Cap using multiple weapons?

[Hypestyle]

besides the shield..

Will cap be seen using guns, knives, grenades, using a bazooka on occasion, etc.?

[jab1118]

I think he should on occasion not primarily, i mean he is a soldier during ww2 he would be a pretty crappy one if he refused weapons.

[Shockdingo]

Indeed, it should be balanced. If he's on the front lines with just the shield, he's not going to be able to strike down tons of Nazis just by long distance tossing alone.

[catintheengine]

I think he should definitely use multiple weapons. Have his experiences during World War II lead to him being against the use of guns in The Avengers movie.

[Triad]

^ Sounds good to me. Perhaps Bucky's "death"?

[NEXUS 6]

Well besides the shield Cap is a living weapon. I'd like to see battlefield parkour and UFC fighter brutality.

And as far as no guns (for the Avengers) it won't be too interesting or believable if he just chucks around his shield. I mean, that would get old after a while. I'd say have him fight like Ultimate Cap in the Avengers, guns if the occasion calls for it, but shield all the time.

[NewAvenger4]

arggggggggggg!

[NewAvenger4]

captain america movie-shield,pistol,machine gun,grenades
avengers-shield,pistol,grenades
for example-shield on hand or back,pistol in holster,grenades strapped to belt,mg in other hand/strap

[RaZaTrOn]

^ Sounds good to me. Perhaps Bucky's "death"?

That sounds like the perfect reason for him to stop wanting to use guns when he is 'revived'

Big yes to him using weapons in WWII, however he should prefer to be up close to use his fists and shield.
In the present day he should be against weapons slightly because of Bucky's 'death'. But he also should realise he doesn't need a weapon, he is the freaking weapon!

[Obi-Ron]

The only thing I want to see Cap carrying besides his shield is his original triangular shield.

[Aztec]

He needs to use guns. I don't care how much more agile, stronger, or quicker he's supposed to be, guns are a necessity on the battlefield. Seriously people, this is the 21st century we live in. The man needs a gun. If shields were effective offensive weapons maybe the global powers wouldn't have stopped using them 600 or so years ago.

He should use his high tech shield for defense and occasionally offense but he needs to use guns, knives, etc. for actual battle situations.

[Aztec]

He needs to use guns. I don't care how much more agile, stronger, or quicker he's supposed to be, guns are a necessity on the battlefield. Seriously people, this is the 21st century we live in. The man needs a gun. If shields were effective offensive weapons maybe the global powers wouldn't have stopped using them 600 or so years ago.

He should use his high tech shield for defense and occasionally offense but he needs to use guns, knives, etc. for actual battle situations.

[blackbyrd]

He should know how to use most weapons but going into batle he should have a 1911 and a Thompson...

[Thundercrack85]

I agree, give him a tommy gun.

He's in the military though, so he would have access to a wide array of weapons.

[R_Hythlodeus]

He needs to use guns, this is the 21st century we live in.

In what perverted society do you live? We are supposed to progress towards civilsation...:whatever:

[Agent 194]

As I've posted in another thread I say no to him using a gun. I don't want him to look like the Republic serials of the '40's where he had a big gut and gun. That was so disappointing. I never cared if he made it out of last week's cliffhanger or not. I don't care if that's seems realistic.... I just like to think that the 'super soldier formula' was just that. It made him super to the point where he was beyond guns. His shield and his fighting prowess were his weapons. Jack Kirby created him and he himself had been in the war. So if Kirby didn't make that part of who he was then that's good enough for me. I loved reading those old reprints, especially when they revived him in the '60's. The way Kirby made him leap and run faster than the opponent was very compelling; fighting many guys at once. Ok, I'm a tradionalist and a purist and an idealist. So sue me.

[Timstuff]

He's not going to win very many battles during WW2 if he doesn't even have a gun.

[Agent 194]

He won them in the comics without a gun.

