I remember when the Dora Milaje said they had jurisdiction wherever they wanted I thought “oh that’s cool to see that they also imperialistically think like John Walker” but then I opened Instagram and the official marvel account posted the quote from the Dora Milaje and in the caption wrote “as they should 😌” and I was completely blown away, so that wasn’t intended to show that they were wrong too it was to say their government can go wherever they want enforcing their own will because they’re the good guys.
Thank you! I remember when that episode came out a lot of people on Twitter were cheering on that line and dunking on John Walker for his attitude and it bugged the Hell out of me.
The Dora Milaje actually do have jurisdiction though. In CA: Civil War, Zemo was extradited to Wakanda, so technically, they have the right to get him.
@@lani7148 that’s true but the line “The Dora Milaje have jurisdiction wherever the Dora Milaje find themselves to be.” Still screams if your the good govt you can go wherever you want enforcing your will it’s almost like most marvel movies are sponsored by the pentagon :/
@@rosshauler7688 Hmm... my take on it was after John told Ayo they don't have jurisdiction, she knew they did, and she didn't owe him any explanations. It was more of an "F you" to John for having the gall to try to dictate to her what her what her gov't can and can't do.
Unless someone can tell me if this troupe has another name, I'm making a term for this. I want to be able to call it out with a single phrase similar to Gail Simone's 'Women in refrigerators' when I see it. I'm calling it 'flag smashing." Flag smashing: When a writer makes a character or their ideologies TOO sympathetic and worries the audience will be on their side, will make said character perform an over the top, remorseless act of evil that will make the audience disavow them. Used in a sentence: I was rooting for Daenarys to win the game of thrones until her flag smashing moment where she burned a whole city to the ground for no reason. What examples of Flag smashing do you know?
Lotor from Voltron. Started off as the noble prince of his empire that was against his father's ways of leading the Valra empire. Then, as he tries to work with team Voltron in unifying and fixing the universe in peace, they find out he enslaved and captured a race of people to use as an energy source or something. Then they fight him in one big battle with his own loyal team of five, but in the middle of that fight, he decides to ostracize and insult his own team of five who are risking their lives to help him fight Voltron. Something he has never done while working alongside them in the past. They basically turned him from an interesting grey villain/anti hero into a mustache twirling monster
Any plotline that too closely resembles the French Revolution of 1789 has a tendency to veer in this direction, because hundreds of years of British propaganda have magnified the wrongs committed by the Jacobins several times over. Can’t have a villain who wants to upset the entrenched power structure get too sympathetic, people might get ideas. So, basically, I concur: Bane in TDKR.
They clearly worried about this with Killmonger in Black Panther, for no reason he just shoots and kills a member of his crew early on so the audience can go: "Oh right - bad guy..."
I really don't think the writing of Falcon and the Winter Soldier was nuanced enough to intentionally include a subtle jab at American imperialism. In fact the writing in this show has been so in-your-face with all the messages they want to get across that I'm more convinced the writers simply accepted John Walker having jurisdiction without a second thought. Same for the pentagon review, it's so widely accepted as normal that no one thought of it as a critique. It's actually an impressive thing for any viewers who picked up on it and questioned it.
And the fact that John Walker is supposed to be their bad guy until having to try and make him an anti-hero for the Thunderbolts movie fucks me around because he is UNDOUBTEDLY the worst-treated character period.
Okay at the very least those were high tension situations, on a mission, with no civilians around. Walker killed a defenseless man begging for mercy infront of people. It's just a time and place kinda thing.
And in that scene he's acting as a Private Military Contractor! A mercenary! Of course most of what superheroes do is illegal and ethically... debatable it's just funny to point out.
I like superheroes killing the bad guys, but i also want to point out that technically John Walker committed a war crime (the guy was surrendering). Still have no problem with it doe, just wanted to point out why the government put him aside.
@@victorious0001 well, that guy kinda prevented John from saving lemar by grabbing him (because Karli wanted to stab him, which doesn’t help the situation) so John got the rights to be pissed
"Violence is bad, actually" said THE AVENGERS (insert that scene where Secretary Ross shows the Avengers a compilation of their destruction in Civil War)
I find that scene...strange. When he shows the footage of New York, how come none of them remind Ross that the government he so proudly serves tried to...NUKE MANHATTAN and they're the ONLY reason why that didn't happen? Or how about the fact that, without them, Sokovia would have destroyed the planet, because Ultron turned it into a giant asteroid?
@@madsgrams2069 Wasn't it Shield's board of director's that tried to Nuke Manhattan? as in Hydra? Further the point of that scene is not that The Avengers weren't acting in service to the greater good but that they need to be accountable for the damage their actions still cause. Consider how the inciting incident was Scalett Witch getting a bunch of civilians killed by saving a bunch of other civilians
@@madsgrams2069 I also find it annoying that no one mentions that Ross is the reason The Abomination exists, and that the destruction of Harlem in Hulk (2008) is therefore his fault.
As a guy living in the middle east, thank you for talking about this topic. You guys in the west have no idea how bad American Imperialism affects us. A small example: the president of Turkey who the west calls an Islamist dictator was supported and placed by the US, before that Turkey used to be much more secular. In a decade it became more and more conservative, because it's easy to control a country if it's a theocracy and you own its leader. Only after the president and US backed Gülen cult got in a fight and the Turkish government started not to listen to the west, it started being called a dictatorship. So many innocent, brilliant Turkish nationals, politicians, officers, journalists died in the process. It's a very long and sad story actually.
it's a shitty example because the US didn't place Erdogan in the office, Turkey was too strong but yeah they supported him as long as he didn't threaten influence. They support regimes like in Saudi Arabia. As a guy who lives in Poland I have a positive view on US bases in Europe but their actions in the middle east are questionable (mostly wars).
As someone who is from actual Latvia, I sure as hell hope some US military guy would not have unsupervised jurisdiction in a foreign country. If the new Cap was working there on the behalf of GRC, he would more likely be accompanied by Latvian GRC representives, not just running around on his own free will.
