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

[Steamteck]

it's just a comic book movie, who cares

To be honest I hate that attitude with the passion of a 100 blazing suns.

I agree with most of his points especially about the fate of the carriers. Hydra really hasn't learned much. Their plan is still to bombard their enemies from the air. They just have a little more modern precision this time.

I really enjoyed the film it just choked a little for me in the final act. I really do wish Cap's speech had had more of an effect than to get lots of good men and women killed pretty much accomplishing nothing. I'm also think the MCU is richer with Shield than without it.

 

[Windows]

didnt Fury and a section of SHIELD know that Insight was meant to kill threats? What was the difference between Hydras plan and what Nick Fury thought Insight was about? (Considering he's the one who advocates neutralizing threats before they happen).

Legit SHIELD's idea of threats was either total bad guys or borderline / maybe bad guys; the morality of killing the borderline guys is ambiguous, leaning toward the "wrong" side. HYDRA's idea of threats was pretty much anyone who could get in their way, including the President of the United States, so clearly and unambiguously on the "wrong" side.

Also, when Cap says that SHIELD has to go, does he mean exposing it or intentionally destroying the HQ? Or was that an epic accident?

I think that he just meant exposing it. I didn't agree when I first watched it, but after thinking about it, he's right - if SHIELD could have allowed itself to be put in a position that would allow HYDRA to take over so deeply, then it definitely has to go. (This is actually an interesting juxtaposition with the case of Gotham from Batman Begins, but that's a discussion for another thread.)

The destruction of the Triskelion was collateral damage from the necessary destruction of the Helicarriers. I didn't agree with the destruction of the Helicarriers either at first - it really is a waste! - but they were an imminent threat that could not be stopped peacefully.

I really do wish Cap's speech had had more of an effect than to get lots of good men and women killed pretty much accomplishing nothing. I'm also think the MCU is richer with Shield than without it.

Yeah, this isn't really a plot hole, but it did make me sad to see a lot of the good guys get massacred, especially that one guy who got thrown into a quinjet engine by the Winter Soldier. I feel like such brutal deaths should be reserved for bad guys (like Sitwell, haha).

As for SHIELD, I doubt it's gone for good, as others have posted. Comic book storylines are like the anti-Game of Thrones, no one ever dies, and that includes organisations.

 

[Mr.T]

can someone clarify something for me?

didnt Fury and a section of SHIELD know that Insight was meant to kill threats? What was the difference between Hydras plan and what Nick Fury thought Insight was about? (Considering he's the one who advocates neutralizing threats before they happen).

Also, when Cap says that SHIELD has to go, does he mean exposing it or intentionally destroying the HQ? Or was that an epic accident?

The hellicarrier crashing into SHIELD HQ was pure luck per the movie action but was meant to symbolize the fall of the SHIELD organization itself. SHIELD was infiltrated by Hydra and destroyed from within by doing what it thought was for the good of the people. The hellicarrier hitting the building is SHIELD being destroyed by its own hand, visually...

 

[The Question]

That's what I said to him, but he insisted it was a legitimate complaint/flaw.

It is legitimate. You're the only one who's saying that this thread is for objective technical flaws with the film with no room for subjective opinion, a notion that comes from absolutely nowhere.

He didn't just give an opinion. He argued for pages on end that Hydra being the cause of the erosion of SHIELD was a flaw(hence the title of this thread) and that it took away from the movie experience/themes. Both statements are patently false.

Nope, just my opinion that you disagree with. You don't get to set the rules for what this thread is and isn't about.

Flip-flopper.

I said the same thing to you a few pages ago when I pointed out your statements weren't a flaw, but a preference. You fought me on it tooth and nail.

No, I fought you when you said that my statements had no place in this thread, which is complete nonsense.

 

[seishin87]

I've been lurking around here for quite a while during the past few days, especially in this thread. I've finally decided to register an account, since I have a lot of problems with this movie and would like to hear others' opinions on it. So far, from talking to my friends, all I keep getting is "it's just a comic book movie, who cares?" and that's really unsatisfying for me...