[Mr.LethalWeapon]

Well besides the shield Cap is a living weapon. I'd like to see battlefield parkour and UFC fighter brutality.
Now that's what I'm talkin' about!

Regarding the gun debate, Cap not using a gun just never made sense to me.

I think about Steve Rogers' attitude while he was growing up in NY, and picture it as being similar to the way I remember many an American's attitude shortly after the terrorist attacks in 2001. It seemed like everyone was ready to fly overseas to @#$% sh#$ up for what happened.

With Steve growing up in America during WWII, knowing what horrors the Nazis were committing overseas, you can't tell me that someone in his situation wouldn't want to pump somebody full of lead.

I can sorta' understand the "no guns ever" thing for a character like Batman, who suffered a trauma as a child involving guns, but not Steve Rogers who (badly) wanted to enlist in the military.

The Iron Man movie has already set a precedent for how to deal with bad guys. Subsequently showing Cap handling similar situations with kid gloves would be silly.

[Thundercrack85]

I must say this whole debate seems silly. Didn't Cap use guns regularly in the originals?

He's a soldier in the bloodiest conflict in human history. Why in the world would he not use guns? Not to mention this is live action, have to make it at least a bit believable.

He should use every weapon possible. It's World War II.

[Timstuff]

Mr.LethalWeapon, you make an excellent point with the Iron Man comparison. Iron Man is not above using bullets to take down bad guys, so I don't see why Captain America, a super soldier, wouldn't use them.

[Turtles]

Mr.LethalWeapon, you make an excellent point with the Iron Man comparison. Iron Man is not above using bullets to take down bad guys, so I don't see why Captain America, a super soldier, wouldn't use them.

You're forgetting one crucial thing here: Captain America isn't Iron Man. Captain America is idealistic, Iron Man is realistic, so it's just stupid to assume the characters would act in the same manner.

As for Captain America using guns, I really prefer he didn't. He can use them when the situation calls for it, of course, but I don't want him carrying a machine gun around on his back, two pistols on his hip, and a dagger in his boot or something like that. His shield and his body are his weapons. You can argue that it's unrealistic for a guy to go into battle with just a shield, but is that really anymore unrealistic than the Norse god, the guy in a flying metal suit, the green giant with super strength, and the people who shrink and grow that are his teammates? I don't think so.

Something unrealistic in a comic book movie? God forbid. :whatever:

[Agent 194]

and you make my point, again, eloquently.

[Shockdingo]

Something unrealistic in a comic book movie? God forbid. :whatever:

I wouldn't want him to go crazy with the gun use and become the red white and blue Punisher, no. I think the issue of him not using guns or weapons on the battle field is better described as impractical instead of unrealistic. I don't like when people complain about things being unrealistic in a comic book movie as well, but this isn't the same issue as "a green giant or norse God", it's more of "Oh hey, this mission calls for crazy far range combat, demolition and sniping." He's not going to be able to effectively use just his shield in such a situation. He's a soldier, he needs to be one at some points, but at others, he needs to be more than a soldier and rather a super hero. I don't want him always using guns, in fact, I'd go with his view on no killing in the modern day: things are different in a time of war, and right now there is no war. So once he's out of the war atmosphere he really shouldn't be using heavy weapons etc, but in WW2 I feel it would make sense.

[Turtles]

I wouldn't want him to go crazy with the gun use and become the red white and blue Punisher, no. I think the issue of him not using guns or weapons on the battle field is better described as impractical instead of unrealistic. I don't like when people complain about things being unrealistic in a comic book movie as well, but this isn't the same issue as "a green giant or norse God", it's more of "Oh hey, this mission calls for crazy far range combat, demolition and sniping." He's not going to be able to effectively use just his shield in such a situation. He's a soldier, he needs to be one at some points, but at others, he needs to be more than a soldier and rather a super hero. I don't want him always using guns, in fact, I'd go with his view on no killing in the modern day: things are different in a time of war, and right now there is no war. So once he's out of the war atmosphere he really shouldn't be using heavy weapons etc, but in WW2 I feel it would make sense.