Your living in a post-Covid world and things are already weird. Imagine the chaos of the Snap and Reverse Snap. It's not that hard to imagine UN commandos doing whatever they wanted.
@@EmperorRahem Yes, it is hard to imagine. Especially someone allegedly working for the UN, but so strongly identified with the USA. Would the US be okay with Captain China running around, doing whatever?
An additional interesting layer to that "jurisdiction" scene is Zemo himself. The moment Walker breaks through the door he is silent. It's his house in a city & is the only character to indicate any personal connection with Latvia & has been very vocal about him opinion all episode. Yet in this moment he is purely a spectator, watching on as these 3 factions contest over his immediate future - and then slipping away when they become distracted by that contest. Pretty good stuff
Exactly. Zemo is a character with immense depth and deserves more of a role. In that one scene, he played taichi and allowed his opponents to fall by their own momentum
When watching it, I thought an interesting ending would be if the Flag Smashers did nothing violent, and were just rebelling without killing. This would lead to Lamar accidentally dying though, making them question if they have gone too far. Meanwhile, this gives Zemo the ability to manipulate US Agent to hunt the Flag Smashers done. This would result in a finale where Sam and Bucky had to protect the Flag Smashers from US Agent, which I think would be a nice subversion. Not perfect, but INSTEAD the Flag Smashers become pretty much fully on evil, canceling out their motivations, and US Agent, who started to go down a really interesting path, just got redeemed haphazardly. That being said, though, I heard an episode and storylines may have been cut due to COVID, so I guess I'm a bit nicer on the show because of that. IMO, I still like the show, it just stumbled at the finish line.
When they blew up a building of hostages it felt like just a jump in logic, you could practically hear the producers saying "we need a reason for people to feel alright seeing the military beat them up"
Now I didn't really see Walker as being "redeemed." I mean, HE certainly thinks he was, but choosing to do the obvious right thing once after a comical amount of anguished deliberation isn't that impressive.
I don't think he is supposed to be redeemed...fully. I think they wanted him to be an antihero figure who the audience won't find straight up villainous so half redeemed from villian/antagonist to anti hero. Kinda how punisher is an anti hero or deadpool. I think that worked if it's what they're going for
@@thewriterforge Honestly John was done better in the comics to where it showed he REALLY didn't want to take away the shield from Falcon because he respected Cap. Yet it Falcon setup to take the heat which forced his hand. They basically switched whom was setup and the respect aspect for this show.
I thought the whole point was that the redemption arc was fake. After all he was still working for that mysterious lady, so it's clear he's still the villain.
“Americas most popular fictional series is based on defeating an empire” also worth noting, much of Lucas’s inspiration for the empire is Vietnam era United States, even George was keenly aware back in the day just how imperialist the US actually is. (Side note yes I’m aware additional inspiration is drawn from the nazis and Ancient Rome amongst other things but from the start George has made it clear that he wrote star wars during the nam era and one of the single largest influences was...nam.
The Galactic Empire was based on Nazi Germany, though one of the great subversive successes of I-III was showing how easily that kind of fascism can grow from an ostensible democracy like ours by listening to to wrong people and going down the wrong path.
Every time someone says "violence is bad", remember to ask what violence is being marked as bad, who that violence was aimed at, and what it was meant to achieve. Violence to end the violence of others is justified and good.
Agree. The rebels in this show were killing people who did nothing but work for bad companies to support their families. The moment your violence "spills" like that it's no longer justifiable, no matter what the original cause was. It was pretty on the nose that the writers wanted viewers to sympathize with the rebels or at least feel divided about it. I enjoyed the show overall but was absolutely not sold on that part. Same for Walker, total dickwad.
@@CidGuerreiro1234 The broader point I think is that the spillover violence of "rebels" is always open to critique, condemnation and requiring immediate action to stop it in shows like these, but the violence of imperialism and empire that they are fighting against is only conceptually condemned but never actually stopped with anywhere near the fervor, urgency or outrage as the violence of the rebels. Rebels not caring about civilians getting caught up in their resistance? That stops today, even if we have to kill them to do it! Systems grinding people up and spitting them out daily for profit? Eh, we'll make a speech about how naughty that is and call it a day.
Glad I'm not the only one who felt the message in the series was really muddled. Everyone I talked to after seeing it was like "it's sooo good!" And Im just like 😬 "is it though?"
One way of thinking about Walker's rushed redemption arc is that, from the meta-narrative point of view of your critique, it represents exactly the way that Americans really feel about American misdeeds on the world stage.
@@TheJadedJames Maybe not that specifically, but he’s definitely going to be an antagonistic threat from here on out. I have a feeling he’ll get a similar arc to that of his comic counterpart (and he’s already a quarter of the way there).
American mercenaries murdered 17 people in cold blood for no reason in Iraq and got away with it for the most part and over half of Americans see that as justice so... Yeah I think you're right.
It really felt hacked together. There's a theory that the original script had the flag smashers trying to kill half the population again via a pandemic, but that plotline was abandoned for obvious reasons. You can sort of see with ep2 being about stealing vaccines, Karli's mentor dying of a disease, and Karli going back to the Soldier Serum researcher for a cure. It certainly felt like a major plotline, and thus the coherency of the story, was sort of ripped out and not adequately replaced, leaving Karli without much motivation or direction.
@@carlosroo5460 What? No, you can like it flaws and all, the thematic issues of the show are some of the issues alot of people tend to pose with The Dark Knight Rises, "You've identified a complex real world issue, and its proposed solution is held by the villain, who is VERY violent and bad, so the good guy punches the villain and problem away...... Maybe? the end".
