Infinity War Captain America|Steve Rogers - Chris Evans

[BullMcGiveny]

In all Avengers movies, every Avenger has a role in the final battle (pre-CW, this would be Sokovia and NY). In CW, everyone else is in jail and has no bearing on the final outcome of the film's climax. Because it is not an Avengers movie.

Consider the following

No you cannot because the entire plot runs through Captain America. TWS is based on a man hunt for who? CAPTAIN AMERICA!!!! There is no movie without him.

Careful, you're starting to sound like TWS is Cap's movie because you insist it does.

CW is based on a split between who? THE AVENGERS!!!! There is no movie without them.

Whatever standards you got, be consistent to them. Don't pick when to apply them.

Using similar arguments to the one you used for TWS - villain has no real connection to hero

Red Skull doesn't have a connection to anyone else, either.

plot would proceed the same way without hero (creation of super soldier AND Red Skull's plan), random characters can be used to fulfill his role, etc.

Those are actually Spider-Fan's arguments, so maybe engage him.

Anyway, the movie goes to lengths to underline the supersoldier program requires a candidate with attributes beyond the physical, ie Steve Rogers. Elsewise, you might end up with the likes of Blonsky, or Schmidt.

If some other random person was given the serum, they might have ended up a markedly different super soldier. And that would result in a very different story.

If you swapped Steve Rogers for someone else in TWS, the fight scenes would be different. That is all.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Civil War definitely wasn't a Captain America movie because Sharon didn't shoot and kill Steve. How dare the Russos deny her her place in Steve's life like that? We'll just have to hold out hope that she gets to snipe him in the inevitable reboot, if she survived The Snapture, that is.

Actually, she shot him point-blank.

Hopefully, we also see Tony dump Steve's carcass is the arctic after he dies, too.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Fun fact; Steve's screentime has gone down with each movie in "his trilogy".

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Red Skull has a better connection to Erskine.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Those are actually Spider-Fan's arguments, so maybe engage him.

Anyway, the movie goes to lengths to underline the supersoldier program requires a candidate with attributes beyond the physical, ie Steve Rogers. Elsewise, you might end up with the likes of Blonsky, or Schmidt.

If some other random person was given the serum, they might have ended up a markedly different super soldier. And that would result in a very different story.

If you swapped Steve Rogers for someone else in TWS, the fight scenes would be different. That is all.

That's untrue and you know it.

I know you have grievances against the film but don't diminish all it's value just to make a point about Steve not being needed in it.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Consider the following



Careful, you're starting to sound like TWS is Cap's movie because you insist it does.

CW is based on a split between who? THE AVENGERS!!!! There is no movie without them.

Whatever standards you got, be consistent to them. Don't pick when to apply them.

I am not changing how they apply. The entire plot in TWS runs through Captain America. If you remove him from the plot, it cannot exist. You're the one trying to say I am changing my argument, but I am not. TWS is a Captain America film. He is the main character. The film's entire plot runs through him once he is on the run from SHIELD. If you take him out, the movie is completely different or doesn't exist. It's more than just a couple action beats are different. Without Cap, no one takes down SHIELD (that was his idea), Bucky never turns good, Widow and Falcon likely wouldn't be able to stop the insight helicarriers, etc. The movie is also about HIS struggle and the themes of the movie run through HIM. Fury even says "Looks like you're giving the orders now Captain." He's handing off control of everything to who? Captain America! It's a payoff for his thematic struggle. Films have arcs and deeper meanings. TWS is all about Cap both literally (it is a chase movie to capture HIM) and thematically (as is CW). If you're going to try and use my argument against me, please understand it first.

As for the Civil War point, if it was about the Avengers, why are none of the others in the finale? Because it is not actually about the Avengers. At this point, we're arguing in circles on this.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Fun fact; Steve's screentime has gone down with each movie in "his trilogy".

Really? IMDB states otherwise. What are your sources?

