• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

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

A person who questions how the Winter Soldier remembered how to fight needs to give their brain a rest ..... for cryin' out loud. Some of you just make me shake my head sometimes.

I'm afraid I'm going to need an explanation for how you picked up this head shaking ability. It seems like you're just pulling these skills out of thin air and I'm finding it very implausible without proper set-up.
 
A person who questions how the Winter Soldier remembered how to fight needs to give their brain a rest ..... for cryin' out loud. Some of you just make me shake my head sometimes.

...And once again.. We have a discussion. If you bring up points that fanboys can't deal with, thus begins the personal bulls***.

Well then- A person who doesn't question it has a brain that's been sleeping too long, and I doubt they'd have the coordination to shake their head.

If the only way you can explain how TWS would still be able to function is because other fictional characters can still function, then the argument is pretty weak. You might as well say because people can still function after the flashy-thingy in Men In Black then it should work here.

Especially since, as I'm saying- a reasonable explanation can be made for all of this. It's just that the writers were too lazy or unimaginative to work it out.
 
Last edited:
Hey guys, can we please stop with all the snide remarks? This is the "what you didn't like about CA2" thread, right? Not the "tell me all about how much you thought CA2 was awesome" thread, that's the rest of the forum. If someone posts their opinion about something that they think is a flaw or critique, and you disagree, then kindly post a constructive comment and see if you can find some middle ground.

To Dragon: the writing does get a little sloppy at times in that it leaves too many unanswered questions for the viewers. However, we can still make reasonable assumptions that show that these questions aren't necessarily plot holes.

For example, "Muscle memory" still requires the brain to be functioning properly, and memory wipes, especially if it's happened on a number of occasions would likely cause some malfunction. Look at athletes who suffer brain trauma. They can pretty much never function on the high levels of precision that TWS was always functioning on.

In this case, we simply don't know enough about the procedures that were carried out on the Winter Soldier. We know that he was experimented on by Zola during WWII; perhaps he was given a variant of the Red Skull serum that didn't leave him deformed. We don't know anything about his mental conditioning, but we have to assume that it was done in a way (perhaps not possible in real life) that left everything intact except the ability to reason - that he was turned into an almost mindless killing machine. In my opinion, suspension of disbelief can be allowed for technical details like this: for example, in real life, cryo storage is a technology that is nowhere near close to feasible, but we must accept the premise in the MCU.

e.g. The Falcon. The comics explain that the Black Panther developed the wings. As Marvel intends to bring BP into the films why not simply explain that Sam performed some heroic act while in combat. Perhaps saving a Wakandan diplomat. T'Challa awarded him the wings as a gift. They're one of a kind because they're constructed from the rare Wakandan natural resource of vibranium. No other metal could work.

Yes, the writers missed a chance at world building here, but the explanation as given in the film - that Wilson was part of an elite military unit, and there was only one jet pack device left - works. Later films can answer questions about the origins of the jet pack device and so on.

And when I said who gives a crap about Agent 13, I meant that she was what is now too much of a cliche' action movie chick. She's pretty, says cutesy s*** and can shoot and fight at expert levels when called upon. There was no difference between her, Hill and Natasha other than the amount of screen time each had. There was no need for Sharon other than to appease fans. If they wanted to introduce her, make an effort to create a unique figure that Cap could connect with in a way that he couldn't with anyone else. And yes, I know the next response is "The next movie". I'm sorry, but I've been waiting for "the next movie" for a long while now.

I would agree that there isn't much shown of her character to differentiate her from other characters, but at this point, we just have to accept that her role was pretty much a cameo, sort of like Natasha in IM2 or Agent Coulson in IM1.

The Hydra infiltration need not have happened during Shield's inception. Zola could have been planning it from the perimeter, placing one or two operatives in key positions. Ultimately, Hydra's takeover didn't have to be because they somehow flooded Shield with their agents, but that Zola's computer (Which would have been continually upgraded) took over the system in a Skynet type of scenario. Then Shield's weapon tech is merely taken by actual Hydra agents. Certainly Pierce could be their man on the ground, having had family that traced back to Nazi Germany, and given his position by glad-handing and bribery.

