MCU: The Marvel Cinematic Universe Official Discussion - Part 2

[Batmannerism]

No they weren't. SHIELD was NOT a secret organization. They had a massive HQ building in the middle of Washington DC. On AOS, they slap their logo on everything, vehicles, equipment, coffee mugs, everything. They were NOT secret, anymore than the CIA is secret. Everyone knows that they exist and has a genera idea of what they do, it's just specifics that are secret. Hell their leader (Pierce) was offered the freaking Noble Peace Prize for goodness' sake.

And considering that SHIELD was willing to hire ex-Nazi's after WWII (BTW, the CIA and MI6 did the same thing in real life, Project Paperclip was a real thing). And they're willing to not only hire former terrorists/assassins/murderers like Black Widow, but give them high-ranking positions, yes I can buy them being infiltrated and corrupted. It's not the HYDRA people advertised the fact that they were HYDRA. They were sleeper agents pretending to be normal SHIELD agents. Oh and SHIELD has been taken over by villains in the comics before as well, so there's that as well.

Just to clarify I said "intensely secret" , maybe I should have used the word clandestine - because I agree with you that the CIA are certainly not secret, but what they're up to is very secret. I'm not suggesting that nobody knows about the existence of Shield (although clearly a lot of folks, probably Congress and the Senate included probably don't know what they're up to, otherwise the Helicarrier project wouldnt' have got off the ground).

I'm not sure if I buy the assertion that everyone knows they exist, mostly because Coulson had to cameo in a bunch of movies introducing Shield to other Marvel characters who hadn't heard of them - but that's besides the point.

I think your point that Shield was

willing to not only hire former terrorists/assassins/murderers like Black Widow, but give them high-ranking positions,

is spot on, (and yes, Project Paperclip is why America won the "space race") which is why they didn't need to be
secretly taken over by HYDRA, in order for Cap to work out that they're not the sort of people he should be working for.

That Hydra could infiltrate Shield (and by that I mean slip a few agents under the radar) , I don't have a problem with in general - I think what I have trouble accepting was the level of infiltration, it was like there wasn't really a Shield at all, instead Shield was the name that Hydra gave to its shell corporation - that's the impression I'm left with.

Again, my real point is that having traitors within Shield is fine, but that doesn't need to be the reason for Cap to do some soul searching - Shield's operations are questionable enough on their own for Cap (if he really believes in what he's marketed as believing in) to do some serious thinking about his role - without it turning out that Hydra have really been running the show all along.

I just find it unnecessary, and it would have been neat to see Cap either walk away on his own terms, or choose to compromise rather than have that choice made for him by the fact that Shield really seems to be just Hydra in disguise.

As for Shield being taken over by villains, yes that does happen in the comics, but I guess it also happens in real life too to the CIA, usually after an election. But that's not take-over by stealth, just a change of command.

To me, that's still a cop out. If it works for you, great.

 

[Lilbaz]

We should be able to go GENERATIONS without a reboot. The companies should all know by now that billions of dollars can be made on these properties, so make long term plans for them. Even back in the day, it is stunning that Sony didn't have Spider-Man 1-10 mapped out in their heads. Sure, they'd have to change actors...but I think that people understand that actors get a year older every year just like they do.

Agree. There is no way I'd pay to see another Spiderman origin story.

 

[Mike Murdock]

I think origin stories are important to the development of a character. What I don't like is this recent habit of rebooting a franchise and redoing the origin every ten years.

The only caveat is that a lot of characters have been established for a long time. An origin story often forces everyone to condense the timeline.

Daredevil, for example, was blinded when he was much younger than when he became a hero. You don't want to merge all that together to fit in an origin story except through flashback.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Just to clarify I said "intensely secret" , maybe I should have used the word clandestine - because I agree with you that the CIA are certainly not secret, but what they're up to is very secret. I'm not suggesting that nobody knows about the existence of Shield (although clearly a lot of folks, probably Congress and the Senate included probably don't know what they're up to, otherwise the Helicarrier project wouldnt' have got off the ground).

I'm not sure if I buy the assertion that everyone knows they exist, mostly because Coulson had to cameo in a bunch of movies introducing Shield to other Marvel characters who hadn't heard of them - but that's besides the point.