Edit: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls066620113/

I actually found some of these shocking. Poor Thor.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Also the irony of stating that you can't swap Steve with any one else in TFA because the "end result would be different." If literally anyone could defeat TWS and Insight Helicarriers (which is just wrong) how does this not extend to literally any other "good" person like say Peggy Carter being given the SSS and defeating the Red Skull herself?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Also the irony of stating that you can't swap Steve with any one else in TFA because the "end result would be different." If literally anyone could defeat TWS and Insight Helicarriers (which is just wrong) how does this not extend to literally any other "good" person like say Peggy Carter being given the SSS and defeating the Red Skull herself?

I can understand people thinking CW is an Avengers, which is why I initially engaged this debate as to outline why CW is actually a Captain America film and showing evidence within the movie to support that I am correct by breaking the movie down from a narrative standpoint. That is a debate I understand having. But for TWS, I don't understand the confusion there. I just kind of thought that was obvious.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

It is. Based on the incorrect information about screentime, I'm inclined to believe that they will peddle anything to justify their grievances with Cap's use in the MCU.

Also, Cap got more screentime in CW than Thor did in TDW. I know that's due to the short length of the latter but that does beg the question, why wasn't the film longer?

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Red Skull has a better connection to Erskine.

Not really. There is no discernible sense of any substantial connection between them.

Neither Erskine or Schmidt are shown to have any strong feelings about the other. Red Skull has Erskine killed, but it is just business.

Compare Pierce and Fury, who we see as close friends with history, and later confront each other over betrayal.

I am not changing how they apply. The entire plot in TWS runs through Captain America.

He's the viewpoint character, like Max in Fury Road.

Without Cap, no one takes down SHIELD (that was his idea)

There is no way SHIELD would survive, anyway.

Let's say no one releases the files. The population of DC still saw the battle, questions would be asked. The WSC, representatives of several world governments, would either mysteriously die, or learn about HYDRA and report back to their nations, and they weren't fans of SHIELD to begin with.

Bucky never turns good

As I already said, you don't need any of Captain America characters. That includes Bucky. Swap him for Taskmaster or any other henchman you like.

Widow and Falcon likely wouldn't be able to stop the insight helicarriers, etc.

Again, you don't need Falcon. And yeah, they could.

That's the magic of screenwriting. You can make characters do whatever you want.

You can make entire battalions of shock troops and HYDRA spec ops fail to score so much as a flesh wound on Cap, even though his shield doesn't cover his entire body. You can make BW, a squishy human get backhanded by the hulk and walk it off.

As for the Civil War point, if it was about the Avengers, why are none of the others in the finale? Because it is not actually about the Avengers. At this point, we're arguing in circles on this.

Why does that matter?

They took part in the climactic sequence of the movie, ie the airport fight.

In past Avengers movies the final battle and the climactic battle was the same thing, but not in CW.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

That's the magic of screenwriting. You can make characters do whatever you want.

You can make entire battalions of shock troops and HYDRA spec ops fail to score so much as a flesh wound on Cap, even though his shield doesn't cover his entire body. You can make BW, a squishy human get backhanded by the hulk and walk it off.

Then BY YOUR OWN LOGIC you don't need Cap in TFA.

You can have Peggy get the SSS and defeat Schmidt on her own. The underdog story would work with her.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Again, that's Spider-Fan's logic. Take it up with him.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Really? IMDB states otherwise. What are your sources?

A stopwatch.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Wow.

 

[Spider-Fan]

He's the viewpoint character, like Max in Fury Road.

If he is not the main character in TWS, then who is? I am dying to hear this. Please provide me a detailed explanation supporting your thesis.

There is no way SHIELD would survive, anyway.

Let's say no one releases the files. The population of DC still saw the battle, questions would be asked. The WSC, representatives of several world governments, would either mysteriously die, or learn about HYDRA and report back to their nations, and they weren't fans of SHIELD to begin with.



As I already said, you don't need any of Captain America characters. That includes Bucky. Swap him for Taskmaster or any other henchman you like.