Yeah the flag smashers are based af in the comics and in the show but "muh violence is not the answer but you're cause is good" so nothing happens bruh
The whole "take the villain's ideology but without the violence" thing has an extra sour taste since it's usually the case that the heroes, being part of the status quo, have the political power necessary to put the ideology into practice, while the villains, eg Karli and Killmonger, don't. They're using the only political power available to them, violence. I mean of course for narrative purposes, so we know they're the baddies, they're depicted as being extra callous about the violence they inflict. Particularly, Killmonger is shown as a character for whom violence is his natural way to solve problems, but Karli explicitly states that she's using the only language that will be listened to.
this is pure facts i'm finding it harder and harder to consider heroes that perpetuate the status quo as true heroes it's like politicians denouncing protests and then refusing to pass helpful policy, they're intentionally slowing down progress with their own hands
If violence was the only language people listen to, then why did so many people leap to help out Sam’s family in the fifth episode? Why was the media on his side following his speech to the officials? Karli was wrong. There were other ways to help people beyond trying to kill her opposition. Sam actively demonstrated this.
@@magnusprime962 Karli said violence was the only language the _GRC_ would understand. The show actually never proved her wrong. The GRC tried to speedrun the repatriation act in response to the Flag Smasher's attack, and called it off when they were nearly killed.
I had a lot of complicated feelings about this series. The critique of imperialism is THERE but it doesn't quite go as far as I would like. It's hard to balance my excitement of "Holy shoot, Sam is Captain America, I've wanted this for years!" and my questioning whether having a superhero called "Captain America" is actually good or worthwhile. At the end of the day The Falcon & The Winter Soldier is a product. To be an easier sell, there are certain artistic and political risks the creators will not take. And I think that sucks.
Yeah I honestly felt a twinge of disappointment seeing Sam suit up in that final episode, because Isaiah Bradley's comment about "no self-respecting black man should call themselves Captain America" really struck me with a "wait, he's right" moment. I came around on Sam's optimistic viewpoint and the show's ending, but it would have been interesting and potentially groundbreaking to see the show end with the very idea of "Captain America" condemned as imperialist propaganda.
@@RM-cn8pw I'm guessing you mean that he represents what America should be, and the show agrees with you. But it also presents a second, more cynical argument, Captain America as a tool for imperialism, and the cynical part of me would've liked to see them go all the way with that argument
I think John Walker's redemption arc was a way of depicting how quickly America tends to forget its actions, forgive itself, and pat itself on the back for a job well done.
I always thought it was telling that the evil, ultranationalist, military type apparently deserved a redemption arc, and the evil, anarchist, egalitarian didn't. (Maybe that says something about our own country's ideologies...)
So basically Humanity in a nutshell. It's not an American thing, it's a human thing #fact Humans since we came to be, have always look for an excuse to trample other humans, other societies, other countries, every other neighbor. Guess what, that's not going to change. I'm still waiting to see what big/small event is going to cause World War 3 and believe me, it's going to happen
There's a theory that it's not even really a redemption arc. We've seen Julia Louis-Dreyfus in Black Widow, too, where *SPOILER* she reveals she already recruited Florence Pugh's character Yelena Belova. She's building a team, and it's been speculated that it's for HYDRA and she's Madame Hydra. Some people have also guessed that she's working for the Thunderbolts program, in which case which characters stay villainous and which decide the hero biz really is for them could make for some real edge-of-the-seat watching.
This jurisdiction thing also comes into play in Sam and Bucky's actions, and is strangely overlooked. They help Zemo break out of prison and suffer no consequences whatsoever... I'm pretty sure that's a crime? Even if they were doing it "for the greater good". It's also bizarre that during this rogue operation, Sam promises Sharon Carter to clear her name, and no one even questions whether or not he actually has the authority to promise something like that, considering he's currently a fugitive (or at least, he should to be).
@@ExeErdna Also when they finally hand Zemo over to the Dora Milaje, Okoye says they're gonna take him to The Raft, and like, can they do that? Just drop prisoners off at this secret, US-owned, maximum security prison in the middle of the ocean? Surely there's some sort of procedure here... It's just a little thing, but this show has a many of these and they stack up.
@@ShirDeutch Yeah they technically can't do that. It's a whole pile of "don't think about it, it just works" Especially when their own logic end up flawed.
@@ShirDeutch yeah thats why I was so confused why they wanted to capture him in the first place just to take him to the prison that sam and bucky would have probably taken him to anyway.
Bucky broke Zemo out of prison on his own accord (actually there isn't any proof of that, but the audience knows Bucky helped Zemo), so Sam wouldn't be in trouble per se. Sam at this point it a paid employee of the Air Force (I think), so again, especially as an Avenger, has some power and limited authority. Sharon was pardoned, so Sam must have had some clout. Cap, Sam and eventually Bucky were all pardoned, so none of them are fugitives. Bucky had a conditional pardon due to the crimes he committed as the Winter Solider. So, if the govt ever found out he helped Zemo break out, he could in theory be in some serious doo doo! Just my theory.
Jeremy Jahns had a good point, in that Walker could've easily said the same thing as the Dora Milaje and it would've sounded way worse. "Captain America has jurisdiction wherever Captain America happens to find himself."
@@uanime1 I saw a comment on a video critiquing Captain America The Winter Solider that while we are supposed to root for Steve Rodgers and his Ideologies, the film never questions and challenges Steve on it and just assumes that he is right, what are your thoughts on that?
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674 That's the whole plot of the movie. Steve never changes his ideology but looses his trust to his own government. It's up to people whether that's good or bad but the movie kinda misses the mark by blaming old nazi illuminati for US government's paranoid genocide which takes away that heavy hit the movie should had.
I can't be the only one who saw that scene of John Walker rather unhingedly building his own shield as set up for him going on some kind of murderous rampage as the twist final boss. So the flagsmashers would have team up with/turn themselves in in order to redemption arc and help our heroes stop him. I mean it would still have some issues but it would at least be you know... Coherent.
That would have been way better. But aside from not getting the Pentagon's approval, it's clear that any media going through Disney has a particular priority. Doing what's right is number 2. Number 1 is maintaining the status quo. Once you start pulling that thread, questioning American symbols and how they can be weaponized, you start questioning the very system that has allowed a children's entertainment company to become a global economic power. That's why you'll never see any real critiques of the current way of the world. The Flagsmashers questioned the very idea of borders as tools of imperialism and oppression. They had to be villainized. Disney has a vested interest in ideas like that not catching on.
