Am I the only one confused by Rogers’ “We don’t trade lives” argument?
I mean by choosing to prioritise one life – Vision’s life – you are in fact trading away all Wakandan lives as you are committing them to war to save vision and, really, you are also risking every life in the known Universe.
Hell, the very concept of War is one of trading lives. Soldiers go to war to fight either for an ideology (i.e. “freedom) or to protect the lives of their fellow countrymen. Every time a soldier dies they are trading their lives for something or someone else.
I feel like the Russos tried so hard to sell us on this half baked romance between the witch and the android (a romance that no one gives a shit about) that they had to find the flimsiest of excuses to keep it going. Like, it is straight up OOC to me that Steven Grant Rogers, a WW2 veteran who literally chose to lay down his life to save others, would not understand/act on the concept of sacrifice for the greater good.
Steve’s characterisation in MCU is so inconsistent, the only
thing I know undoubtedly about him is that he really does love Peggy and Bucky. I genuinely
don’t know what he stands for or believes in (It’s not about whether I,
personally, would agree to his ideals, but rather… I don’t know what his ideals are!!!)
Everyone in Infinity War was being stupid by not destroying
the Infinity Stones. This includes Tony who had the right idea (“Why don’t we
chuck this one in the garbage disposal?”), but then backed down due to
Strange’s insistence. He should’ve destroyed it when he had the chance.
However, Steve’s “We don’t trade lives” argument really made me scratch my
head… because… umm… that’s literally not
what he was professing one movie ago?
In Avengers, when Tony finally takes the nuke to space,
everyone was willing to trade the live of one man to ensure the greater good.
This includes Tony (who was warned that it might be a one-way trip), Nick Fury
(whose smile fades as he learns that Tony went into the portal), and even the
rest of the avengers.
Even, Steve himself
asks Natasha to close the portal with Tony still inside it (and he did so,
rightfully).
So, most of Avengers team (Nat, Thor & Steve) assessed
the situation and was ready to sacrifice a teammate for the
greater good. Steve in Avengers is of the [rightful] belief that one should
be willing to sacrifice a teammate for ensuring that the more Chitauri won’t
come through the portal and wreak devastation and endanger civilian lives.
Even in Civil War, he continues this belief. When Wanda and
Steve have a conversation about the 12 Wakandans who died as a result of Wanda’s
accidental unleashing of power, Steve,
again, is of the belief that some human
lives are worth sacrificing for the greater good. [I disagree with him,
as these are civilians and innocent bystanders who were dead, and they never signed up for this. However, I can
respect his opinions.]
The full conversation goes like this:
Steve: People died. That’s on me.
Wanda: That’s on both of us.
Steve: This job… (sighs). We try to save as many people as we can. Sometimes, it doesn’t mean
everybody. If we can’t find a way to live that, next time… maybe nobody gets
saved.
Again, this is Steve reiterating
his belief that sacrifices are necessary for the greater good. Notice that it is
not about self-sacrifice he is talking here. He is essentially saying
that sometimes even innocent people will be casualties of war, and as avengers they
should learn to live with it. If Civil War wasn’t about Bucky, but
rather about Steve’s ideals, then he believes so much in this “casualties are
inevitable for greater good” ideal that he is willing to go against his government,
his teammates, and split Avengers team, and become a traitor over this belief.
Okay, so
Avengers!Steve is ready to sacrifice a teammate for greater good.
CivilWar!Steve believes casualties are inevitable and something they need to
live with, for greater good.
So, why the hell would Steve not advise to destroy the Mind
Stone and sacrifice Vision in Infinity War? I
have no clue. He just gave a random catchphrase “We don’t trade lives” which
is neither aligned with his values nor his actions in the past movie. Also, why doesn’t the rest of the Avengers
protest this? All of them knew sometimes one had to give up a teammate to protect
humanity from an alien army. (They literally made this decision in Avengers1!!)
I don’t know why they were so insistent on saving Vision.
And the refusal to sacrifice Vision was trading lives… lives of Wakandans who had to fight an alien
army in order to extend Vision’s chances of survival, lives of his teammates,
and ultimately half of entire humanity.
I genuinely don’t know how anyone cannot see that we-don’t-trade-lives!Steve is just highly inconsistent characterisation.
What does he believe in? Sacrifices for greater good?
Sometimes casualties are inevitable, we just have to deal with it? Or we don’t trade
lives? I don’t know.
