The Winter Soldier What you didn't like about Captain America: TWS - Flaws/Critiques

Did you see it in 3d? I didn't the first time but when I saw it in 3d last night it really took me by surprise as I didn't remember it being so shaky.

3D both times. If it helps my idea of bad shakey cam is Bourne, Cloverfield and Battle: Los Angeles.

I thought Cap 2 had just enough shake to get the live-action feel across, but not enough that it was distracting.

Mileage may vary tho.
 
I'd say there was a couple shots in the boat sequence that were too shaky. Especially in 3D, that part where he thanks Rumlow for shooting that guy was bad. In 2D it is not nearly as pronounced.
 
Looking at his post history he seems to be primarily a DC fan who only visits Marvel threads to crap in them. Unsurprising.

Sorry, but you're mistaken. TDKT has many flaws too (specially TDKR), it seems you missed those posts. ;)

But I think most of us would at least agree that Cap 2 is a better film than Thor 2.
 
Stupid question, but when exactly did Hydra get the chance to "just shoot Fury in the head"? During the initial pursuit scene, they never actually got a clear shot at him at all, what with him being inside his van-slash-tank. When he actually got shot, it was by a sniper from a distance. Neither situation exactly allows a trivial headshot.
 
Facts muddy the waters when there is a rant going on, so they are usually ignored.
 
Nukes were not developed in other countries easily or overnight. Also there was espionage involved in the USSR's nuclear program.(they were the 2nd to get the bomb)

See, this is why you need to get your history from fact rather than fiction. There wasn't espionage involved in the Soviet Union's developing nukes. They had their own process which differed from the US. And- They detonated a deliverable nuclear weapon before the US.

Once again Stark having done it does not prove anything in regards to Shield.

And whatever Stark is using is far more durable(at least pre IM3) than any real world armor so it must be a new alloy or reinforced by repulsor tech in some way.

Okay- going to say this one last time, since it doesn't seem that you're likely to even actually pay attention.

Stark did not create a new metal. He used an existing alloy that he even broke down in IM1. It wasn't something that was impossible for Shield to get access to. And- if you need to go further- As we saw in Cap 1, vibranium exists. The very fact that Iron Patriot is under government command says that Shield could get access to the suit and study it.

And forget about armor. My point wasn't even about Fury necessarily using armor. My point was he realistically would've had better defenses in place than what was presented in the film. And Yes- Hydra should have found ways around them, in as much as the story was supposed to set up Cap being essentially alone against Hydra, but for the Widow and Falcon. Fine, just make for a better set-up is my point, not one so easy to see through as a contrivance only to get Cap at a disadvantage.
 
See, this is why you need to get your history from fact rather than fiction. There wasn't espionage involved in the Soviet Union's developing nukes. They had their own process which differed from the US. And- They detonated a deliverable nuclear weapon before the US.



Okay- going to say this one last time, since it doesn't seem that you're likely to even actually pay attention.

Stark did not create a new metal. He used an existing alloy that he even broke down in IM1. It wasn't something that was impossible for Shield to get access to. And- if you need to go further- As we saw in Cap 1, vibranium exists. The very fact that Iron Patriot is under government command says that Shield could get access to the suit and study it.

And forget about armor. My point wasn't even about Fury necessarily using armor. My point was he realistically would've had better defenses in place than what was presented in the film. And Yes- Hydra should have found ways around them, in as much as the story was supposed to set up Cap being essentially alone against Hydra, but for the Widow and Falcon. Fine, just make for a better set-up is my point, not one so easy to see through as a contrivance only to get Cap at a disadvantage.


BS as usual why don't you argue with the wikipedia page?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nuclear_weapons


A couple things:

1st US nuclear weapon:

On July 16, 1945, in the desert north of Alamogordo, New Mexico, the first nuclear test took place, code-named "Trinity", using a device nicknamed "the gadget." The test, a plutonium implosion type device, released energy equivalent to 19 kilotons of TNT, far more powerful than any weapon ever used before.


1st Soviet: (4 years later)

On August 29, 1949, the effort brought its results, when the USSR tested its first fission bomb, dubbed "Joe-1" by the U.S., years ahead of American predictions.


