View Single Post
Old 11-23-2012, 08:06 PM   #278
Professor of Power
DrCosmic's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 8,649
Default Re: Who would you let Joss Whedon kill in Avengers 2?

Originally Posted by xeno000 View Post
How is it military protocol to question an emergency evacuation order? In a crisis situation like that, protocol requires that all hands pitch in and do their duty to facilitate the evacuation, rather than delaying the commanding officer with useless objections.

Fury's decisions weren't "faith-based" at all. He was moving personnel out of a facility that was in imminent danger of implosion, had a team working to avert said implosion and also had the presence of mind to order the removal of important materiel. All of those were very practical actions dictated by the circumstances they were facing. The entire operation was very orderly, if rushed. In ordering Hill to see to the Phase Two prototypes, Fury was ensuring that a project the WSC valued more than the Avengers wasn't destroyed with that base. Had he failed to secure the prototypes, it's a pretty sure bet that his superiors on the Council would have attacked him for it, fed the details by Hill, who was reporting on Fury's every alleged lapse in judgement.

Fury did not agree with Hill's point about the tesseract or anything else, he merely did what he would have done had she not said anything. He was marching down into the bowels of the facility, where the cube was being held, even as she followed along talking to him. Fury sent Hill off to where she could be put to use caring for the Council's toys and went to check on Selvig as he had intended.

When I referred to Hill undermining Fury, I meant far more than her wanting to await the tesseract's implosion with her thumb up her ass. In the deleted scenes, which I consider canon, it was made very clear that Hill was giving the Council negative reports on Fury and SHIELD, with special emphasis on the "freaks" he was assembling. The Council was after Fury's job and Hill was more than happy to give them ammunition to use against him. In one of the scenes she had told them that Hawkeye was compromised, making sure to emphasize that he was an assassin. A member of the council pointed out that Hill had been giving them negative reports on Fury for some time before the events of the film. It turned out that Fury had been right about everything all along, of course.
Military orders involve evacuating to a safe distance. Apparently Fury just picked a random number, in faith that it would work, and Hill called him on it, and said the tesseract should be the focus. Fury, as we would soon see, was on his way to focus on the tesseract. That's called agreement: regardless of who thought of it first, they had the same plan of action in mind. Your bias is causing you to block out that dialogue and imagine an inactive plan of action that Hill never suggested. Your word choice shows your bias even more sharply.

You seem to favor Fury's stance, making "sure bets" not only with no info, but that conflict with known information (Fury cussed out the WSC and defied them directly, losing Phase II in an emergency evac doesn't even chart). It worked out for him though but if you thought it worked out "of course" then we simply watched different films and can end our discussion here. I think you're confusing everything working out in Fury's favor with his point of view making any sense at the time. Avengers was a miracle, and you're trying to make Hill out to be a villain or unintelligent for not betting on them from the start. Perhaps if she knew she was in a movie where the good guys always win, I could understand that.

Fury followed his beliefs over military protocol and any other moral responsibility. Any responsible XO would have reported him.

X-Men TV Show Ideas
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."

Last edited by DrCosmic; 11-23-2012 at 08:14 PM.
DrCosmic is offline   Reply With Quote