I understand where you're coming from, but him not using guns isn't all that impractical if you consider the types of battles he usually fights as a superhero. As a superhero, you can probably say he fights one or two supervillains at a time, at close range, and like him those villains don't usually have long range weapons, and when they do, it's usually a single shot space-age doohickey that's beams/shots are easily dodged, not a machine gun that could fire so many bullets at once Cap wouldn't have a chance to fight back. And if Captain America fights multiple enemies, he usually does it at close range so he can use his shield. Of course, all that means nothing if they have him fighting terrorists with RPGs and tanks like they had Iron Man do in his movie--Cap might need the Captain America tank (from the Ultimates) if that were the case. Basically, it all depends on who he is fighting.

I do agree with you on the WWII bit, though. I feel it makes sense for him to use guns in WWII. I can't see Cap charging onto the beaches of Normandy on D-day or something with just his shield.

[Timstuff]

You're forgetting one crucial thing here: Captain America isn't Iron Man. Captain America is idealistic, Iron Man is realistic, so it's just stupid to assume the characters would act in the same manner.

As for Captain America using guns, I really prefer he didn't. He can use them when the situation calls for it, of course, but I don't want him carrying a machine gun around on his back, two pistols on his hip, and a dagger in his boot or something like that. His shield and his body are his weapons. You can argue that it's unrealistic for a guy to go into battle with just a shield, but is that really anymore unrealistic than the Norse god, the guy in a flying metal suit, the green giant with super strength, and the people who shrink and grow that are his teammates? I don't think so.

Something unrealistic in a comic book movie? God forbid. :whatever:

You're confusing realism with believability. If the US Govt. spent millions creating a super soldier, the first thing they'd give him before going on a mission would be a gun. He's not bullet proof, and he's going up against hundreds of guys using long range weapons. I just don't see people buying into the idea that America's ultimate soldier's only weapon is a shield.

Also, what happens if he throws his shield to take down a bad guy during a hail of gunfire? He's now defenseless, which renders the concept of a shield useless. Perhaps when he appears in modern times a gun will no longer be necessary due to the changed nature of his function, but if he's in a war zone he can't have a gimped set of tools compared to all the other soldiers on the field, bullet proof shield or not. As Dais said, this isn't comparable to "Oh look, a guy in a flying suit of armor" or "Oh, a Norse god walking around in a modern day city." If you show the army dropping off a super soldier into a war zone without any means for taking down automatic-armed enemies at long range, people are just going to go "WTF," because as far as I know there's not really any way to make such a battle look plausible on screen, unlike Iron Man's suit or Thor's godly powers.

In short, suspension of disbelief is not the same thing as pretending to not notice when something doesn't make any sense. That's the difference between a good movie that's fun to watch, and a "leave your brain at the door" movie. So far Marvel's good movies have all been the former, and their bad ones have been the latter (except for the first Hulk, which was neither stupid nor fun). So which will it be for Cap?

[Thundercrack85]

I never got the gun-phobia a lot of comic book fans have (and it goes far beyond Captain America).

Are you all afraid he'll kill his enemies too fast for there to be a good fight?

[Obi-Ron]

Real heroes don't kill at all.

[Timstuff]

There's a pretty friggin' long list of people whom history deems to be heroes who killed lots of people. The idea that "heroes don't kill" is a pretty recent invention.

[Obi-Ron]

Let me rephrase: SUPER heroes don't kill.

[Timstuff]

Tony Stark seems to think otherwise.

The "no kill" rule makes sense for some heroes, but for Cap it doesn't because he's also a soldier in WW2, and not only is it incredibly impractical if he can't kill anyone, but also it historically does not make any sense. No-one back then would have any reason to want to join the army if they weren't willing to get their hands dirty. "I shouldn't kill Nazis" was not part of the American psyche in that period of history

[Thundercrack85]

I hate the no killing rule myself. Doesn't mean superheroes should go around killing on a whim, but really, who in their right mind wouldn't off the Red Skull or Zemo?

[Turtles]

You're confusing realism with believability. If the US Govt. spent millions creating a super soldier, the first thing they'd give him before going on a mission would be a gun. He's not bullet proof, and he's going up against hundreds of guys using long range weapons. I just don't see people buying into the idea that America's ultimate soldier's only weapon is a shield.

Also, what happens if he throws his shield to take down a bad guy during a hail of gunfire? He's now defenseless, which renders the concept of a shield useless. Perhaps when he appears in modern times a gun will no longer be necessary due to the changed nature of his function, but if he's in a war zone he can't have a gimped set of tools compared to all the other soldiers on the field, bullet proof shield or not. As Dais said, this isn't comparable to "Oh look, a guy in a flying suit of armor" or "Oh, a Norse god walking around in a modern day city." If you show the army dropping off a super soldier into a war zone without any means for taking down automatic-armed enemies at long range, people are just going to go "WTF," because as far as I know there's not really any way to make such a battle look plausible on screen, unlike Iron Man's suit or Thor's godly powers.

In short, suspension of disbelief is not the same thing as pretending to not notice when something doesn't make any sense. That's the difference between a good movie that's fun to watch, and a "leave your brain at the door" movie. So far Marvel's good movies have all been the former, and their bad ones have been the latter (except for the first Hulk, which was neither stupid nor fun). So which will it be for Cap?


As I said before, I'm all for Captain America using guns--but only when the situation requires it. If he's fighting Nazis in WWII, yeah, he can have a gun and some grenades. If they go the Iron Man route with the Avengers and he's fighting terrorists with machine guns at some point, yeah, he can have a gun. But if he's fighting a single super villain, who doesn't have a gun, I don't want him to pull out a bazooka and start blowing things all to hell just because the 14-25 year boys who play too much Halo think that's the coolest thing in the world.

I just don't want the guys at Marvel to make it seem as if Captain America relies on a gun in the movie. Captain America is special because he's more than a typical soldier, and he can fight just fine without a gun if he has to. The battle with the Hulk in the Ultimates, Vol. 1 is a great example of what I mean: He goes into the battle with a tank, but in the end it's his brains, his shield, and his hand-to-hand combat skills that allow him to win the fight.

And, by the way, I'm not against guns because of the "no killing" rule. I think superheros should avoid killing whenever possible, but when they got to do it, they got to do it.

[Bren]

Honestly, I think you two actually agree...

[afan]

No..........Captain America's weapons are his shield, and his super human abilities....period.

It's his schtick, his gimmick, his identity, it's what makes him unique.

Give Cap a tommy gun, grenades, a bazooka, and you are making him Sgt Rock or Nick Fury, just another GI "joe".

Should Thor use a sword, a spear, a battle axe?

[Turtles]

No..........Captain America's weapons are his shield, and his super human abilities....period.

It's his schtick, his gimmick, his identity, it's what makes him unique.

Give Cap a tommy gun, grenades, a bazooka, and you are making him Sgt Rock or Nick Fury, just another GI "joe".

Should Thor use a sword, a spear, a battle axe?

In a perfect world we'd all just be like: Cap uses the shield. No guns. Period. But, unfortunately, people are caught up in the whole "realistic movie mode" and they want to ignore the fact that the shield has been Cap's only true weapon for decades just because they don't think you can win a battle against men with guns when you only have a bulletproof metal disc and almost, but not quite super, strength. You know what? You probably can't.

I just want to voice my opinion that, if they have to make Cap use guns to add to the movie's realism, then they should definitely keep the gun use to a minimum to better honor the original comics.....or they can just conveniently have somebody with a gun or super powers around to back him up all the time.

Frankly, I love to see Cap use no guns at all, but that probably won't happen.