But whatever it is, I think it is absurd to think that this ^^
Steve wouldn’t trade the live of a teammate for half the universe. He has always known the need for sacrifice.
So what bit of nothingness had the writers planned for Tony? There’s too many moments that seemed to have been thought up by RDJ.
Iron man reveal in IM1, the character being showed to actually be affected by the goings-on, the character’s anxiety and ptsd being explored, the watch gauntlet in cw…
Would Tony have just remained the Tony Stark MasksTm if RDJ hadn’t gone ‘how about we make him a whole person?’
me: tony used to carelessly war profiteer but upon realizing that it was a dangerous industry and that his company had been selling weapons to enemies under the table without his knowledge or permission, he became disgusted and immediately shut down the company with the knowledge that he could potentially destroy it for good, then did his best to turn around his company and use an old science project to pioneer a new source of clean and sustainable energy, all while devoting his time and career to the safety of the world, and yet still has not forgiven himself for his past despite his multiple sacrifices for his team and the world. this is important character development and it should be recognized that everything he has done since 2008 has been along his path to redemption.
y’all: but tony is a fucking war profiteer and fucking scum y’all will say anything to support ur war profiteer fave
She was always Team Cap even though the reasoning doesnt make logical sense. God especially letting him go and attacking TChalla cause Cap ‘wasnt going to stop‘ is so dumb…
I think its less Widows problem and more Marvel unwilling to sully Captain Americas image so its come to be expected that the only people going against him are absolutely in the wrong even when the whole point of a story is to not actually have a side like Civil War and Cap absolutely being in the wrong.
I mean really all they had to do is have Steve sign it to show he cared about the civilians and other countries concerns and have everything go wrong and he could have been sympathetic. If he was gonna break the law anyways may as well try to cooperate first. Then it could have made sense that Clint and Scott dumped their families for him or Nat switched sides or Sharon risking her career and possibly her freedom or Tony trying to help him in the end.
The amount of contrivances to make Cap look better in the last movies is fuckin ridiculous. Or really like… in any movie thats true.
So many fandom things that bug:
Person1 makes post saying their fave is great by contrasting them to another character whom they say is awful and implies that 2nd character perpetuates real-world social issue.
Person2 who likes 2nd character defends that character and/or points out real-world social issues of 1st character.
Person1 says “omg it’s fiction fjdkdnfjl”
Really? You were the one who brought up real-world social issues. Either the apply your real-world social issues across the board and be prepared to recieve replies to the comparison that you started in your initial post, OR next time just make a praise of your fave post that doesn’t hinge on knocking another down.
DC fans think that people dislike the DCEU because it’s too “dark and serious” but no. It’s just bad. It THINKS it’s dark and serious but it’s either unintentionally hilarious or excessively edgy. People saying it’s “dark” are pointing out that the problem isn’t its serious tone, but the awful way it portrays that serious tone, to the point that you don’t get dark and serious, you get “edgy 13 year old that thinks S&M is the scariest thing to put in a movie and thinks 50 Shades of Grey is real porn”
The Dark Knight trilogy was “dark and serious” and that was NEVER a problem. Ever. Because that was actually GOOD.
DC isn’t bad because it’s dark and serious. It’s just bad, and its badly done, mishandled darkness and seriousness is the easiest thing to poke fun at. That’s why Justice League was not a course correction in any way, because making something funny and lighthearted when it’s still BAD doesn’t actually cure its ills.
That argument might hold up if almost every complaint about the films hadn’t brought up the “grimdark” nature and suggested being more fun, usually phrased as being more hopeful or optimistic or whatever, as a simple solution. That aspect has been arguably the foundation of so much criticism of the franchise. To switch it now to being about quality is kind of a historical revisionism. WB listened to criticism with JL. If there’s a problem, it’s with the criticism.
The problem with WB is that it DIDN’T listen to criticism. Instead of thinking “maybe this needs to be better quality” or “maybe this needs better editing” they decided to just say “NO… IT’S THE DARKNESS THAT’S THE PROBLEM”
They course corrected the way a completely out of touch executive course corrects. They still think that the DCEU needed to be more like Marvel, and they figured making it “more fun” was the way to go, instead of just making it better. They clearly didn’t listen to any real criticism when their next decision was to hire Joss Whedon, still looking to Marvel and its moneybags and trying to copy everything they did instead of looking to improve on what they were trying to sell.
Tell you a secret: When people say something is “grimdark”, they don’t mean that it’s grim or dark. They mean that it’s badly written, childish schlock that thinks it’s mature and adult just because it added violence and made everything colorless or badly lit.