@@rottensquid It’s actually very frustrating too. The MCU shows will raise some interesting, albeit mostly fashionable political/social topics, and present them in rather creative storytelling ways, but then completely distance themselves from the true depths of the topic. If they’re going to keep doing that, I’d almost wish they didn’t raise those issues in the first place. Wanda got a pass for keeping an entire town hostage, even though it would have been more compelling to explicitly villanize her actions as an example of the destructive nature one’s grief can have on innocent bystanders (yes I know she has the darkhold at the very end, but the tone of that finale just felt so off). Loki technically should have been more evil in his show as that version of himself was the one that had just tried to conquer NYC. Moreover, there should have been more discussions on freewill, fascism, identity, etc but instead we get stuck with an entire episode of a nexus event on some pointless planet? And of course this video covers the issues in Falcon and the Winter Soldier very well.
Nah, you could argue that walker shouldn’t have had a redemption, but the flagsmashers were too far gone. That would pretty much be like trying to redeem the Boston Bomber or the terrorists on 9/11. John Walker killed one guy under the influence of a drug, and right after his best friend was killed not to mention the guy was a terrorist who had assisted in the deaths of dozens and planned to kill more. I’m not saying this to justify his actions but I am saying this to point out that Walker is a far more complex character than the Flagsmashers. The Flagsmashers (Carly specifically) wanted their equitable world (which is a child’s dream at best) didn’t care who or how many they killed to get it. Heck, I’d argue Zemo was more redeemable than Carly. At the end of the day this group was pretty much the perfect embodiment of people who fueled by anger at their life’s state and instead of trying to make the world a better place, they simply try to tear it down but do it under the guise of empathy and self righteousness. They really were the lowest of the low. And there redemption would not only have felt unearned and morally bizarre, but would have been out of character.
@@thedukeofchutney468 It sounds like your issue with the Flagsmashers is their goal as much as their methods. Either you missed the part where all their lives were essentially destroyed by uncaring politicians doing a sloppy job of smoothing over the mess the world was in, or you're fine with little people being sacrificed for the sake of political expediency. That "child's dream" you talk about is the dream that Carly could get back the life that was taken from her by politicians trying to "smooth things over," of wake the world up to the fact that she and her cohorts were thrown under the bus. One of these days, and not too far off now, you and I will end up thrown under the bus of political convenience, and I assure you, you won't be thinking about the greater good.
One thing that hurts this show’s themes is that the MCU already has a very blurry portrayal of the global role of the U.S. This show, Avengers 1, Winter Soldier and Civil War all seem to conflate the U.S. government and international/multilateral organizations. Avengers 1 and Winter Soldier seem to combine the U.S. intelligence community with a militarized UN Security Council. Civil War seems to make the U.S. Department of State the enforcement arm of the UN General Assembly. And this show seems to combine the UN Security Council, the International Organization for Migration and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees with the FBI and Interpol through a decidedly corporate lens. It’s so muddy that themes of jurisdiction, foreign policy, and national and global responsibility are so murky that they are vague and confusing at best, which is why Sam’s speech at the end sounds inspiring, but really has nothing substantive to offer.
Interesting video. Sam & Winter soldier show always felt like a mess, but it seems like thats primarily due to the lack of interest in 1. Actually exploring the real world implications of the thanos snap, and 2. The complete ineptitude with which they handle ideology and politics of the characters and wind up create an incoherent mess of a story. It just felt like it was saying "heres how you're supposed to feel" without ever justifying its position or challenge those positions in interesting ways. Just my two cents though. Thoughts?
They revealed a hyper advanced society in Wakanda and nothing changed. Marvel has run into the sitcom problem: nothing can change. They cant advance beyond the current day society. So the Snap and Wakanda don't actually affect the world.
Very well put, I think Loki and Wandavis worked a lot better because, to a degree, they could be a lot more self contained. But because F&WS can't. It has to at least look at large scale society issue because that's what a cap show should do. The trouble is Marvel doesn't want to tackle these issues head on becasue that would be far too controversial, which means we get stories that forever scratch the surface but can't go deeper on a societal level
@@FortuitusVideo and thats a very comics way to deal with it. It remember me one of the Transformers movies where evil Grandpa Prime transports part of Cybertron to earth's orbit. How cool would be if the next movie was about it, instead Grandpa Prime is defeated and Cybertron is.magicaly send back. Is really frustrating when the world build stops.
Tbh this could be a genius thing to do in a Captain America story if it were intentional because looking in from the outside (specifically a country that the USA subverted in the past: Chile), the “Lets barely acknowledge the problems, change the rhetoric, and then barely tweak the status quo” thing is very American, it's an attitude which has been consistent since at least post-WWII except for FDR’s internal policies, so it would make sense to make America-representing-characters this way and then criticize that either explicitly or implicitly. What's annoying is that the criticism never seems to happen, it's just non-stop masturbation about American supremacy.
Yes. I hope you're right, I hope we get to see the non-existent/negative consequences of that silly little speech given to power hungry rich maniacs in the next season
I think interpreting this scene as the Dora Milaje biting back at American imperialism sells Wakanda really short, and brings in too much of your real life understanding of global power. A large part of Black Panther was selling the idea that Wakanda is an isolationist superpower who has entered the world stage to expand its influence. After watching that movie you aren’t supposed to think of Wakanda as a lesser power to the US. In that context Ayo’s line makes much more sense as a power-play. The Dora-milaje are willing to assert power outside of their borders, and this is a stand-off between two global super-powers in a country neither belongs. To support my point, I note that this isn’t the first place we’ve seen the Dora-milaje engage in overseas violence with no authority to protect their domestic interests.
This is a good point. Countries protect their interests unless a stronger power comes along to stifle them. Because of the threat of evil in the world, goodness is a luxury granted the strong if they do not abuse their power.
All this show had to do to not rub me the wrong way is: do not give US Agent a forced redemption arch and make is so the flag smashers didn't kill people.
John Walker was a brilliant anti-hero and the probably only reason I finished the show, Wyatt Russell is a brilliant actor and was glad to see him in such a significant role. The flag smashers were a terrible antogonists imo, dragged the show down so much.
The Flag Smashers were so luke warm and boring. They should either be ruthless in trying to achieve their goals or Robinhood types, noble "freedom fighters". They killed people in cold blood yet the show asks us to sympathize with them... Which isn't even my biggest problem with them. The Flag Smashers were utterly uninteresting in their characterization.
I cant think of anyone the flag smashers killed that didnt deserve it. They were all either hired guns keeping vaccines from sick people, rich bureaucrats voting to displace refugees, or some other stormtrooper type. Why is it bad that the flag smashers do this but the avengers can cut thru scores of hydra and luke skywalker can nuke hundreds of imperials. This show had such a dumb parameter for morality when u think ab it longer than a single second.
@@ramisgoogleacc702 The difference between it being ok for the Avengers or Luke to tear through faceless hordes is because 1.) They're faceless for a reason, so you don't humanize them. 2.) Those properties do an exceptional job of making sure you know who the bad guys are. They don't just rely on the word of a boring whiney teenager to relay that point. 3.) The "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" has been done better in other countless other properties, so it isn't even a new idea. So yea, take more than a second to ponder why people say these villains come off as cold blooded murderers.
As someone who is not American, it pissed me off that so much of the show was set outside of the US. If it's about Captain America, let it be set in America, please. Also, I've volunteered in the refugee movement in Europe for the past six years, and have a lot of insight into the real no borders movement here. To me, the whole flag smashers storyline was incredibly stupid, clearly not researched and just overall poorly executed if not outright offensive. It was by far the weakest link in the whole show. It could've been a decent show if they'd just dropped the whole flag smashers thing, focused on the growth and personal lives of the main characters and let it be that buddy cop show that the actors promoted it to be.
You do know that only 1 Captain America movie was set in America right? I’m not gonna argue the merits of FaWS, but Captain America being an inherently political character probably can say just as much in America as outside of it and what theme or message the authors are trying to convey
@@hobbes6392 I am very aware, and never said I liked that either. In the first movie it was at least motivated and an integral part of Steve's growth. But now it's not Steve Rogers anymore, it's Sam Wilson and the show does A LOT to tie Sam to the struggles within the US, so it feels like a cop out to then give him an enemy on foreign soil in a plot line that is only poorly weaved in with his personal struggles and growth. That time could've been much better used and served his character better if he'd stayed at home. It could've allowed the shield to stand for something new and fresh. I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
I so agree with dropping the Flag Smashers. If that storyline really was affected by the pandemic, they should've just cut it. The show was overstuffed as is.
I think you're giving the show too much credit. You say that Carlie Morgenthau is anti-Nationalist and anti-Capitalist, but that's not really what I got from her. She believes in a world "without borders" because "things were better during the blip", but the specific language she uses is dripping with contempt for the people who were dusted and then came back. About how they're getting all of the resources and that they should look after people who weren't blipped instead. She talks about them like how nationalists talk about immigrants. The sum is a mix of open-borders dressing on anti-immigration talking points that results in an ideology that has a shape but no texture. It's the same with how the Global Repatriation Council is hinting at, and dressed up as, a sort of neo-liberal international organization but we're sort of left to fill in the blanks on what that means ourselves.
Bingo, people see the visuals aspects and ignore the "flavor". Carlie wasn't a revolutionary she LOVED the status quo. Of those 5 short years which makes her more of a horrible person. She's mad that lives were saved that were taken away because Thanos was being selfish. GRC are just bumbling buracrats that know they can't do what they're doing yet do it anyway. What their goals were wasn't helping nobody
You've got a good point there, Mr TopHat. I think the show's biggest failure was in defining Karli and what she stood for. We got an unclear (and as you point out, somewhat contradictory) idea of what she wanted in MCU terms, but the show creators failed to generalize that to any kind of real world situation that would make us care about what she was fighting for.
The way I would describe it is that people are seeing too much real-world parallelism - probably more than was actually intended (which is also partially because TF&TWS does have a lot of social commentary in it, so the audience would naturally think the whole show is social commentary when it isn't). Karli talks like a supporter of open borders, which is usually associated with left-wing politics, but it's in the specific context of the Blip - a very much not-real event. Half of humanity was literally dusted and borders collapsed because of that kind of black swan event. In that context, her tirades against borders ironically becomes, as you say, a right-wing political point - she's anti-dusted-people, because the world she and others came to love during the Blip is now gone. She's a conservative, struggling to conserve the world that used to exist when only half of humanity was left. I really like how you describe this as "an ideology that has a shape but no texture" - there is no real-world equivalent for this kind of ideology because the show is fiction and the context surrounding that ideology's creation simply doesn't exist. Honestly, I think the show overreached with its villain. I thought it was mostly going to focus on American race relations with regards to Sam - a very much not blond-haired, blue-eyed white American - becoming Captain America, and with respect to that, I thought the show did a reasonably good job. All the stuff with Karli was window dressing on the side IMO, and it ended up being the half-cooked stuff anyway.
@@EscapeVelocity11186 borders still éxits..Also in far from home its shower than nothing happens apart of s joke in the first scene..all Europe its just fine.. Also her motivación got no sense at all..
Absolutely great insights. I find the politics of marvel so problematic in its desperate attempt to please everyone. They say 'Yes there are problems with the establishment. But, here is a disenfranchised person suffering under the system who turns to killing. So who is really the bad guy?' It's a subtle way of reinforcing the status quo by suggesting the only alternative is violence and the collapse of our individual safeties. In trying to continue an ideology of things as they are Marvel films are really reinforcing a view that those suffering in the present are not worth the risk of change.