The problems that I have with this movie fill three pages, but a lot of them are minor points or have already been discussed, so I'll just stick to the main ones:

How does SHIELD even work, at least in the MCU? Who controls SHIELD? Who funds it? Where are its members from? These questions started to become problematic in The Avengers, but after CA2, they have really become huge plot holes. Specifically, the climax with the Helicarriers makes absolutely no sense, as others have pointed out.

1. Who knew about the launching of the Insight Helicarriers?

a) Nobody knew except SHIELD. This is impossible, given how DC has probably the most restricted airspace in the US. Three massive flying ships popping up in the middle of DC, unbeknownst to the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, would be a major problem.

b) The government knew, but not the public. This is also impossible given the extremely prominent location of the Insight Helicarrier shipyard underneath the Potomac River. If the Insight Helicarriers were supposed to be a secret operation, then why weren't they built somewhere more discrete instead of the nation's capital? There's no way three massive ships appearing over DC like that could happen without notification of the public.

c) Everyone including the public knew. If so, then why weren't there any spectators? For such a grand event as the launching of three Helicarriers, a not-so-mundane occasion, there should be massive crowds lined up to see. But there wasn't anyone around.

2. Who paid for the Helicarriers? I can accept that Helicarriers can fly. I can accept that three can be built simultaneously under an accelerated timetable (even though it can take seven years to build a real-world modern carrier, that is, the non-flying kind). But what doesn't make sense is this: real-world carriers can cost $25 billion to build. I'm assuming flying ones will cost more. So let's say the three Insight carriers cost $100 billion. The US had a huge military budget, something close to $700 billion annually, but most of that goes into maintaining bases all around the world; only about $20 billion of that goes into construction. No other nation in the world spends anywhere even close a quarter of what the US spends on military; so where did this money come from? It certainly didn't come from Tony Stark, whose net worth has been estimated by Forbes to be around $6 billion, hardly enough for just a single Helicarrier turbine engine.

3. How was HYDRA's plan ever going to work? Project Insight seemed to be made up of two parts: surveillance to acquire data on "threats", and Helicarriers to eliminate those "threats", including President Ellis. Let's say Captain America and company never found out about HYDRA's plan, and those Helicarriers were able to start blasting people away. Almost immediately, everyone important in DC, including much of the nation's leadership, would be killed. Then what?

The three Helicarriers would be shot down in a gigantic Independence Day style battle, that's what. There's no way they would have ever gone anywhere beyond DC. Maybe they would have killed thousands, maybe tens of thousands, and that would have been horrible, but there's no way they could have gotten to twenty million. No way. And then where would HYDRA be? They still wouldn't have been in position to take over, not unless they paid off the new vice president or something.

It really feels like the directors and writers wanted an amazing finale but forgot to justify it through the plot, which is a shame, considering how awesome the movie is, otherwise. The excuse "it's just a comic book movie" only goes so far. It works for little things like how Sam was able to avoid getting hit by any anti-aircraft fire or how he was able to deploy his parachute at the last second. It even works for things like Helicarriers being able to fly. But it doesn't work for major considerations like the the inconsistencies of the entire SHIELD organisation.

You do raise some real concerns, realistically it doesn't seen likely but at the same time you cannot ignore the fact that it is a "comic book movie" and what that really means. It means comic book rules apply. SHIELD may be an organization but it is still very much a "comic book organization/character". SHIELD is supposed to be the "Super" CIA/NSA/DIA/ONI etc. In the context of the MCU it originates from SSR which was supposed to an ultra secret science division intended to parallel the OSS and then the transformation into SHIELD was supposed to mirror the birth of the CIA. SHIELD while seemingly based/tied to the US government/military seems to have evolved to a more global organization that answers to a multinational advisory group(The world security council) which is supposed to kinda be like the UN. So I would assume they would be funded by at least several nations who rely on their services.