And the Soviet spies:

The Soviet Union was not invited to share in the new weapons developed by the United States and the other Allies. During the war, information had been pouring in from a number of volunteer spies involved with the Manhattan Project (known in Soviet cables under the code-name of Enormoz), and the Soviet nuclear physicist Igor Kurchatov was carefully watching the Allied weapons development. It came as no surprise to Stalin when Truman had informed him at the Potsdam conference that he had a "powerful new weapon." Truman was shocked at Stalin's lack of interest.
The Soviet spies in the U.S. project were all volunteers and none were Russians. One of the most valuable, Klaus Fuchs, was a German émigré theoretical physicist who had been part of the early British nuclear efforts and the UK mission to Los Alamos. Fuchs had been intimately involved in the development of the implosion weapon, and passed on detailed cross-sections of the Trinity device to his Soviet contacts. Other Los Alamos spies—none of whom knew each other—included Theodore Hall and David Greenglass. The information was kept but not acted upon, as Russia was still too busy fighting the war in Europe to devote resources to this new project.



Game, set match. Not that I really expect you acknowledge reality.
 
BS as usual why don't you argue with the wikipedia page?

Game, set match. Not that I really expect you acknowledge reality.

Maybe you should have actually read the page:

Not to be outdone, the Soviet Union exploded its first thermonuclear device, designed by the physicist Andrei Sakharov, on August 12, 1953, labeled "Joe-4" by the West. This created concern within the U.S. government and military, because, unlike Mike, the Soviet device was a deliverable weapon, which the U.S. did not yet have. This first device though was arguably not a true hydrogen bomb, and could only reach explosive yields in the hundreds of kilotons (never reaching the megaton range of a staged weapon). Still, it was a powerful propaganda tool for the Soviet Union, and the technical differences were fairly oblique to the American public and politicians.

I wasn't referring to the atomic Bomb, but Thermonuclear bombs. And this still has nothing to do with the actual point of my post.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you should have actually read the page:

Not to be outdone, the Soviet Union exploded its first thermonuclear device, designed by the physicist Andrei Sakharov, on August 12, 1953, labeled "Joe-4" by the West. This created concern within the U.S. government and military, because, unlike Mike, the Soviet device was a deliverable weapon, which the U.S. did not yet have. This first device though was arguably not a true hydrogen bomb, and could only reach explosive yields in the hundreds of kilotons (never reaching the megaton range of a staged weapon). Still, it was a powerful propaganda tool for the Soviet Union, and the technical differences were fairly oblique to the American public and politicians.

I wasn't referring to the atomic Bomb, but Thermonuclear bombs. And this still has nothing to do with the actual point of my post.


That's tough, atomic bombs are nuclear. that is why they are on the nuclear weapon page. The Soviet developed the first hydrogen bomb not the first nuclear AS YOU CLAIMED. Hammered like a tent spike.


The first deliverable nukes were used in 1945 on Japan, duh! Also again you were proved wrong about the Soviet spying oops! Hammered like a tent spike.

And it has everything to do with it because once again you are LIVING IN YOUR OWN REALITY! I HATE People who do that. It is just easier to hammer you when you try it with history rather than inserting your fan fic into movies like you have been doing!
 
And forget about armor. My point wasn't even about Fury necessarily using armor. My point was he realistically would've had better defenses in place than what was presented in the film. And Yes- Hydra should have found ways around them, in as much as the story was supposed to set up Cap being essentially alone against Hydra, but for the Widow and Falcon. Fine, just make for a better set-up is my point, not one so easy to see through as a contrivance only to get Cap at a disadvantage.

Fury's vulnerability was as contrived and covoluted as the conditions that let Batman beat Superman in TDR.
 
Maybe you should have actually read the page:

Not to be outdone, the Soviet Union exploded its first thermonuclear device, designed by the physicist Andrei Sakharov, on August 12, 1953, labeled "Joe-4" by the West. This created concern within the U.S. government and military, because, unlike Mike, the Soviet device was a deliverable weapon, which the U.S. did not yet have. This first device though was arguably not a true hydrogen bomb, and could only reach explosive yields in the hundreds of kilotons (never reaching the megaton range of a staged weapon). Still, it was a powerful propaganda tool for the Soviet Union, and the technical differences were fairly oblique to the American public and politicians.

I wasn't referring to the atomic Bomb, but Thermonuclear bombs. And this still has nothing to do with the actual point of my post.

Woah, I haven't checked in on this thread in a while, what the heck is going on? What was the actual point of your post, that the Soviet Union developed its atomic weapons without assistance gained through espionage? Because if so, that's wrong, as evidenced here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_nuclear_program

The Soviet Union benefited from highly successful espionage efforts on the part of the Soviet military intelligence (GRU).

And regarding Fury, it can be argued that since he survived getting shot by a master assassin, his survival probably had more to do with what he was wearing than just sheer luck.
 
So what I gather from the this page's posts.....the thing that some people didn't like about Captain America the Winter Soldier.....is that people can't agree on the Wikipedia Page regarding things that HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH CAPTAIN AMERICA THE WINTER SOLDIER!!!!!!!!

If you want to argue the history of nuclear development during the 40's and 50's....go to the politics section of the Hype.
 
I didn't like the 3D...especially for the pirate raid. I enjoyed the 2D action must more
 
And regarding Fury, it can be argued that since he survived getting shot by a master assassin, his survival probably had more to do with what he was wearing than just sheer luck.

The shot pierced what he was wearing and nearly killed him. If the shot had pierced his heart (and easily could have) he would be dead. So, no what he was wearing was neither protective nor did it reflect great planning on Fury's part. It was nothing more than luck. What happened after, was planning, however far-fetched.
 
No it wasn't, which is why I brought it up. There were many instances (Too many in fact) when Fury clearly couldn't use the machine gun because of it's lack of maneuverability. There was at least once or twice when the assassins were in close proximity to him, and a hand gun would have served much better. And during the pursuits, if Fury could toss a grenade at the assassins he would've dispatched them pretty easily. Also, if that "cutter" device worked in seconds to cut through several feet of stone and steel, Fury should've had a hand gun of great power to be at the ready. That whole sequence was poorly constructed.

As for bullets no body armor will stop- we're talking about the world where IRON MAN exists. Even if Stark wouldn't share his tech, Shield should at least have some type of body armor for situations of imminent threats, such as this.

his machine gun layed waste to pretty much all the hydra soliders in that scene and allowed his escape....and he had also just broken an arm. And he would not toss a grenade into a crowded street with civilians....

Go play some more Call of Duty or something
 
Again, even if Stark doesn't share his- the very fact that it can be made in the MCU, means that Shield could get hold of some type of body armor to protect a prime target like The Director of SHIELD at a time of dire crisis.

Ummmmmm ...the assasination attempt of Fury was the BEGINNING of the "dire crises". nothing shady was going on until Fury asked for a hold on project insight. his looking into insight is what started the events
 
Armor or not, all Hydra needed was to shot Fury in the head, problem solved. That such a powerful organization was so conveniently incompetent in eliminating a prime target is just bad writing. Same with the way Hydra handled Cap, the elevator scene was just stupid, they could've injected him with a drug to put him to sleep, much more efficient than their moronic actions just to have another mindless action scene. If superhero movies want to move to the next level and be taken seriously, they have to be more than just dumb mindless fun.

It was shown in TFA that his metabolism wouldn't even allow him to get drunk....so injecting him with a drug most likely wouldn't work
 
See, this is why you need to get your history from fact rather than fiction. There wasn't espionage involved in the Soviet Union's developing nukes. They had their own process which differed from the US. And- They detonated a deliverable nuclear weapon before the US.



Okay- going to say this one last time, since it doesn't seem that you're likely to even actually pay attention.

Stark did not create a new metal. He used an existing alloy that he even broke down in IM1. It wasn't something that was impossible for Shield to get access to. And- if you need to go further- As we saw in Cap 1, vibranium exists. The very fact that Iron Patriot is under government command says that Shield could get access to the suit and study it.

And forget about armor. My point wasn't even about Fury necessarily using armor. My point was he realistically would've had better defenses in place than what was presented in the film. And Yes- Hydra should have found ways around them, in as much as the story was supposed to set up Cap being essentially alone against Hydra, but for the Widow and Falcon. Fine, just make for a better set-up is my point, not one so easy to see through as a contrivance only to get Cap at a disadvantage.

The US Government and SHield are separate....
 
Nick Fury was driving around Washington D.C. not long after Shield and the Avengers stopped a massive alien invasion. The likely hood of him being attacked (or even noticed by most people) was very little. Shield could undoubtedly have better armor akin to what Iron Man has, but there's no reason that Fury would be wearing it on day to day basis. After he was attacked, he couldn't well walk into the Triskelion looking for more armor, as he knew Shield was the one leading the attack. I can agree that him not having a handgun seems a bit ridiculous. However, he might have had one, but a fully automatic mounted machine gun with a grenade launcher attachment seems like a better option to me.