I read Walker very differently (assuming that’s who you’re talking about). Walker’s bad actions *are the establishments bad actions.* It’s just trust in television that the establishment is too legally powerful to suffer any tangible consequence, but the establishment IS the reason John Walker is the way he is. It’s not that those suffering aren’t worth the risk of change, it’s that change is, for better or worse, out of the hands of many of our characters. The King of Wakanda is able to create real change for his fictional country cause he’s the top dog who actually makes the rules, but what power does Sam Wilson have that’s not purely symbolic? What change *can* he actually directly enforce?
Given we are living through an unprecedented period of plenty, freedom and security for about 200 years, it's hard to deny that defending the status quo is bad
@@Canadish 'things are fine for me so we shouldn't change to make things better for others', This is an argument borne from being one of the few in the modern world fortunate enough to have a good life. I sincerely think you need to step outside your bubble and go and see those who suffer under the present situation. It isn't hard to find those who do. Just because the present seems good for you (and judging by how many people are depressed, miserable and unfulfilled, it is less than you think), does not mean we should stop and rest. There is much work to do before humans stop exploiting one another and the world around us, if it's possible at all
@@snakespreader International poverty is the lowest it has ever been? Also, I'd agree it's always good to try keep improving, but worth keeping things in perspective as well. Before you flip the world upside down, remember things are really good right now.
10:21 his redemption was shit, he could have been a tragic hero at this point, his speech here could have been more relevant, more emotional he could the representation of the dark side of the US military that generates tormented men
13:24 look how the suit limits the neck's moviment of anthony mack probably they will remove the neck white tissue next time reappears looks uncomfortable
His redemption was shit because he didn't have a redemption. It was a reaffirmation simply of what the core of his character always had been that they established, someone who does care about protecting people and wants to do the right thing. Walker was never some evil monster, he did care about people, he did care about doing his job to protect them, and him pulling up that truck was to remind people that even if he doesn't have the morality to be Captain America, it doesn't mean he's a monster completely devoid of anything good. He is still the tragic fallen hero, he's not redeemed, he's still someone who's now being used by shady people for their own purposes.
3 роки тому+2
I would have loved it if they, after being given a speech, just told him "no".
This show had me rooting for the antagonists the whole time. Because the writers couldn't actually create a critique of their philosophy, they resorted to "Let's blow up buildings for no reason!" Laziness. Also, it's a small thing, but one more way they biffed the ending was "Captain America and the Winter Soldier" -- not "Captain America and the White Wolf". How many times did Bucky say he wasn't the Winter Soldier anymore?
The problem is the writers were trying to write propaganda and *wanted* you to agree with Carly. But anyone who knows history understands why her method of radical redistribution is terrible, it always leads to totalitarianism, starvation and a stripping of dignity. Sam basically just argues for the Fabian approach, which is admittedly more effective, albeit more insidious.
Ok but many leftoids on Twitter believe that mass deaths will be necessary in the impending "revolution". Not too far-fetched for characters to act on these motives in a comic book movie.
@@Canadish I don't think so, if the writers really wanted you to agree with Carly, she wouldn't have killed anyone. Also, what would be the point of making propaganda against the Global Repatriation Council if that doesn't exist in real life? I think the reason was that the drama works better when you can understand the villain's motivations. What it was weird is that Walker seemed less relatable than Carly, even when Carly was a worse person by far. There can be many ways to interpret that. One of those could be that the shows claim that is better to side with oppressed minorities regardless how wrong they are in their actions; but another interpretation(and my preferred one) could be to not judge people based on how relatable they are.
I had a strange feeling about this show the moment it opened with a supposedly "fun, epic" scene of Sam flying about, blowing stuff up, having a military adventure somewhere in North Africa. Instead of enjoying the action, all I could think was "what the hell is he doing there?".
It's on Sam's arc where I believe you are wrong, and it's something I find most people miss out on. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of ideas in this that I disagree with, but this one is probably the most pertinent. Sam struggles with his blackness and the scar that American culture has left on the legacy of black people. Most importantly, Karli Morganthaw and her movement embodies otherness, or the way people are other and treated indifferently by the systems that are meant to protect them. Sam is a black man, who must take on the mantle of the very face of America, chosen by the "ideal" American, he battles the identity of blackness as seen through the treatment of Isaah Bradley. Isaah says this: "No self respecting black man would ever take the mantle of Captain America," a moment that for me hurt, because Sam has to be able to reconcile with black Americans by showing he is not the lap dog of corrupt white leaders, while also giving white Americas a figure they feel can still represent them. He must embody the entire ideal nature of what America "should" stand for. I find it pretty frustrating when engaging in this topics because for me it feels like so many people miss this about the show. And that's not to say that there aren't different interpretations/themes in the show, but I would really like for someone to do a video on this topic in particular.
I think the problem is that this show is barely any deeper than surface level... Ever. I was rolling my eyes on this show because I thought everything was so cliche. So when you gave that paragraph about Sam's inner conflict I doubt the writers even considered what you just said. Like I think they thought yeah racism bad black Captain America will show them. I'm sorry but I don't believe they meant it to ever go any deeper than that.
@@jasperblanch4184 really…? It’s pretty explicit on dealing with that. Like it makes specific call outs on the weight of giving a black man the shield and all the implications of doing that. In fact if they weren’t thinking about that why did Sam even reject the shield in the first place??
@@ImBackLikeHerpes goes to show ppl often don't like something progressive being proclaimed in anyway, shape, or form simply because they feel like they're being attacked when it's ppl that look or think like them being made the bad guy.
"Its most popular fictional universe is about defeating an Empire" An Empire that, time and time again, was written to be in some regards an analog and parallel to the U.S' own political and colonialist actions-Lucas knew what he was doing, even when that inspiration does go over the head of the general viewing audience. EDIT: Emphasis on "in some regards". Not every aspect of the Empire is meant to mirror America, and there's political and visual inspiration from many empires and dictatorial states throughout history, especially as the Original Trilogy went on. But the Rebel Alliance's battle with the Empire in 'Star Wars (1977)' took direct inspiration from the Viet Cong's resistance to American forces in Vietnam-which is to say a smaller, ill-funded force using makeshift means to lead an assault on a larger imperial force against all odds. Lucas shows his hand even further in Return of the Jedi with the militarization of the Ewoks. They may be teddy bears, but they were also written as a native population that were able to, again, overpower the impossibly well-equipped Imperial forces. Not to mention Lucas continuing to write the Empire as an American analog within the Prequels-therein getting more directly explicit in his opinions of America politics and a Republic's "downfall" into Empire. There's a secondary villain character whose name is a reference to Newt Gingrich, for god's sake.