As far as the carriers being launched with no fan fare, why should there be? I live in Hawaii, with Pearl Harbor practically in my back yard. Carriers, destroyers, subs, planes, come and go with little fanfare but maybe a mention in the evening news or papers. Just last week there was a b52 flyover demonstration for ASEAN. Didn't hear about it till after the fact. I would think that the Project Insight launch would be something they would keep low key. No need to tell the whole world. However there were the other world council members there for the launch so there was some kind of private ceremony going on, and hypothetically had the launch been legitimate then if anyone asked then they would see an explanation on the media and depending on if they want the public to know the full nature of what it is, they could say it's just a training exercise/demonstration to keep it covert, but seeing as how it's supposed to be a deterrent they'd probably let the public in on the scoop. It's not like you see big crowds of people for the unveiling of a new drone and if there are it's usually private/invitation only kinda things.

As far as military budgets go, don't be naive. You really think the lion's share is going to just maintaining bases with $20 billion to construction? I mean we're talking about the same defense department that lost track of $2.3 TRILLION. Yes that's $2.3 TRILLION in REAL LIFE that no one has any idea what happened to or what it was spent on. The so-called "black" covert budget is real and there's no oversight or accounting. So $100 billion for 3 helicarriers, I could see that.

As far as HYDRA's plan, clearly after their coup de ta/purge, I could see Pierce being installed as an interim leader/Dictator and everyone would be so shocked and horrified at what 20 million people being purged/exterminated that they'd probably go along with whatever happens next out of fear. Remember the sweep with the carriers was to remove all their biggest perceived treats. Since that included the heads of government, I'd assume they'd target military leaders and the chain of command too. Any type of counter strike against would be repelled. The carriers had automated defenses. Again the helicarriers are supposed to be super weapons, hence why they have the carriers target each other, nothing else would have been able to do as much damage and yeah the carriers take a pretty good beating. You can't say comic book rules don't apply for the helicarriers. I mean they got repulsor powered engines and Fury himself said they are built to combat whatever threat they may face post-Avengers and are intended to stay in the air indefinitely. The intention is that the helicarriers are sci-fi type weapons, it's supposed to be a little fantastical. If that really ruins things for you then I'm sorry but there's really nothing more that can be said. It's regrettable but from my perspective no fault of the film.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Hmm , I sort of think the movie might have been interesting if Hydra's Insight plan was not any more extreme than the original Insight plan. Perhaps Steve threatens to spill the beans about the project in general and that's why he becomes a target.

The movie talks about him standing up for freedom and truth, but it ends up sort of feeling like he's standing up for innocent human life in general. It could have any hero doing this, which is fine, it's just a tad more generic.

 

[Windows]

In the context of the MCU it originates from SSR which was supposed to an ultra secret science division intended to parallel the OSS and then the transformation into SHIELD was supposed to mirror the birth of the CIA. SHIELD while seemingly based/tied to the US government/military seems to have evolved to a more global organization that answers to a multinational advisory group(The world security council) which is supposed to kinda be like the UN. So I would assume they would be funded by at least several nations who rely on their services.

I just find the idea of the World Security Council to be really weird. Who are its members? They're not heads of state, since President Ellis isn't included, so they're probably just ambassadors with connections to their own nations' intelligence communities. They would all have to be strong allies of the US, because otherwise it would get pretty awkward (just like how the UN Security Council gets pretty awkward with China and Russia around), and yet we have an East Asian man and a South Asian man in both The Avengers and CA2. There's no way they could be representing India or China, since neither are strong allies of the US. The East Asian man could represent Japan, South Korea, or maybe even Taiwan, but there's no South Asian nation with both the prestige and a strong relationship with the US that would warrant being included in SHIELD. But I suppose that the South Asian man could be representing a European nation.

So let's say the WSC represents the US and four key allies. What relation do they have with the actual leaders of those nations? For example, did President Ellis even know about Project Insight? From what we saw in The Avengers, it doesn't seem like he was even consulted about the decision to nuke Manhattan, which is preposterous considering the fact that, if those nukes were American, only he would have had the power to authorise the strike, and if those nukes weren't American, then that would constitute at the very least a flagrant violation of national sovereignty, if not an act of war.

