Civil War Josiah X?

[The Question]

Any love for Josiah X around here? He's my personally my favorite Captain America related character, and I would absolutely love to see him introduced in Captain America 3.

For folks who may not be familiar with him, Josiah X is the son of Isaiah Bradley, an African American soldier who was used as a preliminary test subject for the Super Soldier Formula before it was given to Steve Rodgers. Josiah inherited his father's powers, and was active as a sort of covert and overtly political superhero for much of the mid part of the 20th century, serving as a member of the Nation of Islam, the Black Panther Party, and radical socialist organizations throughout the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s and 1970s. He has all of Captain America's powers, and he also stopped aging somewhere around his early to mid 20s. I'd love to see him introduced as a character foil to Captain America, both as a radical leftist counterpoint for the ostensibly centrist Steve Rodgers, as well as interacting with the guy who was asleep for 75 years as the guy who was right in the thick of every major moment in American history during the 20th century. There's a ton of potential for great character interaction if he's brought into the films.

What do you guys think?

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I don't think they need another black character around CA, considering we just got Falcon and somebody else having part of the Super Soldier Serum in the MCU would be another overused element.

 

[The Question]

I don't think they need another black character around CA,

Two unrelated black characters in a genre film will not make the universe implode.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

He's a great character and I like the Bradley Family and what they brought to the Cap myth in 616 but considering how Erskine was characterized in TFA the whole 'using poc as test subjects' angle doesn't quite work in the MCU.

 

[metaphysician]

The MCU doesn't need to be grimdarked up.

 

[The Question]

He's a great character and I like the Bradley Family and what they brought to the Cap myth in 616 but considering how Erskine was characterized in TFA the whole 'using poc as test subjects' angle doesn't quite work in the MCU.

It may not have been his call. Military R&D have specific protocols. Maybe some higher ups forced the early testing.

Also, maybe Erksine was just a more morally complicated character than he seemed. It happens.

The MCU doesn't need to be grimdarked up.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[SlamAdams]

I think they should definitely include the concept of the Bradley family and the Tuskeegee-esque Super-Soldier experiments. Which Bradley gets a role and how substantial that role is less concern for me. I think their own personal mythos is much greater than any of the characters. I saw suggested that maybe Nick Fury's family could include the Bradleys, which would mirror part of Ultimate Nick Fury's backstory.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

What does that have to do with anything?

I believe it is because Erskine is one of the most moral, compassionate and good characters we've seen so far and to have him being just as bad as Zola would be terrible.

 

[The Question]

I believe it is because Erskine is one of the most moral, compassionate and good characters we've seen so far and to have him being just as bad as Zola would be terrible.

I guess I can see that. I don't know, that just sounds like a good story. Forcing Captain America to question the moral certainty of his world and the things he's dedicated himself to is fascinating.

People (read: total lame-os) often ask how you can make a character as inherently good and morally righteous as Captain America compelling. The answer is that you force him to navigate a world that isn't good or morally righteous. I think Josiah X brings that element to the narrative.

Also, he's just a really cool character who I'd love to see in a Marvel movie some time.

 

[metaphysician]

Its not enough that the Avengers choose to save the world. The world has to be worth saving. So far, the answer has been a very enthusiastic "yes!" Lets keep it that way.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

what I can see is experiments AFTER WWII in the early 50ies as an attempt to recreate the SSS. That way Erskine would be kept out of it

 

[The Question]

Its not enough that the Avengers choose to save the world. The world has to be worth saving. So far, the answer has been a very enthusiastic "yes!" Lets keep it that way.

So the world isn't worth saving if people do bad things sometimes?

That means that the world isn't worth saving at all.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

So the world isn't worth saving if people do bad things sometimes?

That means that the world isn't worth saving at all.

There's bad things and then there's heinous atrocities, though?

Like, a major theme of Cap's narrative is the fall of idealism. Among Cap's 1940s supporting cast, that idealism is represented by Erskine more than anyone.

So to change the backstory so that idealism never existed makes the whole thing moot.

I like the Bradleys and would be open to them in the MCU, but I'm not sure how they would fit into the narrative of the hunt for Bucky. But if you were to introduce them, there's no need to derail Erskine's character.

Simply have the program continue outside the SSR by some other branch of the Army after Erskine's death. That's what happened in the comics anyway.

