'm simply describing the scene as it happened too. My response is a result of the ingredients that make me me as are yours yours. How you feel about what you saw is up to you, and at this point, that's my point. You're not going to convince me out of my reaction by citing details from the scene I already know. Just accept that we have different opinions and move on. Dude, it was never my intention to convince you to agree with me. I disagreed with you, you asked me to explain, so I explained my side. Whether you agree or disagree with me is something I can easily respect. But I will say that just because the UN Official was allowed to make a rebuttal doesn't mean that the show was also making them a "voice of right". Every major villain in the MCU has speaking parts and are given a chance to explain their rationale. That doesn't mean that the movies are somehow portraying them immediately as a "voice of right" just because they have speaking parts. Same is true in this case. The UN official making a rebuttal doesn't change the fact that the speech was delivered in such a way that it was made clear that Sam was right and the UN officials were wrong. You can disagree with that if you want and that's your opinion. I can tell you whether I agreed with Sam or the UN official and that would also be my opinion. But what isn't an opinion is that the scene painted Sam in a positive light and painted the UN officials in a negative light. I kinda feel bad because I don't think you did it on purpose, but the way you opened our exchange felt like starting at the end of the conversation. Your first words to me implored to skip to agreeing to disagree.
On a couple of occasions I started writing that it didn't seem realistic to me to expect a debate forum right there and then on the street. Sam's first response to speaking to the UN seemed to be distinguishing himself from their agenda after they appeared to recruit his efforts to being on their side, and he's not on their side. Not yet. I don't think the show is making the Flag Smashers out to be the good guys, but explaining (not excusing) their actions gives purpose to their role in the world. Just because Sam wagged his finger (not literally) at the UN and said you need to drop with the terrorist labeling doesn't mean the show is taking their side or refusing to call them terrorists. It means one character is skeptical about using that type of language if and when it means alienating the dispossessed citizens of the world from a place at the table. The Flag Smashers hurt and killed innocent people. They relinquished the moral high ground when they traded arguments for bullets, but it doesn't take a fully-fleshed Captain America to see that closed doors don't move dialogue either. And I didn't say voice of right, I said "sole voice of right". That's an important distinction.
In all likelihood, if I had to speculate, the UN is probably going to go ahead with their plan, and without help from the government to compensate the dispossessed, the backlash will likely inspire the next new world order to rise from the ashes of the Flag Smashers because nothing was resolved. Civil wars and world wars in the real world happen because grievances aren't addressed, and "it's the law" is not a satisfactory excuse when you're on the losing end. The people who were "snapped" out of existence were gone for 5 years. What if it was 20, or 50, or 100 years? Is it still as simple as it's their house, get out? Progress might have happened due to ill-gotten gains, but it's a little late for "but Thanos!", so how long is too long for that which changed during the snap to remain? For every individual or family returned to their occupied home is an individual or family tossed onto the street unless the government does something about it.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 9, 2023 0:46:39 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. Because they were provoked into those actions by the GRC's genocide attempts. The GRC can't write them off and not acknowledge the role they played in creating the Flag Smashers
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 9, 2023 0:48:38 GMT
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. The only ones who died were GRC Personnel who were complicit in the GRC's crimes.
|
|
Sam Raimi
Sophomore
@tallahasseeted
Posts: 205
Likes: 179
|
Post by Sam Raimi on Jun 9, 2023 17:11:50 GMT
Title change. Good call, I say. The phrase new world order often evokes anti-Semitic conspiracy. Hopefully they vet the script to make sure their writer/director didn’t code any hate into it.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 9, 2023 17:35:20 GMT
Title change. Good call, I say. The phrase new world order often evokes anti-Semitic conspiracy. Hopefully they vet the script to make sure their writer/director didn’t code any hate into it. I don't know man. Captain America: Brave New World makes it sound like a Pixar movie or something. It's quite underwhelming.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 9, 2023 17:43:22 GMT
Title change. Good call, I say. The phrase new world order often evokes anti-Semitic conspiracy. Hopefully they vet the script to make sure their writer/director didn’t code any hate into it. I don't know man. Captain America: Brave New World makes it sound like a Pixar movie or something. It's quite underwhelming. Do you feel that way about the Huxley Novel too?
|
|
Sam Raimi
Sophomore
@tallahasseeted
Posts: 205
Likes: 179
|
Post by Sam Raimi on Jun 10, 2023 18:15:21 GMT
Title change. Good call, I say. The phrase new world order often evokes anti-Semitic conspiracy. Hopefully they vet the script to make sure their writer/director didn’t code any hate into it. I don't know man. Captain America: Brave New World makes it sound like a Pixar movie or something. It's quite underwhelming. I agree. It’s not a great title. I just think it was a good call to not use the first one.
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Nov 10, 2023 10:17:54 GMT
Just what is going on with Phase 5?
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Nov 10, 2023 13:47:07 GMT
Just what is going on with Phase 5? Well, looks like there was an Israeli superheroine in BNW's roster... and yeah... 2025 ftw.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 10, 2023 14:31:50 GMT
Just what is going on with Phase 5? The political issues with an Israeli heroine named "Sabra" and the Writers/Actors Strike
|
|
Sam Raimi
Sophomore
@tallahasseeted
Posts: 205
Likes: 179
|
Post by Sam Raimi on Dec 24, 2023 19:40:59 GMT
Just what is going on with Phase 5? The political issues with an Israeli heroine named "Sabra" and the Writers/Actors Strike Filming had wrapped. The strike has very little to do with the reshoots.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 25, 2023 15:25:02 GMT
The political issues with an Israeli heroine named "Sabra" and the Writers/Actors Strike Filming had wrapped. The strike has very little to do with the reshoots. It did. They had finished the basic filming, skeletal. It wasn't 100% done before the Strikes.
|
|
Sam Raimi
Sophomore
@tallahasseeted
Posts: 205
Likes: 179
|
Post by Sam Raimi on Dec 26, 2023 19:00:23 GMT
Filming had wrapped. The strike has very little to do with the reshoots. It did. They had finished the basic filming, skeletal. It wasn't 100% done before the Strikes. Basic filming? LOL. The movie had wrapped. Reshoots are said to be extensive. Nice try. Spin failed.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Dec 26, 2023 20:48:06 GMT
Apparently, General Ross has become President of the United States, loses the election, and stages a coup attempt to maintain his presidency at the White House where he enlists the Serpent Society to do his bidding, and he becomes the Red Hulk to boost his approval rating. 4Chan and Marvel Leaks on Reddit both shared this information from a test screening and behind-the-scenes drama, a Twitter account dedicated to Marvel Studios news also shared the information, but their post was deleted. WDW Pro of ThatParkPlace ran a story quickly afterwards, and recently prolific scooper MyTimeToShineHello gave corroboration to the story but suggests that in the new version of the film, Sam Wilson fights Red Hulk at the end of the film, when previous reports of a previous cut didn't have him in the climactic battle (despite the title being Captain America - the prior cut didn't really focus that much on Wilson, either). Audiences didn't take it to at test screenings, finding the film to be too bloated, not very exciting or compelling, and too politically one sided, with major events in the story bringing back memories of a controversial date on a specific month from three years ago.