There are certainly some comparisons, but that's basically George writing what he knows and years later saying it was some sort of political message after a bunch of people analyze it. The Empire was inspired by the Roman Empire with the Emperor being some impotent, weak leader being controlled by others. Of course that changed when Palpatine was turned into a wizard.
I'm not sure that "Lucas knew what he was doing", but by basing his villains on Nazi Germany -- a state which also used imperialism as a political tool, he stumbled onto a truth that exposed the problems with his own nation's policies.
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674 One of the most common brought up arguments would be the Ewoks taking down the Imperial forces as a comparison to Vietnam. Though it's a common misconception, as the US military was dominating the entire conflict and it was the political opponents of the War that brought it to an end. But real truth was Ewoks were just there to sell toys.
I don't even understand what he's supposed to learn exactly. Killing a surrendering terrorist is bad instead only kill them in self defense or when America's says it OK? Also said America launches nukes at new york.
@@emptyblank099a You'd think the guy would at least have second thoughts about trusting shady authority figures after his rant at the trial about he only did what he was told to do and they military made him what he was.
@@emptyblank099a I mean...that makes perfect sense, it's just kind of being said as if it didn't there. Yes, killing in self defense against people attacking you is very different from killing an Unarmed man in the street. The council was potrayed as wrong as well
Let me give my non-american perspective to all those people trying to defend Walker: There are rules, even in war. Killing someone who is unarmed and surrendering to you is a war crime. It might not be the same as shooting children or reporters, but it is still a war crime. And revenge is not a redeeming motivator. Revenge is not justice, even though many people seem to think so. Honestly, it is infuriating to see how many cases of exposed US war crimes there are and how few people actually face consequences for what they did or what kind of orders they gave. The "judgement" Walker faced was perfectly in line with how the US treats their own war criminals.
The thing is, the terrorist was an active threat only seconds before "surrendering" (in which the guy never states his intention to surrender for some reason). It's also important to note that super soldiers are still very much dangerous without any weapons as shown throughout the entire MCU. I'd agree with you if this guy actually stated he would surrender and if he didn't rip out a concrete fountain for a weapon seconds earlier but there's too much of a silver line here to compare this to say, Americans killing captive soldiers in Iraq.
@@TheSuperRatt By legal definition, there is a solid case that the terrorist hadn’t yet officially surrendered, therefore making John’s actions perfectly legal. John, Bucky, and Falcon are already wanted for another war crime anyway of impeding a country’s jurisdiction without permission.
The thing is, I WAS siding with the GRC on the basic notion that, if I was dusted and came back into existence five years later , I would want to live in my own damn house again. I just feel both sides of the conflict were not explored properly to justify the actions on either behalf, making Sam's "mediator" stance uninteresting. Also "do better"? TF is that gonna solve? John Walker's redemption arc, while rushed, was probably always planned since they seem to have plans for him later on. U didn't think it felt forced, though; unlike his comic counterpart MCU John at the start is portrayed as a generally decent fellow, just a realistically flawed one not suited to be CA. When those pressures, the negative effects of the serum , and Lemar's death get to him he does hit a low point, but I honestly saw him rebounds from it from the get go. They clearly painted him in a sympathetic light as someone who suffered through the horrors of war and was shaped by those experiences, rather than an out-and-out gloryhound.
I think one thing that could've helped us sympathize with walker if they had the redemption planned would be to actually show what happened in Iraq or Iran or wherever he was. See John and Lamar fight their way out of some building and watch his men die around him. Throw in some shaky cam and ear ringing sound effects. That would bring audience sympathy up in no time.
Even putting aside the Political issues or how rushed it was...Having Walker descend into Villainy feels like it works narratively? Like, the story of a well meaning but flawed man who's slowly consumed by his flaws, Trauma and Pride til he becomes a villain.
The thing is, no one knew at this point that the dusted people were going to come back. We take that knowledge for granted, but the world believed this was just how things were. If half the population outright vanished, you'd be fine with just allowing those homes to... rot, forever?
David Graeber has a really interesting article called 'Superposition' in which he talks about how superheroes have almost always been reactionary, while the villains are the creative and idealistic characters in comics and movies. Villains have ideas about how the world could be and act for it-although sometimes they are not praiseworthy ideas-but superheroes are just there to react and protect the status quo.
The last few seasons of The Handmaid's Tale are really what you're looking for. A big question of "Ok I'm on your side, but do you have to be violent? Well yeah you do but..hum...do you? I mean ok maybe?" 😅
@@ktownshutdown21 There’s a big gap between maintaining the status quo and threatening world leaders at gunpoint. Yes, peaceful methods work slowly and don’t always turn out the way you want. But in the long run they are better. Hearts and minds are what need to be won, not battles.
@@magnusprime962 Peaceful methods only work when there is the threat of violence, examples being the Indian Independence movement and the American Civil Rights movement. Peaceful methods, when used against empires willing to crush dissent... will only end in a boot to the throat. There needs to be a reason why the oppressive regime is afraid to use violence against the rebels. The rebels need to have leverage, or they're dead.
This critique is pretty much why I tapped out of this show after the first scene. From the word go, the show is acting like America and the American military are intrinsically on the side of good. And even (maybe especially?) as someone who grew up in an American military family, I was intensely not here for a show that just treats America as default good. I don't think the military is bad, I've actually gotten to see some of the non-combative work that it does which I think most civilians aren't aware of. But I hated the undertone that this show and a lot of other media has in their portrayal of the US military as this inherently good entity. Thank you for breaking it down and confirming that I shouldn't waste my time on this show. Even though I think Falcon is pretty damn cool.