To an earlier complaint asking why there isn't an army of Falcons: In the scene at Falcon's house, he says "The last one is at Fort Meade...". There's only one suit left, for whatever reason. It seems implied that they used them in highly dangerous situations, and with the death of his friend it sounds like a high casualty rate, which seems like a reasonable explanation as to why there's only one left (too dangerous to use). Now that the suit is destroyed, having T'Challa give him a new set in a later movie would be easy to do.
 
Nick Fury was driving around Washington D.C. not long after Shield and the Avengers stopped a massive alien invasion. The likely hood of him being attacked (or even noticed by most people) was very little. Shield could undoubtedly have better armor akin to what Iron Man has, but there's no reason that Fury would be wearing it on day to day basis. After he was attacked, he couldn't well walk into the Triskelion looking for more armor, as he knew Shield was the one leading the attack. I can agree that him not having a handgun seems a bit ridiculous. However, he might have had one, but a fully automatic mounted machine gun with a grenade launcher attachment seems like a better option to me.

So, you think that even though private citizens have their own armories, the director of SHIELD wouldn't have access to weaponry and protective devices outside of SHIELD's HQ... This while the film shows that he has a hiding place. You think that was his only one?

And no, Fury wouldn't have been wearing the armor prior to the attack. But he would have gotten hold of something to protect himself. It doesn't have to be armor- but made some type of effort to protect his life, if only for reasons of national security. No one- not Cap or the Black Widow were more equipped than Fury to get to the root of what was happening. And yes- I know it's Cap's movie, and he ultimately has to handle the situation, and be at a disadvantage. So that's not my argument. My argument is that I'd like to have seen the scenario unfold without spotting redflags at every turn.

To an earlier complaint asking why there isn't an army of Falcons: In the scene at Falcon's house, he says "The last one is at Fort Meade...". There's only one suit left, for whatever reason. It seems implied that they used them in highly dangerous situations, and with the death of his friend it sounds like a high casualty rate, which seems like a reasonable explanation as to why there's only one left (too dangerous to use). Now that the suit is destroyed, having T'Challa give him a new set in a later movie would be easy to do.

5,086 Helicopters were lost by the US Army alone in Vietnam. This doesn't include The losses by other branches of the military or other types of aircraft. Did that stop the military from continuing to build and use them?

The Falcon flight gear proved highly effective against the Super Helicarriers, that were supposed to be many times more dangerous than anything the enemy has to offer. So no matter what direction you take it in, the film didn't give a convincing explanation.
 
So no matter what direction you take it in, the film didn't give a convincing explanation.

More like...No matter what anyone says or what actually happened or was said on film you will continue to criticize it
 
There were other programs in the US Military that were somewhat experimental that were halted. Why should the falcon be different? Look at the trouble with Ospreys initially...and the X-32 and various other experiments...look at the various versions of a Joint Strike Fighter
 
Also how do we know Fury didn't have a gun? he was driving around in an armored vehicle.....fired a grenade launcher and freaking machine gun out of it after just breaking his arm and suffering a car accident.... sled the scene to the home of someone who thought he could trust and then a rifle powerful enough to pierce a concrete wall hit him multiple times and he lived. how do we know any armor he had didn't slow the kinetic energy and cavitation ability of the rounds?
 
So, you think that even though private citizens have their own armories, the director of SHIELD wouldn't have access to weaponry and protective devices outside of SHIELD's HQ... This while the film shows that he has a hiding place. You think that was his only one?

And no, Fury wouldn't have been wearing the armor prior to the attack. But he would have gotten hold of something to protect himself. It doesn't have to be armor- but made some type of effort to protect his life, if only for reasons of national security. No one- not Cap or the Black Widow were more equipped than Fury to get to the root of what was happening. And yes- I know it's Cap's movie, and he ultimately has to handle the situation, and be at a disadvantage. So that's not my argument. My argument is that I'd like to have seen the scenario unfold without spotting redflags at every turn.



5,086 Helicopters were lost by the US Army alone in Vietnam. This doesn't include The losses by other branches of the military or other types of aircraft. Did that stop the military from continuing to build and use them?

The Falcon flight gear proved highly effective against the Super Helicarriers, that were supposed to be many times more dangerous than anything the enemy has to offer. So no matter what direction you take it in, the film didn't give a convincing explanation.
Just let it go since almost every single one of your arguments in the past 2 weeks has been rebutted with evidence and you then start going on BS tangents that have nothing to do with the movie.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,289
Messages
22,080,717
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"