I think your point that Shield was is spot on, (and yes, Project Paperclip is why America won the "space race") which is why they didn't need to be
secretly taken over by HYDRA, in order for Cap to work out that they're not the sort of people he should be working for.

That Hydra could infiltrate Shield (and by that I mean slip a few agents under the radar) , I don't have a problem with in general - I think what I have trouble accepting was the level of infiltration, it was like there wasn't really a Shield at all, instead Shield was the name that Hydra gave to its shell corporation - that's the impression I'm left with.

Again, my real point is that having traitors within Shield is fine, but that doesn't need to be the reason for Cap to do some soul searching - Shield's operations are questionable enough on their own for Cap (if he really believes in what he's marketed as believing in) to do some serious thinking about his role - without it turning out that Hydra have really been running the show all along.

I just find it unnecessary, and it would have been neat to see Cap either walk away on his own terms, or choose to compromise rather than have that choice made for him by the fact that Shield really seems to be just Hydra in disguise.

As for Shield being taken over by villains, yes that does happen in the comics, but I guess it also happens in real life too to the CIA, usually after an election. But that's not take-over by stealth, just a change of command.

To me, that's still a cop out. If it works for you, great.

I think it was probably a pretty even split between SHIELD and Hydra loyalists (maybe even less on Hydra's side). With many SHIELD agents being tricked into doing Hydra's dirty work due to "compartmentalization" (i.e. hunting Cap, erecting project Insight, etc.).

What I love about the move is that without the plot of Winter Soldier, we are left with a MCU without Hydra at all. I mean, their head (Red Skull) was cut off and then none grew in its place. But nay! SHIELD grew in its place. And they did their part at trying to control the world from the shadows. Taking the heat for being the thing that we all hate about SHIELD so Fury and Hill can keep being heroes.

 

[Batmannerism]

I don't even know where to begin the responses. I kinda disagree with everyone here, to varying degrees. But I'll try to keep it short.

First, the idea that Cap represents the values of 1941 is false. That may be true for Ultimate Captain America, but 616/MCU Cap is everything America *should* stand for. He is the embodiment of the best values America has to offer even when they're not put into the best practice, despite coming from a time when racism, misogyny and propaganda were very common. There were plenty of ***holes in both 1941 and 2014. The First Avenger demonstrated that perfectly, especially with the grenade scene. Cap wouldn't agree with the prejudice going on today, nor would he be fine with the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII.

Second, regarding Cap's character arc in TWS...it's not about deciding between being a government stooge and thinking for himself. That's always been a part of his character, and he's been questioning SHIELD since the events of Avengers where his character arc was all about realizing there is still a need for his existence in the modern world. TWS takes that character arc and progresses it to the next level. It's about Cap learning where he belongs in the modern world, how to adapt to it without losing his core principles, and ultimately making the decision no one else could make (or were too hesitant to make). Several characters throughout the film tell him to give in to the new world and start anew, from Peggy to Fury to Pierce. "Sometimes to build a better world, you have to tear the old one down." That's what HYDRA believes and is their justification for their actions. He then takes that advice and spins it on its head by deciding to abolish SHIELD and HYDRA altogether, because they're two sides of the same coin. I'm sorry if you expected a more radical change in Cap's character, but Cap is more of a character who changes the world around him than himself. He has that in common with Batman. They both refuse to let anything change them as people or to compromise their worldview.

Which brings me to my third point...a character doesn't have to drastically change in order to be developed or three-dimensional, they just have to be given an opportunity for change. Whether or not they take that opportunity is what informs their character, and that's the basis of a character study. TWS is a great character study for Steve Rogers in that regard, because it's a fantastic love letter to everything the character embodies, what he really represents and how he refuses to let anything or anyone change him for the worse. If you ever thought Cap was a propaganda character, TWS is the film to prove you wrong. I believe that's what the Russo's set out to do.

Fourth, the idea that having HYDRA as the villains in TWS is a copout and takes away from the social commentary, because it's about *who* pushes the buttons as opposed to the buttons being pushed. I've heard that criticism before, and I don't think it a valid one. The message is that the world's become very grey-shaded, and the "good guys" here to protect and serve are in no way different from the stereotypical bad guys when you get deep down into it. It's why Steve decided both HYDRA and SHIELD needed to go down, because they were two sides of the same coin. Even the "good" agents like Fury have still been conditioned to adapt HYDRA's philosophy and point guns at the whole world. If anything, it's a rather controversial point to argue that a modern government institution can be the equivalent of the Nazi's.

