First Avenger Cap using multiple weapons?

[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.

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.

 

[MadVillainy]

yes he needs to use guns, but he could not like them and decide not to use them in Avengers and onward

 

[TikkiEXX]

it would be completely irresponsible of Cap to NOT carry a gun. at least during the WW2 scenes. you gotta remember he,s not on the battlefield alone. im gonna assume he fight alongside other soldiers. im sure most of you have seen Band of Brothers or war documentaries on the History Channel and one of the big things with soldiers is protecting each other. and even if Cap can protect himself with just a shield what about his squadmates? his friends? if he doesnt kill the Nazis they,ll kill him and his buddies. thats how most soldiers had to look at it and i think its the same thing for Cap.

 

[Obi-Ron]

All I know is, if I see Cap shooting someone I'm leaving the theater and demanding a refund.

 

[Webhead2006]

umm why obi-ron, cap has used guns and other weapons and killed folks before well nazi's and terriorists and super foes like skulls and other creatures.

 

[Obi-Ron]

The only person I've ever seen Cap kill was Baron Blood, a vampire, and then only as a last resort. Guess what he used? Hint: It's round and has a star in the middle.

 

[Obi-Ron]

double

 

[Webhead2006]

I am sure he will use the shield alot in the movie to take out folks. But there is probably going to be times where the shield wouldnt be the ideal weapon to use. So knifes, bombs, and guns could still be used.

 

[Artistsean]

OK, so if they are going the USO rout Cap will probably use other weapons since he isn't exactly sent out and goes more on his own.
But maybe he could figure that they weapons and all that gear weighs him down too much and that he doesn't really need them.

They also mentioned him modifying his USO costume to be more armored. So maybe that could also lean towards him using guns or maybe him not needing guns.

 

[redlion2]

I'd like to see Cap start out with the original shield and a sidearm. On occasion he uses other weapons but at some point the original shield gets damaged and he gets the round, lighter and more indestructable shield and gets rid of the sidearm altogether.

 

[Deaths Head II]

I can imagine Johnston doing it like the Rocketeer if they give Cap a gun. The Rocketeer got a gun, didn't seem comfortable with it, and lost it before he got a chance to use it.

 

[Webhead2006]

that is a good way to handle it. But since he will be fighting in ww2 he has to at least use a few different weapons. Then we see why he doesnt like to use them and perfer to use the shield and his fists.

 

[The Lizard]

I think this might be the beginning of Marvel's way of preparing Cap fans to see him using guns in the upcoming movie...

IMO, he should definitely use guns during the WWII parts.

 

[bert19]

With any luck, i think we'll see him using quite alot of firepower early on, but as the movies go on, he'll evolve as a persona and a soldier enough that he'll end up mainly using the shield and just battering the bad guys with hands, feet, head etc

Or, we could see a skit where he tries to use his triangular shield as a means of attack and goes back to the Army/Stark/whoever and asks for something with a bit more of a punch.

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Cap was created to be a soldier, and soldiers use guns. If he doesn't use guns, then it would take me out of the movie. Now, of course the guns would be used in war only, anywhere else, he's a shield-only guy.