Again, you don't need Falcon. And yeah, they could.

That's the magic of screenwriting. You can make characters do whatever you want.

You can make entire battalions of shock troops and HYDRA spec ops fail to score so much as a flesh wound on Cap, even though his shield doesn't cover his entire body. You can make BW, a squishy human get backhanded by the hulk and walk it off.

Stories have meaning. What you can and cannot do in a screenplay is not relevant. TWS and CW exist as film's and their screenplays exist in their current form. The fact you can make Captain America destroy Hydra by himself is irrelevant. I am talking about story contributions and breaking down the existing story. This is not what you're doing. You're attempting to make a strawman argument based on things the writers didn't do. I am pointing out voids left in the plot if Cap was not present in that existing role that the writers and directors put him in. Cap had those roles in the film because these were HIS films.

Why does that matter?

They took part in the climactic sequence of the movie, ie the airport fight.

In past Avengers movies the final battle and the climactic battle was the same thing, but not in CW.

It matters because a film builds to something. It's called a climax. It's the height of the film's suspense and is when the plot culminates. This is when the main characters are tested and their arcs have the final payoff before the resolution. The Avengers are not present in the climax. Why? Because it is not their story. If it was, their arcs would be relevant to the film's conclusion, but they're not. The film is effectively about Cap vs Iron Man, with Iron Man serving the antagonist role. So the climax is a battle between them. The state of the Avengers is an effect of their ideological difference, but the film is not at its core about that. It's a film about dealing with the consequences of your failures and actions.

You're also making a misconception here with the airport fight. That is not the climax. The ending fight between Cap/Bucky and Iron Man is. That is the point of no return, the end of their friendship, the moment when the failures of the Avengers and their past sins come full circle. The airport fight has many characters in it, but Cap and Tony could have settled their differences still. Zemo's plan was to see the Avengers fall from within and stay dead. His plan culminates when he shows Tony what happened to his parents. The airport fight was a stepping stone.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Again, that's Spider-Fan's logic. Take it up with him.

100% not my logic. But please keep going with your strawman argument. It's at least entertaining

 

[BullMcGiveny]

I admit, I did get caught up trying to use Spider-Fan's logic against them.

You may judge it differently, from a screenwriter's perspective, importance to the plot/narrative is how I view it. You have to examine the nuts and bolts of the film's structure.

Those are actually Spider-Fan's arguments, so maybe engage him.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

The airport fight was pure spectacle. It was just a fun thing for the audience to watch but the purpose was Steve and Bucky needed to get to the quinjet that would drive them TO the climax of the film. In fact the airport fight on it's own would be a hell of an underwhelming climax given the lack of stakes (pre-Rhodey). But Tony was pretty damn forgiving even then.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The airport fight was pure spectacle. It was just a fun thing for the audience to watch but the purpose was Steve and Bucky needed to get to the quinjet that would drive them TO the climax of the film. In fact the airport fight on it's own would be a hell of an underwhelming climax given the lack of stakes (pre-Rhodey).

Someone else who gets it!

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Again, that's Spider-Fan's logic. Take it up with him.

No I was targeting the arguments you were making. SF's logic is fine, but you started making your own interpretations on what "driving the plot" entailed and tried to use it against TWS.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

100% not my logic. But please keep going with your strawman argument. It's at least entertaining

Oh, I'm sorry, aren't these your posts? Where you start the talk about removing characters?

CW as a film cannot exist without Captain America. But if you removed Iron Man and others, the plot could easily still exist with other faces as the new pawns of the gov't

Without the Avengers, Cap simply would have been on the run from another opposing force that Ross would have made to enforce the Accords. The face of that regime could have been headed by anybody

In what way isn't (The one you can't remove is the main character, the ones you can aren't) not your logic?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Oh, I'm sorry, aren't these your posts? Where you start the talk about removing characters?

Once again, I am highlighting story contributions and showing what character X actually contributes to the plot. I am not rewriting the entire movie, I am filling holes. What you're attempting to do is misrepresent my point by saying the writers could have had done (like making Cap stand up to Hydra himself and win). You're not using the actual story or actual contributions of characters to the story in any logical way. That's the difference. I am not talking about removing characters for the sake of removing characters, I am breaking down for you how significant they are to the narrative. What they physically and thematically contribute to the story. What would be missing if they were not there. In other words, how IMPORTANT they are. So again, you're either missing my point entirely or just are attempting to craft a strawman argument. Either way, my points still stand.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

What you're attempting to do is misrepresent my point by saying the writers could have had done (like making Cap stand up to Hydra himself and win)

Pretty bold of you to cry 'strawman' when I said that never.

Here's my problem with your rationale. Steve to you is the main character because he does important things. But he isn't the only one, and those important things don't happen in a vacuum. Steve saves the Lumerian crew, but saving the Lumerian crew is just a distraction for BW getting the algorithm. For both to happen, Fury needs to become suspicious and hire Batroc to raid the ship.

Steve can't take down the hellicariers without Fury supplying the override chips. He can't confront Zola without BW finding out where the algorithm came from.

Steve decides SHIELD must go down, but BW is the one to do it.

Despite Cap's actions depending on those of others, the action of others are much less important, somehow.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Pretty bold of you to cry 'strawman' when I said that never.

Here's my problem with your rationale. Steve to you is the main character because he does important things. But he isn't the only one, and those important things don't happen in a vacuum. Steve saves the Lumerian crew, but saving the Lumerian crew is just a distraction for BW is getting the algorithm. For both to happen, Fury needs to become suspicious and hire Batroc to raid the ship.

Steve can't take down the hellicariers without Fury supplying the override chips. He can't confront Zola without BW finding out where the algorithm came from.

It's an ouroboros.

Yeah, side characters have a role in the story too. But the roles of all the people you listed all serve Cap's larger narrative. What is the goal of the bad guys? To get the plans. Who has the plans? Captain America. Fury's role is to get the plans in Cap's hands and spurn him into action. Fury is not a main role. The movie itself is not even about the Lumerian Star plans. It's about unraveling the conspiracy and taking down Hydra. Fury even defects to Cap. Fury wanted to salvage SHIELD. Steve is the one who said bury it. It's about Cap looking at the world around him and assuming his role in changing what is wrong with it. It's his film. Just because Widow, Fury, etc have some important beats in the movie doesn't mean it is not a Captain America film. Once again like I asked you before, if it is not his film, then who's is it? Please break it down for me in detail.

In CW, the question of the Avengers' survival as a unit is what drives the movie.

Their blunder motivated the villain. Their following blunder got the accords passed. A civil war is a conflict among a previously unified group.

But no. According to you, it is an easy thing to have another group oppose Cap, and to have Steve abandon the Captain America identity. You can maintain all the story beats, including fracturing the Avengers, without the Avengers. The Avengers are there for marketing.

I am saying the Avengers contribute less to the film than Captain America himself. Which they do. It is not their movie. If it was an Avengers movie, then they would have had an important role in the actual climax of the film. But they do not. They're written out of the film before the climax so the film's actual core struggle can take place between Cap and Tony. You're equating just having the physical presence of the Avengers in a movie to it being their film, and what I am saying is that is not how a film works. It's not about physically being in the movie, it is about what your role in the movie is. Most of the Avengers in the film are side characters with dialogue made to establish why they're on team X. But they have no real arcs largely. They are there to add spectacle and to support the arcs of Cap and Tony. So is it any coincidence the culminates in a fight between those 2 (with Bucky added for tension)? No. The point you keep coming back to on character replacement is to illustrate the point it is Cap's story and everyone else has a role that serves him. That is why this is not an Avengers movie and it is a Cap one. Avengers films are designed so everyone is more or less of equal importance (though even there it varies...but it has no 1 central main character is the point).