Really, the WSC shouldn't even exist, and SHIELD should just be an American agency. If Marvel really wanted the MCU to avoid the "America always saves the day" trope, then maybe they should try including some non-American heroes, because to date, the only non-American hero in the MCU movies is an alien demi-god. (Natasha doesn't count since she defected to the US.)

As far as the carriers being launched with no fan fare, why should there be? I live in Hawaii, with Pearl Harbor practically in my back yard. Carriers, destroyers, subs, planes, come and go with little fanfare but maybe a mention in the evening news or papers. Just last week there was a b52 flyover demonstration for ASEAN. Didn't hear about it till after the fact. I would think that the Project Insight launch would be something they would keep low key. No need to tell the whole world. However there were the other world council members there for the launch so there was some kind of private ceremony going on, and hypothetically had the launch been legitimate then if anyone asked then they would see an explanation on the media and depending on if they want the public to know the full nature of what it is, they could say it's just a training exercise/demonstration to keep it covert, but seeing as how it's supposed to be a deterrent they'd probably let the public in on the scoop. It's not like you see big crowds of people for the unveiling of a new drone and if there are it's usually private/invitation only kinda things.

Good point, I can buy that. I accept the premise that this is an alternate universe with more advanced technology, so the launch of some new ships would probably just be a routine event.

As far as military budgets go, don't be naive. You really think the lion's share is going to just maintaining bases with $20 billion to construction? I mean we're talking about the same defense department that lost track of $2.3 TRILLION. Yes that's $2.3 TRILLION in REAL LIFE that no one has any idea what happened to or what it was spent on. The so-called "black" covert budget is real and there's no oversight or accounting. So $100 billion for 3 helicarriers, I could see that.

Another good point. Military budget accounting can be pretty shady.

As far as HYDRA's plan, clearly after their coup de ta/purge, I could see Pierce being installed as an interim leader/Dictator and everyone would be so shocked and horrified at what 20 million people being purged/exterminated that they'd probably go along with whatever happens next out of fear. Remember the sweep with the carriers was to remove all their biggest perceived treats. Since that included the heads of government, I'd assume they'd target military leaders and the chain of command too. Any type of counter strike against would be repelled. The carriers had automated defenses. Again the helicarriers are supposed to be super weapons, hence why they have the carriers target each other, nothing else would have been able to do as much damage and yeah the carriers take a pretty good beating. You can't say comic book rules don't apply for the helicarriers. I mean they got repulsor powered engines and Fury himself said they are built to combat whatever threat they may face post-Avengers and are intended to stay in the air indefinitely. The intention is that the helicarriers are sci-fi type weapons, it's supposed to be a little fantastical. If that really ruins things for you then I'm sorry but there's really nothing more that can be said. It's regrettable but from my perspective no fault of the film.

I was originally going to argue the following: that the Helicarriers could only take out any target within line of sight almost instantaneously, which would probably involve almost the entire American leadership, but then they would be open to retaliation from fighter jets, cruise missiles, even nukes from pretty much all other nations that have anything that can fly. I was also going to point out that the Helicarrier defences are pretty lousy considering the fact that they couldn't even shoot down one guy with a jet pack. But then I realise that we don't really know the full extent of the Insight Helicarrier armaments - perhaps they have missiles and nukes of their own, which would make reaching that global 20 mill number much more plausible. Also, the complete failure to take down Sam can be chalked up to the Stormtrooper effect, which I'm willing to give a pass. So... guess you're right on this one.

Thanks, your post was really helpful in allowing me to suspend my disbelief. I think I'll be able to enjoy CA2 a lot more the next time I watch it! (I still have a lot of problems with the WSC, but whatever, they're all dead now anyway.)

 

[Guts]

Captain America's shield is made out of vibranium, and that means that it can absorb the impact of anything that hits it. we seen this happen when Thor hit the shield with his hammer and it created a shock wave. cap even used it when he jumped out of the elevator so protect himself when he hit the ground, but later on in the movie the winter soldier shoots a grenade at him and cap goes flying off the highway. wouldn't the shield just absorb the explosion?

another inconsistency with the abilities of his shield is when he's using it to block the bullets from a mini gun. shouldn't the bullets have simply landed at cap's feet after hitting the shield instead of ricocheting of his shield, because it's absorbing the impact and kinetic energy from the bullets.