Also, the KGB analogy doesn't really apply. They made it clear HYDRA infiltrated SHIELD right at its inception, and it's also commentary on how the Allies recruited former Nazi scientists after the war.

Fifth, the idea that Batman has no character arc in TDK...not true. The film is about him learning that Batman is who he is and there is no escape from it. "I've seen what I have to become to stop men like him", and in the end, he becomes that. The film is also a character study of what separates Batman from other vigilantes/the police/DA/ordinary citizens, as well as a study of the Batman/Joker dynamic. That's as far as I'll go into it, since this is the MCU thread.

While I still disagree with you on most of that (except the TDK part, but again, not a DC thread), I like that you prefaced your thoughts with " I disagree..." because too often people start posts as if they're statements of fact -which very few of them are- and the discussion around Cap is pretty much all opinion.

There's a lot of great points in what you say, of course I still don't agree with you - particularly your comparison between Batman and Cap, and the ultimate reason Cap is forced into action and to what degree he needs to change, or even undergo some self-analysis- but I think that this particular discussion may have run its course. Anyway, I commend you for the depth of your thoughts on the subject and the persusasive, but unconfrontational approach you have taken in expressing them.

On my first viewing of TWS, very little of Cap's decision making process that you described was evident (although that was perhaps because I was distracted by the explosions and the impressive ass-kickings) if I see it again, I'll keep what you said in mind - who knows, some of it might be there after all ? In which case it's a better movie than I gave it credit for (and I've already said it was good, although I don't think it is for Cap, what TDK was for Batman). Cheers.

 

[Roose Bolton]

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature...ow-many-upcoming-marvel-movies-hell-take-part

Hmmm.

 

[zeroapoc]

So with the first female led movie in the works, it reminds me of a question I've never heard an answer to.

Who owns the Spider-Woman rights? I mean yeah it's "Spider" so some people assume Sony. But she's always had more to do with the Avengers than anything.

 

[michael1975]

G'day,

Not sure about that. Feige has said no more origin movies but they still need to explain her origin story. I expect that to happen in Infinity War Part 1. We may see pre Captain Marvel Carol Danvers even earlier.

Also the Inhumans are clearly being introduced in Agents of SHIELD.

ta

Ralph

That is not what he said. Lot people are confusing what he said. What he said is that they are going to back away from Solo origin films for the time being. Which makes sense when you think about it. They have covered the heavy hitters in the Marvel Universe.

Now what there going to do is introduce other characters and tell their origins through films like Avengers films or Guardians of the Galaxy. Characters like Ironman, Captain America, Hulk, Thor these characters will slip in to the shadows for a while. Other characters will be introduced in films like Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy. Then from there they will decided if some of those characters would make good solo movies.

Then they will eventually return to characters like Ironman, Captain America, Hulk, Thor. However it won't be reboots. They will just recast a new actor to carry on the legacy.

Marvel is basically taking Marvel Universe and figuring out how to make it like comic book. Not every Marvel character has his or her own title. Some get one shots some just appear here and there in various titles.

What Disney should do is sink as much money as they can and retain the rights to all there other characters. They need to bring X-Men, Spiderman and any other characters back in to the fold. If they do this it will open them up to so many more possibilities. However that isn't the case at the moment.

 

[cherokeesam]

No they weren't. SHIELD was NOT a secret organization.

In IM1, neither Tony Stark nor Pepper Potts nor hardly anyone with the company knew who SHIELD was. And that's pretty ironic, considering that Tony's own father *founded* the damn agency, more than sixty years prior.

 

[Iceman]

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature...ow-many-upcoming-marvel-movies-hell-take-part

Hmmm.

Hope we get him for a good while and Marvel surely have to sit down with some of these non-RDJ guys soon.

So with the first female led movie in the works, it reminds me of a question I've never heard an answer to.

Who owns the Spider-Woman rights? I mean yeah it's "Spider" so some people assume Sony. But she's always had more to do with the Avengers than anything.

Got to be Marvel.

 

[eddy]

I'm not sure if I buy the assertion that everyone knows they exist, mostly because Coulson had to cameo in a bunch of movies introducing Shield to other Marvel characters who hadn't heard of them - but that's besides the point.