 

[SlamAdams]

I'm not sure I understand the thinking here. Erskine was a nice guy to a white guy so clearly he can never be a racist even though he lived during a time before the Civil Rights Movement. Not so sure about that. I feel like the reason the Bradleys were introduced in the first place is the same reason why they are being discounted from appearing in the movies.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

I'm not sure I understand the thinking here. Erskine was a nice guy to a white guy so clearly he can never be a racist even though he lived during a time before the Civil Rights Movement. Not so sure about that. I feel like the reason the Bradleys were introduced in the first place is the same reason why they are being discounted from appearing in the movies.

That's not remotely what I said.

The thinking is: Steve is sad because people are a lot more willing to compromise and do dubious things.

If people, even the one who were kind and compassionate, had been doing dubious things all along, then that renders the above point moot. For the theme to make sense, there have to be people aside from Steve who were genuinely good people.

But yes, Erskine is just generally not the kind of guy who would experiment on unwilling minorities.

He wasn't just nice to Steve, he emphasized that he believed that Steve is a good man, and that good men were what was needed. He rejected Nazi values and had to be coerced into working for HYDRA.

Probably not a mad scientist.

 

[SlamAdams]

That's not remotely what I said.

The thinking is: Steve is sad because people are a lot more willing to compromise and do dubious things.

If people, even the one who were kind and compassionate, had been doing dubious things all along, then that renders the above point moot. For the theme to make sense, there have to be people aside from Steve who were genuinely good people.

But yes, Erskine is just generally not the kind of guy who would experiment on unwilling minorities.

He wasn't just nice to Steve, he emphasized that he believed that Steve is a good man, and that good men were what was needed. He rejected Nazi values and had to be coerced into working for HYDRA.

Probably not a mad scientist.

I don't see how this is any different than what I said.

Erskine was too nice of a guy, he couldn't possibly be racist, except tons of people were racist back than, many of them were probably nice people in almost all other facets of their lives. Racism has a lot of faces, not all of them were covered with white hoods. Tuskegee experiments were not done by mad scientists, it was the US Public Health Service.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

I don't see how this is any different than what I said.

Erskine was too nice of a guy, he couldn't possibly be racist, except tons of people were racist back than, many of them were probably nice people in almost all other facets of their lives. Racism has a lot of faces, not all of them were covered with white hoods. Tuskegee experiments were not done by mad scientists, it was the US Public Health Service.

No, you seem to think that I'm saying that, based on Erskine's actions, he can't be racist.

What I'm saying is based on the narrative, he shouldn't be racist.

 

[SlamAdams]

No, you seem to think that I'm saying that, based on Erskine's actions, he can't be racist.

What I'm saying is based on the narrative, he shouldn't be racist.

Yea, because he was nice to Steve that one time, and I am disagreeing

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Okay, three times explaining it is my limit.

 

[SlamAdams]

Okay, three times explaining it is my limit.

You haven't said anything different. Erskine was nice to Steve, said he should be a good man, doesn't like Nazis. How many racists in the 1930s and 40 do you think were nice to people like Steve, had a moral high ground, and hated the Nazis, but still looked down on black people? A lot.

This is the point of the Bradleys in the first place. To show Cap that things haven't gotten worse, they were always bad.

 

[The Question]

There's bad things and then there's heinous atrocities, though?

Heinous atrocities are one of the defining characteristics of history.

That and diseases. Lots and lots of diseases.

Like, a major theme of Cap's narrative is the fall of idealism. Among Cap's 1940s supporting cast, that idealism is represented by Erskine more than anyone.

So to change the backstory so that idealism never existed makes the whole thing moot.

The idealism comes from Steve Rogers himself. Steve is the moral center of his own mythology. Muddling the moral character of Erksine doesn't diminish that in the slightest. All it would do is give Steve another obstacle that he has to deal with to hold on to his idealism. Idealism, in a fictional narrative, isn't rewarding if it comes easy. Steve is at his most compelling if he has to fight for it.

Besides, I don't really think the moral compass of the Captain America mythos hinges on Erksine as much as you imply it does.

I like the Bradleys and would be open to them in the MCU, but I'm not sure how they would fit into the narrative of the hunt for Bucky. But if you were to introduce them, there's no need to derail Erskine's character.

Simply have the program continue outside the SSR by some other branch of the Army after Erskine's death. That's what happened in the comics anyway.

I think that takes away some of the effectiveness. A whole bunch of the impact comes from the fact that Captain America may have come from something unethical. Watching Steve have to deal with that would make for one hell of a story.

 

[falconcrest87]

I am down for Josiah X or one of the Bradleys being in the 3rd movie. I think he should tie in to Bucky and a quest for revenge/finding out who he is. They team up to take down Hydra and rack up a body count that leads Cap and the Falcon right to them. Then you get a kinda funhouse mirror senario between the 4 of them. I even know who should play him: