Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Post-release)

After watching Winter Soldier for like the 7th time, I think I've finally narrowed down the number one thing that bugged me about this movie. For the second stand alone Captain America movie, it was certainly setting itself apart from both the first Captain America movie and the Avengers follow up. But here, it feels like the writers took an extra step to further distance itself from the previous movies. When Fury is showing off the brand new heavily armed helicarriers to Steve, my immediate reaction was that these were designed to better combat another potential alien invasion. Having all those canons and pin-point accurate long range turrets would definitely have been useful in New York. Heck, even Fury brings up New York as a means of getting this program started. But instead, it's going to be used for.... combating terrorism? I get that SHIELD was always meant to fight organizations like this, but the way it's executed just comes off more as a "right thing to do, wrong reason to do it".

It's like if the sequel to the original Star Wars movie featured the rebels designing their own Star Destroyers in response of the Death Star just so they can combat Tusken Raiders. I mean, Nick had the perfect means to get Roger's support. A way to effectively combat alien threats or potentially bigger threats in general should the Avengers not be enough. But instead it's all about terrorists. The only way this plot point works is if you get rid of the Avengers movie entirely. Nick Fury making the call back to New York would now be regarded as a call back to 9/11 which would make the carriers directly responding to terrorists make a lot more narrative sense. The only thing anyone ever talks about in this film are their reactions to terrorism. Not once does the notion of another surprise alien invasion come into discussion. It's like it never happened even though they try to push the invasion as the 9/11 event of this universe.
 
combating terrorism? I get that SHIELD was always meant to fight organizations like this, but the way it's executed just comes off more as a "right thing to do, wrong reason to do it".

Good point.
To play devil's advocate...
Probably because that's how SHIELD (HYDRA) sold the idea to Fury. He clearly was blind (no 1/2 pun intended) to the underlying HYDRA agenda.
I thought the defense against aliens is The Avengers. They just need to add more supers... or a Stark House Party protocol...
 
During their first mission, his shield was stealth coated. I.e they put some kind of coating that covered the red on the shield. The movie poster where you see tiny chunks of red on it, is the coating coming off and revealing the red. All that happened after the first mission was they peeled off the coating.

What I hated was that the shield went from stealth blue to the classic red and blue in such a short time between the first mission and the reveal of the helicarriers. If it was just an application that could be peeled off then that makes sense. However, after the bombing of the bunker, most of the paint was scratched off, wasn't it? How did they get it repainted (who repainted it) before the scene on the freeway when they are ambushed by the Winter Soldier and his flunkies?
 
What I hated was that the shield went from stealth blue to the classic red and blue in such a short time between the first mission and the reveal of the helicarriers. If it was just an application that could be peeled off then that makes sense. However, after the bombing of the bunker, most of the paint was scratched off, wasn't it? How did they get it repainted (who repainted it) before the scene on the freeway when they are ambushed by the Winter Soldier and his flunkies?

Because Hollywood.
 
After watching Winter Soldier for like the 7th time, I think I've finally narrowed down the number one thing that bugged me about this movie. For the second stand alone Captain America movie, it was certainly setting itself apart from both the first Captain America movie and the Avengers follow up. But here, it feels like the writers took an extra step to further distance itself from the previous movies. When Fury is showing off the brand new heavily armed helicarriers to Steve, my immediate reaction was that these were designed to better combat another potential alien invasion. Having all those canons and pin-point accurate long range turrets would definitely have been useful in New York. Heck, even Fury brings up New York as a means of getting this program started. But instead, it's going to be used for.... combating terrorism? I get that SHIELD was always meant to fight organizations like this, but the way it's executed just comes off more as a "right thing to do, wrong reason to do it".

It's like if the sequel to the original Star Wars movie featured the rebels designing their own Star Destroyers in response of the Death Star just so they can combat Tusken Raiders. I mean, Nick had the perfect means to get Roger's support. A way to effectively combat alien threats or potentially bigger threats in general should the Avengers not be enough. But instead it's all about terrorists. The only way this plot point works is if you get rid of the Avengers movie entirely. Nick Fury making the call back to New York would now be regarded as a call back to 9/11 which would make the carriers directly responding to terrorists make a lot more narrative sense. The only thing anyone ever talks about in this film are their reactions to terrorism. Not once does the notion of another surprise alien invasion come into discussion. It's like it never happened even though they try to push the invasion as the 9/11 event of this universe.


I see what you are getting at, about the carriers being suited to one thing and then pitched for another.

But are you sure this is an error on the filmmakers' part, and not an intentional thing?

Since when does the USA build its military to reflect the realistic threats? We keep a nuclear carrier fleet on the ocean to guard ourselves from guys living in caves. We've been prepping for WW3 since the 1940s even though the likelihood of it actually happening has been falling since the 1960s, and was gone entirely around 1990.

At the risk of getting political, IMO building those ridiculously overdone carriers to protect against "terrorism" is exactly the sort of thing that goes in real life.
 
My take is that they're multipurposed and probably have been pitched as one thing (defense) to get funded but used mainly for the other thing (assassination).
 
Back
Top