 

[hoy-small-fry]

Much like Mjolnir, Vibranium has variable effects when the plot necessitates it

 

[Windows]

Captain America's shield is made out of vibranium, and that means that it can absorb the impact of anything that hits it. we seen this happen when Thor hit the shield with his hammer and it created a shock wave. cap even used it when he jumped out of the elevator so protect himself when he hit the ground, but later on in the movie the winter soldier shoots a grenade at him and cap goes flying off the highway. wouldn't the shield just absorb the explosion?

another inconsistency with the abilities of his shield is when he's using it to block the bullets from a mini gun. shouldn't the bullets have simply landed at cap's feet after hitting the shield instead of ricocheting of his shield, because it's absorbing the impact and kinetic energy from the bullets.

Those are actually some good points! They don't ruin the movie or make it any less fun for me, but they're interesting to think about!

 

[Rock Sexton]

It is legitimate. You're the only one who's saying that this thread is for objective technical flaws with the film with no room for subjective opinion, a notion that comes from absolutely nowhere.



Nope, just my opinion that you disagree with. You don't get to set the rules for what this thread is and isn't about.



No, I fought you when you said that my statements had no place in this thread, which is complete nonsense.

JMC said to you that what you're talking about is more of a preference not a flaw and you agreed with his statement. Even though I said the exact same thing to you, you're still telling me I have no place for saying it.

LOL .... too funny.

 

[The Guard]

Honestly, the main weakness of the movie is the lack of character and thematic development in general. All around. Everything is very "surface".

-The key weakness of the movie though, ironically, is The Winter Soldier himself. Which is kind of sad. I realize “The Winter Soldier” is also a metaphor for Captain America and his mission…but still…the concept of The Winter Soldier and his awakening was completely watered down in favor of the old “fight the brainwashing!” plot device stuff. Remember when people *****ed about Dark Phoenix being a zombie in X3? This was worse.

-Falcon’s “wings” and abilities felt incredibly contrived. Seriously, that was just freaking lazy.

-Hydra would have worked fine behing behind everything, if the concept had really been explored at all. Instead, it is, once again, a generic villain organization and their plot…just absolutely sucks. Not because it's about world domination or any of that, it was so ridiculous, hard to believe and over the top I wanted to scream. Just awful. Completely falls apart upon ANY rational analysis. Hydra waited 70 years just to kill people with a magic algorithm? Whatever. And then not only does it suck, but then it is rushed. Thinly veiled and TIRED political commentary that ultimately made next to no sense in context. Ugh.

 

[Quasimod0]

Honestly, the main weakness of the movie is the lack of character and thematic development in general. All around. Everything is very "surface".

-The key weakness of the movie though, ironically, is The Winter Soldier himself. Which is kind of sad. I realize “The Winter Soldier” is also a metaphor for Captain America and his mission…but still…the concept of The Winter Soldier and his awakening was completely watered down in favor of the old “fight the brainwashing!” plot device stuff. Remember when people *****ed about Dark Phoenix being a zombie in X3? This was worse.

-Falcon’s “wings” and abilities felt incredibly contrived. Seriously, that was just freaking lazy.

-Hydra would have worked fine behing behind everything, if the concept had really been explored at all. Instead, it is, once again, a generic villain organization and their plot…just absolutely sucks. Not because it's about world domination or any of that, it was so ridiculous, hard to believe and over the top I wanted to scream. Just awful. Completely falls apart upon ANY rational analysis. Hydra waited 70 years just to kill people with a magic algorithm? Whatever. And then not only does it suck, but then it is rushed. Thinly veiled and TIRED political commentary that ultimately made next to no sense in context. Ugh.