That's actually a really interesting scenario. In terms of entertainment, it would fulfill the needs of the movie.* In terms of plausibility, it's much more probable and realistic for SHIELD to be inadvertently taken over by a HYDRA computer program than for it to have hosted at least three generations of Americans who have been indoctrinated fully in a foreign ideology. In terms of direction of the story, it wouldn't have created a reason to disband SHIELD. Merely activating a controversial preemptive kill system that then turns against SHIELD wouldn't be reason enough to disband SHIELD. SHIELD had to be shown to be so corrupt that there was no other alternative but to disband it, and to do so required showing infiltration at pretty much all levels of SHIELD hierarchy.

*On second thought, it wouldn't have fulfilled the needs of the movie because there wouldn't be enough "bad guys" for the protagonist to be in conflict with. The idea of a conspiracy thriller is that the protagonist is in conflict with some aspect of society and doesn't know who to trust. Therefore, the needs of the movie demand that a substantial part of SHIELD be antagonist, and it had to go beyond just a mere misunderstanding, because otherwise it would be unseemly for Steve to be using lethal force on good guys who are just following wrong orders.

Back to TWS, I always thought a very easy explanation for him being superhuman is to have had Steve give him a blood transfusion back in WWII. Have Bucky "die" as he did in the comics, falling into the sea and going into cryo-sleep via freezing. The serum could have concentrated in his blood over the years in a way that wouldn't have been practical for any other experimentation. Zola and Hydra could have found him while searching for their tech that crashed into the ocean after Cap crashed the plane. They discover his enhancements, but also learn it can't be synthesized. It also ******s his aging. He has amnesia due to his trauma, which never becomes an issue until he sees Cap. All points covered.

I like this explanation, but again, the movie's explanation (or lack thereof) also works. In fact, it might be that they will incorporate parts of your explanation when they go into detail about the Winter Soldier in the next movie.
 
Last edited:
Hey guys, can we please stop with all the snide remarks? This is the "what you didn't like about CA2" thread, right? Not the "tell me all about how much you thought CA2 was awesome" thread, that's the rest of the forum. If someone posts their opinion about something that they think is a flaw or critique, and you disagree, then kindly post a constructive comment and see if you can find some middle ground.

Yeah,fair point.I always question why folks have a problem with people who gripe in the thread it was designed for.
 
I would agree that there isn't much shown of her character to differentiate her from other characters, but at this point, we just have to accept that her role was pretty much a cameo, sort of like Natasha in IM2 or Agent Coulson in IM1.

Coulson wasn't actually intended to be any more than a one-off character. And Natasha was most assuredly not a cameo.

So if Dragon's complaint is that Sharon's introductory role is wanting in that it doesn't really show her as a character that is particularly worth revisiting, then I'm inclined to agree, as it is a valid critique.
 
I enjoyed this film but man I had a lot of problems with it as well. My first huge beef is the faking of Nick Fury's death. Hahaha so effin stupid, grow some balls and Marvel and kill someone off, quit with this stupid faking crap. And the way they went about it was almost even worse. Once again just make this so called connected universe a sitcom universe. Nothing matters once the movie ends and nothing will be changed. I know the nerds will say ahh but Shield is all in disarray now. Haha please they're barely a focus in any of the movies and most of the time when they show up people complain about it. The heroes plan at the end was incredibly stupid, so they're going to crash 3 ginormous ships, um stupid horribly stupid. Speaking of that, the villains plot was ripped straight from X-Men. Like holy crap, they just made the Sentinels how original there Marvel. I enjoyed the Falcon somewhat as a character, he had good banter with Chris Evans but man what a pointless character. The only reason he was in this movie was so they could say they had a black guy in it. His action wasn't even that cool which was a shame. Also didn't like the inconsistencies with Captain America's strength, in this movie he could take on Thor or Iron Man if he wanted to. Also didn't like Black Widow but that's more of a personal dislike for Johanssen and all her terribleness. The cg while not terrible was always noticeable, you always knew when it was cg. Finally, I had to walk out of the theater when Shandling said Hail Hydra because I was laughing so hard at the complete stupidity of the moment. My goodness it was horrible.
 