I wanted to focus on this specifically. If I'm not mistaken, the idea (from AOS) is supposed to be that SHIELD came out of the shadows post-battle of NY. Like they existed and some people knew they existed but they weren't really on everyone's radar until that big event. Its probably like seal team six was a active black ops team but most people didn't know about them until the bin laden raid made headlines.

 

[Lilbaz]

Hope we get him for a good while and Marvel surely have to sit down with some of these non-RDJ guys soon.

Got to be Marvel.

Wouldn't be too sure. Sony bought all the Spider related characters. They wouldn't have wanted Marvel doing a Spiderwoman film. Even if the story is unrelated to Spiderman the brand name would be too similar.

 

[Shikamaru]

In IM1, neither Tony Stark nor Pepper Potts nor hardly anyone with the company knew who SHIELD was. And that's pretty ironic, considering that Tony's own father *founded* the damn agency, more than sixty years prior.

It's a bit of a plot hole. In IM1, SHIELD was clearly supposed to be a newly formed organization because "super" things have started to pop up in the world, hence Coulson's constant references to them still working on the name. Then starting with IM2 and going forward, SHIELD's been found after the war and has been present ever since.

 

[BatsDC]

It's a bit of a plot hole. In IM1, SHIELD was clearly supposed to be a newly formed organization because "super" things have started to pop up in the world, hence Coulson's constant references to them still working on the name. Then starting with IM2 and going forward, SHIELD's been found after the war and has been present ever since.

I prefer to think nobody told Coulson it was just simply 'SHIELD' and left him saying the full name until he worked it out himself

 

[Shikamaru]

I prefer to think nobody told Coulson it was just simply 'SHIELD' and left him saying the full name until he worked it out himself

Why wouldn't he know? Fury recruited him right out of high school.

Plus he clearly says "We are trying to come up with a name" in IM1.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

Maybe they just changed the name around IM1. Before, it was the SSR.

 

[Shikamaru]

Nope. We know they've been SHIELD for quite a while. I think Howard even calls it SHIELD (or has it written down in the Agent Carter one-shot.

 

[Matt Mortem]

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature...ow-many-upcoming-marvel-movies-hell-take-part

Hmmm.

All I really truly want out of the MCU Hulk right now is a brawl between him and Thanos.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I want this.

 

[Fincher]

Maybe Coulson was simply lying in Iron Man 1. If they weren't yet sure whether Pepper or Stark could be trusted, they might have wanted to offer as little information as possible.

 

[Mike Murdock]

The way to offer less information is to fully explain your acronym?

 

[PunyGod]

Maybe Coulson was simply lying in Iron Man 1. If they weren't yet sure whether Pepper or Stark could be trusted, they might have wanted to offer as little information as possible.

You can twist yourself into pretzels trying to give an in-universe explanation for these things but in our world its a flub pure and simple. And its not the only one. But you can't be too harsh on them because the MCU was merely a twinkle in Kevin Feige's eye (or Avi Arad's ) at that point so all this backstory was not fleshed out.

 

[Mike Murdock]

It's not quite a flub so much as a retcon. Basically, they hadn't fully come up with everything yet. Later, after Captain America (or, more specifically, the Agent Carter One Shot) they decided they liked something better and went with it. Can't fault them for going with something they think is better.

 

[sabetoonth]

Huffington post is reliable right? I don't know about their sources but someone linked me this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/02/loki-thor-3-avengers-infinity-war_n_6090336.html

 

[Fincher]

The way to offer less information is to fully explain your acronym?

Well, it could be an easy way of dodging questions like, "Why haven't I ever heard of you guys?" or "Why isn't this being investigated by Homeland Security/whoever?" It makes them seem less secretive, and that combined with them supposedly having no past to speak of lowers the chances of people trying to dig up information about them.

You can twist yourself into pretzels trying to give an in-universe explanation for these things but in our world its a flub pure and simple. And its not the only one. But you can't be too harsh on them because the MCU was merely a twinkle in Kevin Feige's eye (or Avi Arad's ) at that point so all this backstory was not fleshed out.

Yeah, I imagine it is because they changed their minds between Iron Man 1 and 2. It's just not as glaring of a plot hole as, say, Pepper saying something that isn't true because S.H.I.E.L.D. is in the business of lying.