Those are exactly the sentiments people expressed on innumerable occasions about the films. I know because I’ve been following the discourse on these films since the beginning. You could make the argument that that was only part of it but it doesn’t change just how frequent and vocally they were expressed to the point where it’s not surprising at all that they would be focused on as crucial elements to include. People critical of the films made the tone a huge element of their dislike while frequently praising other media with a noticeably contrasting tone, such as the MCU and the DCTV shows, and using the lighter tone of those other franchises as a major point of comparative criticism. Critics and bloggers said over and over and over again that the films need to be more like the MCU and the lighter tone was a huge element of that specific critique.
I agree completely with your sentiment, that having a lighter tone isn’t a substitute for quality, which is exactly what DCEU fans have been saying when stuff like the DCTV shows have been used as a blunt weapon against the films while having their own serious issues downplayed if not ignored completely simply because they were ‘’fun’’.
I don’t like how JL was handled either but we can’t talk about it without mentioning those negative about the preceding films and the influence they had on the end result. To ignore that is ignoring a crucial element of the situation.
I’m not going to try and change your mind about these films but we can still be reasonable and, if nothing else, we can all agree that improving a franchise is a lot more complicated than introducing one tonal element and thinking it will solve everything, which is exactly the sentiment that powers so many articles and YT videos about how to ‘’save’’ the DCEU. Reductive criticisms are never helpful and that includes saying that they just need to make the films ‘’better’’.
In any event, my hope is that the films are on an upswing after JL and will focus more on the elements that will allow them to create a great DC cinematic universe rather than the discount MCU too many people seem to want it to be and I think there’s very good reason to be optimistic about the future.
I also have hope for the future, considering that the DCAU from the 90s to the 2000s has proven just how truly great DC stories can be. I just hope Warner Bros realises the value of individual, quality stories instead of trying so hard to replicate the billion dollar successes of Disney.
I am not a DC fan outside of my specific love for some of its’ properties that were predominantly exposed to me through their animated counterparts, so take what I’m about to say here with a grain of salt.
Tone is a big part of why the DC movies didn’t really appeal to me, absolutely and it is almost the number one criticism I’ve seen discussed about many of the DC films by others.
However, I would further suggest that a serious misunderstanding on what the WB executives thought audiences wanted from these films could be to blame as well and it started with the launch titles.
Marvel followed the Iron Man formula once it was obvious they had a smash hit on their hands and you can see the tone and humor and character and story structure all pretty similar to Iron Man as the films were churned out.
DC however decided to follow the structure of the Batman: Dark Knight which was their own smash hit. Which works great for a property like Batman which lends itself to the gritty and dark themes and characters (though I would posit that Batman The Animated Series proved it could still be light-hearted and fun without having to get super edgey and serious all the time). It works a little less fine though for properties like Superman, Flash and Wonder Woman. I’m not saying these can’t be serious and dark, but for people like me who know very little about these properties outside my limited exposure to them in other media, they seem disjointed and atonal when they are ONLY serious and dark. I mean, look at their costumes! All three of them encoporate bright colors into their costumes, from that alone I assume these are more light and optimistic characters with the possibility for some humor.
Fundamentally, it just feels like the WB doesn’t understand the DC properties and what makes them enjoyable at their core, whereas Marvel Studios-for the most part-understands exactly what their properties are about and how to translate them into film.
U do realise that superman back then when he first created in the 30s/40s he is the champion of the oppressed. Superman wasn’t originally created to be the power fantasy for children but instead being created originally by 2 jewish creators to give themselves hope and to deal with their own powerlessness. Back then superman are very pro active in fighting the business corruption and injustice. It was only during the silver age era that comic code authority tone this down and turning superman into children story.
Snyder make a callback to what originally inspired superman in the first place by focusing onto his immigrant roots while at the same time taking cue from post crisis 90s era superman story in order to modernise the character. Like u said so yourself, this is the problem when u are lack of this exposure and don really know much about the history of this DC characters
If you think that the recent DC Comics movies are bad, you’re entitled to that opinion. But could you please express your views as “AN OPINION” and not as some “FACT” that everyone is expected to swallow? Are you capable of that?
And by the way, I thought the five MCU movies that were released between 2016 and 2017 were crap. But at least I’m acknowledging that this is my opinion and I’m not trying to pass it off as a fact.
Smile It Won't Suck Forever 