But in the overall, my problem is that they didn't have to leave all of those holes, especially since the source material had better answers.

e.g. The Falcon. The comics explain that the Black Panther developed the wings. As Marvel intends to bring BP into the films why not simply explain that Sam performed some heroic act while in combat. Perhaps saving a Wakandan diplomat. T'Challa awarded him the wings as a gift. They're one of a kind because they're constructed from the rare Wakandan natural resource of vibranium. No other metal could work.

Seeing as Falcon lost both his wings in the final battle there is still the opportunity to integrate T'Challa. Maybe Falcon doesn't fly again till Black Panther is introduced and he gives Falcon a shiny new set of wings.

But "better answers" to some of these holes is subjective. Since this is the MCU and it differs from the Comics, the wings/jetpack might've been a Stark Industries design. The pack is the only one left because Tony cancelled all of his military contracts. Next time Falcon shows up flying it's because Tony himself has restored the wings/jetpack. Less world-building, but more world-reinforcing.
 
I have very few complaints in all honesty, but I do have some. First the 3d, on my 1st viewing in 3D I thought it was completely pointless and not necessary at all. Watching the movie again in 2D reinforced this point, just drop Marvel, you arent good at it and most of your movies dont need it.

I originally thought both battles between Cap and TWS were weak, but on 2nd viewing their 1st fight in the street grew on me a lot. The 2nd fight is still a bit poor though, I know there was a rush, etc and the fight was more about who the 2 combatents were than their abilities but it was just over too quickly, like the majority of Marvel final battles/ one vs ones, they really need to improve in this regard.

Overall though, these are minor gripes, the movie is generally awesome.
 
I enjoyed this film but man I had a lot of problems with it as well. My first huge beef is the faking of Nick Fury's death. Hahaha so effin stupid, grow some balls and Marvel and kill someone off, quit with this stupid faking crap. And the way they went about it was almost even worse. Once again just make this so called connected universe a sitcom universe. Nothing matters once the movie ends and nothing will be changed. I know the nerds will say ahh but Shield is all in disarray now. Haha please they're barely a focus in any of the movies and most of the time when they show up people complain about it. The heroes plan at the end was incredibly stupid, so they're going to crash 3 ginormous ships, um stupid horribly stupid. Speaking of that, the villains plot was ripped straight from X-Men. Like holy crap, they just made the Sentinels how original there Marvel. I enjoyed the Falcon somewhat as a character, he had good banter with Chris Evans but man what a pointless character. The only reason he was in this movie was so they could say they had a black guy in it. His action wasn't even that cool which was a shame. Also didn't like the inconsistencies with Captain America's strength, in this movie he could take on Thor or Iron Man if he wanted to. Also didn't like Black Widow but that's more of a personal dislike for Johanssen and all her terribleness. The cg while not terrible was always noticeable, you always knew when it was cg. Finally, I had to walk out of the theater when Shandling said Hail Hydra because I was laughing so hard at the complete stupidity of the moment. My goodness it was horrible.

:huh:
 
on my 1st viewing in 3D I thought it was completely pointless and not necessary at all. Watching the movie again in 2D reinforced this point, just drop Marvel, you arent good at it and most of your movies dont need it.

Completely agreed. 3D is pointless unless the movie was shot natively (not post-converted) and shot with the 3D effect in mind. The third Transformers movie was shot in native 3D and several sequences were planned out to take full advantage of the 3D effect, and they got some cool shots. Like on the highway, with Shia flying in and out of Bee mid-transformation. 3D in the last few Marvel films has been pointless...
 
While i really enjoyed the movie it did have its flaws. I felt Redford was totally underused and the whole carriers sequence did nothing for me. Everything up to that point was fantastic.
 