If this is all true, then this is looking to be yet another box office flop for the House of Mouse, and shouldn't Dermott Mulroney's Ritson still be President of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's designated Earth? Are we to expect a time jump? When did Ross decide to run for office? Why wasn't political aspiration hinted at in earlier appearances? Such a mess.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 27, 2023 1:29:08 GMT
Apparently, General Ross has become President of the United States, loses the election, and stages a coup attempt to maintain his presidency at the White House where he enlists the Serpent Society to do his bidding, and he becomes the Red Hulk to boost his approval rating. 4Chan and Marvel Leaks on Reddit both shared this information from a test screening and behind-the-scenes drama, a Twitter account dedicated to Marvel Studios news also shared the information, but their post was deleted. WDW Pro of ThatParkPlace ran a story quickly afterwards, and recently prolific scooper MyTimeToShineHello gave corroboration to the story but suggests that in the new version of the film, Sam Wilson fights Red Hulk at the end of the film, when previous reports of a previous cut didn't have him in the climactic battle (despite the title being Captain America - the prior cut didn't really focus that much on Wilson, either). Audiences didn't take it to at test screenings, finding the film to be too bloated, not very exciting or compelling, and too politically one sided, with major events in the story bringing back memories of a controversial date on a specific month from three years ago. If this is all true, then this is looking to be yet another box office flop for the House of Mouse, and shouldn't Dermott Mulroney's Ritson still be President of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's designated Earth? Are we to expect a time jump? When did Ross decide to run for office? Why wasn't political aspiration hinted at in earlier appearances? Such a mess. His political aspirations were there when we saw he's become the Secretary of State in Civil War, he just took it to the next step.
As for the rest, I wouldn't take anything 4Chan has to say seriously.
And a Captain America movie being too one-sided politically...wow, like that didn't happen before.
A battle at the White House reminding people of Jan 6th? How is that the MCU's fault something happened in Real Life?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 27, 2023 1:31:56 GMT
It did. They had finished the basic filming, skeletal. It wasn't 100% done before the Strikes. Basic filming? LOL. The movie had wrapped. Reshoots are said to be extensive. Nice try. Spin failed. The only reshoots done were to add a few fight scenes, not redo the entire movie. Because the original attempt at the movie was trying to make a more cerebral film.
Yes, basic filming. They said they barely got the basic stuff done before the Strikes started.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Dec 27, 2023 2:14:27 GMT
Apparently, General Ross has become President of the United States, loses the election, and stages a coup attempt to maintain his presidency at the White House where he enlists the Serpent Society to do his bidding, and he becomes the Red Hulk to boost his approval rating. 4Chan and Marvel Leaks on Reddit both shared this information from a test screening and behind-the-scenes drama, a Twitter account dedicated to Marvel Studios news also shared the information, but their post was deleted. WDW Pro of ThatParkPlace ran a story quickly afterwards, and recently prolific scooper MyTimeToShineHello gave corroboration to the story but suggests that in the new version of the film, Sam Wilson fights Red Hulk at the end of the film, when previous reports of a previous cut didn't have him in the climactic battle (despite the title being Captain America - the prior cut didn't really focus that much on Wilson, either). Audiences didn't take it to at test screenings, finding the film to be too bloated, not very exciting or compelling, and too politically one sided, with major events in the story bringing back memories of a controversial date on a specific month from three years ago. If this is all true, then this is looking to be yet another box office flop for the House of Mouse, and shouldn't Dermott Mulroney's Ritson still be President of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's designated Earth? Are we to expect a time jump? When did Ross decide to run for office? Why wasn't political aspiration hinted at in earlier appearances? Such a mess. His political aspirations were there when we saw he's become the Secretary of State in Civil War, he just took it to the next step.
As for the rest, I wouldn't take anything 4Chan has to say seriously.
And a Captain America movie being too one-sided politically...wow, like that didn't happen before.
A battle at the White House reminding people of Jan 6th? How is that the MCU's fault something happened in Real Life?
There was no indication was given that he wanted to be President. This narrative isn't limited to being a 4Chan exclusive, as others have also reported on it, and MyTimeToShineHello, who has a fairly spot-on track record as a scooper, recently corroborated on it. Not to the extent that audiences expressed so much dislike for it that the studio decided to order a rewrite, set up reshoots, and delay the film for a year - if there was nothing to be concerned over it, it would stick to its intended release date. No, but it is their fault for failing to make a compelling narrative that parallels it, and messing up so bad they have to rework a lot of the picture.
|
|