Sounds like you loved it. 10/10? lol

 

[The Question]

JMC said to you that what you're talking about is more of a preference not a flaw and you agreed with his statement. Even though I said the exact same thing to you, you're still telling me I have no place for saying it.

LOL .... too funny.

If you're not even going to bother and actually read what I'm saying, why are you responding?

 

[Rock Sexton]

If you're not even going to bother and actually read what I'm saying, why are you responding?

You don't even know what you are saying anymore.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Sounds like you loved it. 10/10? lol

It's just par for the course for him when it comes to the MCU. He's not just a fan of really anything they do. Can't please everyone.

 

[The Question]

You don't even know what you are saying anymore.

Yes I do. You're just ignoring half of it.

 

[The Guard]

Sounds like you loved it. 10/10? lol

I enjoyed the movie overall.

Probably an 8/10.

 

[PacificBoy]

edit

 

[C. Lee]

Yes I do. You're just ignoring half of it.

yeah....I've never seen you ignore any facts people post........

 

[metaphysician]

The movies have, since the very first one, demonstrated a higher tech level than the real world. Easy answer for where they could afford to make those helicarriers?

"Because the general tech level is better than real world, so there's both more resources to go around, and building flying carriers is cheaper than otherwise."

Which is to say: why the hell would anyone want to stop the plot so as to explain the economics of supertech manufacture?

 

[The Endless]

Wait people are moaning about the economics of creating the Helicarriers in real world terms? Are you yanking my short and curleys? Seriously?

 

[Just_Human]

No flaw


It was perfect

 

[Lorus]

I enjoyed TWS quite a bit. For me, its strengths elevate it to either the 3rd or 4th best instalment of the MCU (behind The Avengers and Iron Man 3, possibly Iron Man also but the jury’s out on that). However, there were things I wasn’t a particular fan of, some of which may be due to me missing information though. If I were to list my gripes, from smallest to largest, they would be:

-Falcon’s inclusion didn’t seem particularly organic to me. He may have benefited from having greater agency in the story.

-Widow’s arc seemed to be a bit of a repeat of her Avengers arc, given she already owned up to her acquiescence and complicity in SHIELD’s dirty dealings in that film. I don’t think discovering that Hydra may have guided her hand in some of those actions would really shake her that much, unless she was naïve enough to think all her missions post Avengers were entirely benevolent.

-I think the effect the Winter Soldier’s identity had on Steve was underplayed.

-My biggest problem was with Hydra though. It’s already been discussed at length the extent to which they’re infiltration softens the blow of the political criticism, so I won’t rehash that, but the sheer number of Hydra agents within SHIELD is a bit unbelievable to me. The reason being that Hydra doesn’t have any discernible ideology beyond world conquest, which is all well and good for people like Stern and Pierce who could feasibly profit by being in a position of power, but for lower level SHIELD agents, I find it difficult to believe Hydra has much to offer.

Furthermore, I wasn’t convinced that Arnim Zola’s character was a natural progression from TFA. To me at least, he didn’t appear enamoured with Hydra and was simply interested in the scientific resources he had access to. He turned coat at the first opportunity, rather than die to protect the Skull’s pans. You could argue this was simply because Zola was always looking for an opportunity to usurp the Red Skull, but I think it’s quite a stretch to make that interpretation from Jones’ performance in TFA.

I also don’t think I understood the endgame of Insight. Assuming that Hydra was successful in killing everyone they considered a threat, where do they go from there? Wouldn’t that make SHIELD an obvious target for damn near everyone left standing in the aftermath? I certainly doubt the response of the new president to three helicarriers murdering thousands of innocent people, including his/her predecessor would be to give SHIELD more power. Maybe someone can explain this to me because it seems a stupid plan, and a waste of 70 years worth of careful infiltration/manipulation.

The script ultimately seems a bit first draft-y and lacks the elegance and precision of Avengers/Iron Man 3. Luckily, the performances, direction and audacity of intent keep TWS as an exciting and compelling whole, but it is a shame some of its ideas weren’t executed a bit better.

 

[CapsKookyQartet]

Agent 13 was a little bit of a let down, IMO