TF 3's 3D was amazing, shows that Michael Bay did his research on it well. With Marvel movies, i don't even bother watching in 3D. The Avengers seems like the least needing film as the way it was shot was more 2 Dimensional, instead of most modern films where the camera is basically in the middle of the action.
 
To Dragon: the writing does get a little sloppy at times in that it leaves too many unanswered questions for the viewers. However, we can still make reasonable assumptions that show that these questions aren't necessarily plot holes.



In this case, we simply don't know enough about the procedures that were carried out on the Winter Soldier. We know that he was experimented on by Zola during WWII; perhaps he was given a variant of the Red Skull serum that didn't leave him deformed. We don't know anything about his mental conditioning, but we have to assume that it was done in a way (perhaps not possible in real life) that left everything intact except the ability to reason - that he was turned into an almost mindless killing machine. In my opinion, suspension of disbelief can be allowed for technical details like this: for example, in real life, cryo storage is a technology that is nowhere near close to feasible, but we must accept the premise in the MCU.

But that's my point. We don't know enough about Bucky's experimentation and we don't know anything about how memory wipes would effect physical performance.

TWS isn't a mindless killing machine. He isn't pure brute force. There's precision and skill involved in his execution. And as I'm saying, Marvel didn't have to go into that direction.



Yes, the writers missed a chance at world building here, but the explanation as given in the film - that Wilson was part of an elite military unit, and there was only one jet pack device left - works. Later films can answer questions about the origins of the jet pack device and so on.

But is it though? Again I ask- Why aren't there a squadron (at least) of Falcons? Why doesn't Shield even know about the tech- and for that matter why aren't they armed with it? Sam clearly shows the effectiveness of the tech, and they certainly can't suggest that he's the only one capable of using it. The Falcon tech would be an alternative (or enhancement) to the use of drones, helping to target them. But the T'Challa explanation covers all of those points, and introduces the character to the masses.

I would agree that there isn't much shown of her character to differentiate her from other characters, but at this point, we just have to accept that her role was pretty much a cameo, sort of like Natasha in IM2 or Agent Coulson in IM1.

Coulson isn't really a fair comparison, I think. He was mostly there for comic relief until they went ahead with the TV series. And Natasha is still a thinly written character. She's just sex and violence. Her "interrogation skills" is a mere contrivance to make her seem useful. But in general all the female characters in the MCU serve a very specific purpose, and I seriously doubt that Sharon will get much more going for her in the next film. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.



That's actually a really interesting scenario. In terms of entertainment, it would fulfill the needs of the movie.* In terms of plausibility, it's much more probable and realistic for SHIELD to be inadvertently taken over by a HYDRA computer program than for it to have hosted at least three generations of Americans who have been indoctrinated fully in a foreign ideology. In terms of direction of the story, it wouldn't have created a reason to disband SHIELD. Merely activating a controversial preemptive kill system that then turns against SHIELD wouldn't be reason enough to disband SHIELD. SHIELD had to be shown to be so corrupt that there was no other alternative but to disband it, and to do so required showing infiltration at pretty much all levels of SHIELD hierarchy.

*On second thought, it wouldn't have fulfilled the needs of the movie because there wouldn't be enough "bad guys" for the protagonist to be in conflict with. The idea of a conspiracy thriller is that the protagonist is in conflict with some aspect of society and doesn't know who to trust. Therefore, the needs of the movie demand that a substantial part of SHIELD be antagonist, and it had to go beyond just a mere misunderstanding, because otherwise it would be unseemly for Steve to be using lethal force on good guys who are just following wrong orders.

Sure there would be enough antagonists. We're talking about the entire forces of Hydra. And that's Hydra at its worse, not trying to remain in the guise of being Shield agents. Cap 1 suggested the idea of a Hydra invasion of the US. Cap 2 could have seen that plan realized, and with greater fire-power. Shield would essentially be powerless, so it would still be on Cap to solve the problem. And we could even explore the idea of the man on the street dealing with the invasion (Much as other countries have had to deal with our troops invading). I'm sure there would be some that might side with Hydra.

I like this explanation, but again, the movie's explanation (or lack thereof) also works. In fact, it might be that they will incorporate parts of your explanation when they go into detail about the Winter Soldier in the next movie.

We'll see. I'm certainly not suggesting that my ideas are the only ones that could work. And I understand that a lot of people don't pick movies apart as I do. But I really believe that if Marvel scrutinized their scripts a bit more, very few would enjoy them less.
 
But that's my point. We don't know enough about Bucky's experimentation and we don't know anything about how memory wipes would effect physical performance.

TWS isn't a mindless killing machine. He isn't pure brute force. There's precision and skill involved in his execution. And as I'm saying, Marvel didn't have to go into that direction.





But is it though? Again I ask- Why aren't there a squadron (at least) of Falcons? Why doesn't Shield even know about the tech- and for that matter why aren't they armed with it? Sam clearly shows the effectiveness of the tech, and they certainly can't suggest that he's the only one capable of using it. The Falcon tech would be an alternative (or enhancement) to the use of drones, helping to target them. But the T'Challa explanation covers all of those points, and introduces the character to the masses.



Coulson isn't really a fair comparison, I think. He was mostly there for comic relief until they went ahead with the TV series. And Natasha is still a thinly written character. She's just sex and violence. Her "interrogation skills" is a mere contrivance to make her seem useful. But in general all the female characters in the MCU serve a very specific purpose, and I seriously doubt that Sharon will get much more going for her in the next film. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.





Sure there would be enough antagonists. We're talking about the entire forces of Hydra. And that's Hydra at its worse, not trying to remain in the guise of being Shield agents. Cap 1 suggested the idea of a Hydra invasion of the US. Cap 2 could have seen that plan realized, and with greater fire-power. Shield would essentially be powerless, so it would still be on Cap to solve the problem. And we could even explore the idea of the man on the street dealing with the invasion (Much as other countries have had to deal with our troops invading). I'm sure there would be some that might side with Hydra.



We'll see. I'm certainly not suggesting that my ideas are the only ones that could work. And I understand that a lot of people don't pick movies apart as I do. But I really believe that if Marvel scrutinized their scripts a bit more, very few would enjoy them less.
Seems plenty of people are enjoying what Marvel is putting out. You seem to be the only one pointing out plot holes when the answers are right there in the film.
 
Last edited:
But that's my point. We don't know enough about Bucky's experimentation and we don't know anything about how memory wipes would effect physical performance.

TWS isn't a mindless killing machine. He isn't pure brute force. There's precision and skill involved in his execution. And as I'm saying, Marvel didn't have to go into that direction.

Why is it important for the audience to know more about the mind-wiping procedure though, out of all the blue-sky science and tech we're shown in the movie?
 
Completely agreed. 3D is pointless unless the movie was shot natively (not post-converted) and shot with the 3D effect in mind. The third Transformers movie was shot in native 3D and several sequences were planned out to take full advantage of the 3D effect, and they got some cool shots. Like on the highway, with Shia flying in and out of Bee mid-transformation. 3D in the last few Marvel films has been pointless...

In both Cap movies the 3D has been non existant, and if I ever buy a 3D TV I will NOT be re-buying any of the Marvel movies for their 3D, thats for sure. I just wish they would drop it because it doesnt help with the enjoyment of their movies, if anything it hinders that.

TF 3's 3D was amazing, shows that Michael Bay did his research on it well. With Marvel movies, i don't even bother watching in 3D. The Avengers seems like the least needing film as the way it was shot was more 2 Dimensional, instead of most modern films where the camera is basically in the middle of the action.

TF3 is one of the FEW movies I have really enjoyed in 3D, too many movies are doing it pointlessly now, I have only ever really enjoyed TF3, Avatar, Star Trek Into Darkness, Dredd and Gravity in 3D. All of the others have been pointless.
 
I've seen 4 or 5 in 3d and had no complaints, except the Jotunheim scenes in the first Thor were way too dark. Cap 2 was pretty cool.

And they showed the Maleficent trailer in 3d and it looked incredible. I'll probably see that one based on the 3d preview alone.
 
I don't have any major complaints about this movie. As of now, it surpassed the Avengers as one of my favorite comic book films, but is just slightly below Batman Begins and the Dark Knight. (Please don't kill me..Avengers is awesome, but TWS was just so epic). Some minor problems: not enough Winter Soldier and no Hawkeye. Everything else was brilliant.
 
Seems plenty of people are enjoying what Marvel is putting out. You seem to be the only one pointing out plot holes when the answers are right there in the film.

Simply because you personally didn't see the problems doesn't mean they're not worth pointing out. And the answers AREN'T there. Not one person in any response has produced actual answers that are on film to the plot holes I'm pointing out. They either speculate on what events might mean, or could be presented as being in future films, or like you just don't care if they're there.
I'm certainly not the only person to see these problems. And if they were addressed, I doubt someone from your perspective would enjoy the film any less. I'm certainly not suggesting to take the action down or to make major alterations to the characters. Just make the overall story a little more thoughtful and believable.
 
The thing is we don't need an explanation to every little detail because then the movie would just get a bit tedious and drag due to all the unnecessary exposition. Having a suspension of disbelief is also needed since the movie is already treading on the unbelievable with a 95 year old WWII vet who still looks 30 in the modern day. That makes a lot of the things you're talking about seem like small fries.
 
The thing is we don't need an explanation to every little detail because then the movie would just get a bit tedious and drag due to all the unnecessary exposition. Having a suspension of disbelief is also needed since the movie is already treading on the unbelievable with a 95 year old WWII vet who still looks 30 in the modern day. That makes a lot of the things you're talking about seem like small fries.

I don't recall very many pro critics nitpicking in such a needless manner. You'd think someone like Maltin or Travers or Roeper or Corliss would have noticed and pointed out all these supposed glaring plot holes but no. Curious.
 
My main issue was the final 20 minutes or so. The film started strong with a great thriller/mystery vibe, but at the end it became another big action spectacle. Some of the shaky cam fights also irritated me. Otherwise, I really liked it.
 
Webfoot Hero said:
The thing is we don't need an explanation to every little detail because then the movie would just get a bit tedious and drag due to all the unnecessary exposition. Having a suspension of disbelief is also needed since the movie is already treading on the unbelievable with a 95 year old WWII vet who still looks 30 in the modern day. That makes a lot of the things you're talking about seem like small fries.

Not in the least. Actually the fact that you start with such a wild premise means you have to tread carefully afterward, and work to make the events all the more believable.

As for being tedious, every point I've mentioned could be handled in a way that would be entertaining and effective, and make the stories of the characters that much more real and compelling. I'm not talking about adding these points to all of those already there. I'm saying substitute them for less than satisfying ones. For example- simply stating that when Bucky was discovered by Hydra he had no memory due to the trauma of being in the cryo-state for years, removes any need for discussion of mind wipes.

I don't recall very many pro critics nitpicking in such a needless manner. You'd think someone like Maltin or Travers or Roeper or Corliss would have noticed and pointed out all these supposed glaring plot holes but no. Curious.

Except that Maltin, Roeper et al don't know the histories of the characters and really don't care about these films other than that they not totally suck.
To them these movies are cartoons. They certainly don't put them in the class of films like Wolf of Wall Street or 12 Years a Slave. They don't even classify them with fantasy films like Star Wars, Blade Runner or Raiders. And there's no reason why they couldn't be if the filmmakers tried a little harder.

You think they were wondering why there wasn't an army of Winter Soldiers or a squadron of Falcons, when they were just breathing a sigh of relief that the movie made any sense at all? That doesn't mean that addressing those issues wouldn't have made for a better film.

And honestly, if your only response to my points are "those things didn't bother me", why are you even responding at all? If the film was perfect to you, I'm happy for you and not trying to convince you that it wasn't. I'm speaking of my gripes with it and elaborating on why I have them, as opposed to just saying the movie sucked.
 
I do think people are confusing/conflating plot holes with things that simply remain unexplained. Not the same thing at all.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,598
Messages
21,994,560
Members
45,792
Latest member
khoirulbasri
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"