"From the word go, the show is acting like America and the American military are intrinsically on the side of good." Well they are obeying international law, unlike Wakanda, and trying to prevent terrorism, unlike the Flag Smashers. "But I hated the undertone that this show and a lot of other media has in their portrayal of the US military as this inherently good entity." They do this because the military gives them money and lets them use their equipment in this movie.
I mean, I don't think it treats the US military as default good though. The whole thing with the John Walker character happened because the military wanted to capitalize on Steve Rogers' heroism and shove in their own Captain America for propagandistic reasons. And then when he inevitably goes crazy and kills someone, they just toss him aside and don't own up to even a shred of their own responsibility in his situation. I'd hardly call that a laudatory depiction.
Right? For all the talk this show has about “violence and murder being bad”, it sure seems strange that in the first scene Sam kills several people (who speak in a different language so I guess the show wants us to think it’s ok to kill foreigners?) to save the life of 1 American soldiers
@@vitoriawithanaccent Well, to be fair, the vast majority of superhero fiction talks about murder and violence being wrong, and they're ALL hypocrites about it. Even the superheroes who don't kill use violence and intimidation to solve all their problems anyway. Which isn't wrong in and of itself, but acting like it's wrong while you're doing it IS wrong. Which, again, they all do. It's less a problem with this show in particular and more a problem with the superhero genre in general, and the only reason it's done so much is to keep popular superheroes kid-friendly and marketable to younger audiences.
"From the word go, the show is acting like America and the American military are intrinsically on the side of good." We're talking about same show that had an entire sub plot about a black super soldier that was experimented on and treated terribly by the military and constantly criticizes the idea of a black Captain America because he didn't believe that would be accepted with our history. Hell even Walker pretty clearly had PTSD and talks about how despite being hailed as a hero for his military service he never felt like one because of the shit he had to do.
I think I like it. But it wasn't what I was expecting, which is why I think I prefered _WandaVision_ and _Loki._ I was thinking it'd be a kind of buddy cop thing. They chase Zemo around, they butt heads as they deal with each other, Diet Capt. America keeps crossing paths, etc. Bucky and Sam's chemistry just wasn't that strong. Zemo felt kinda under-utilized. The Flag-Smashers were a cool idea, but felt a little too shallow. I would like to see this come back for another season, cause I think this still has a lot of potential to be good.
I like it based mostly on the strength of its acknowledgement of these issues. It’s the most explicitly “real” Marvel production so far, not shying away from putting the issues it was dealing with (race, geopolitics, what America stands for, etc). Even if it stumbled in executing the narrative in a thematically consistent or fully engaging way, I still think it stands out for being the most boldly political in its themes. I do get the same sense the video takes about that the Pentagon or the CIA or some producer or somebody kinda crippled the script a bit and wanted to make sure America still came off as the good guy in the end and all that, which did shoot the criticisms in the foot a bit. That being said, I can also see something like the “redemption” of Walker as just being an acknowledgement that things aren’t black and white in reality. Even someone as “bad” as Walker can still do good things and have a good side in them, and really just be making mistakes as he tries his best. It’s not like they didn’t set up Walker to have an understandable motivation from his perspective to make the mistakes he does... Lamar getting killed made him lose it. He wasn’t necessarily meant to be irredeemable because of that. It just so happens that police brutality is a particularly sensitive matter these days, which may be part of why everybody was so quick to see Walker’s actions as unforgiveable, rather than just being a terrible mistake in the heat of the moment, which he works to redeem himself for in the finale by helping to actually save lives. It’s meant to be complexity, not contradiction, but unfortunately, a lot of people can’t seem to differentiate the two. I think Walker is meant to be a gray character, maybe on the darker side, but definitely existing somewhere in the middle. I think the rumour is that Julia Lous-Dreyfus’ character is putting together the “Dark Avengers”... the “bad cops” to the Avengers’ “good cops”, I guess. I don’t know much about it, but if that’s the plan, then it sounds like it’s intentional on Marvel’s part to have Walker be a very flawed, dubious kind of character. They didn’t mean for him to come off as “fully redeemed” and an out and out good guy now just because he saved some people and is quipping around like he was before. He’s supposed to still be cringey, morally flawed and generally unlikeable, but still able to save people sometimes. It’s Marvel adding gray characters between our good and bad ones. Kinda the same thing they’re doing with Wanda, except she’s still on the more likeable side, even though she enslaved a whole town, painfully and traumatically, as puppets in her fantasy. AND with Loki, taking a “bad guy” and making him more good, but still somewhere in the middle. I like that they’re adding complexity, and TFAWS actually may have done that the most, which is exactly why everybody’s having tough time figuring out if they even like it or not, because it makes them feel so many conflicting things.
@@AWSVids I can acknowledge that it definitely did it's best to discuss these issues. But to be honest, I'm just burnt out when it comes to politics. And it certainly came off as preachy and idealistic. The topics are important to discuss, but maybe a Marvel superhero series isn't the best platform to use for it. The fans who just wanna see some hero action will get frustrated by the politics and the people who are interested in the politics won't be satisfied with how simplified it is.
“Sam’s internal struggle is about how to live up to the mantle of Captain America” Yes but isn’t it also about contextualizing that legacy as a black man when being faced with what has been done to his people in the name of said nation?
Yes it is. It would be odd seeing a Native American so passionate about being Captain America and not even thinking about how America viewed people like himself only 60 years ago
IMO it was less about living up to the mantle Steve created, but to figure out what it would be for him and to him to be CA, what mantle he himself would like to create. It is spelled out right early on when Walker says "I am not trying to be/replace Steve, I am just trying to be the best CA _I_ can be", the very thing Sam started rejecting to be and become, until at the end he embraces he is capable of building that symbol up and what he want it to mean. What you're saying is part of that meaning he comes up with.
@@OntheOtherHandVideos Really, you're trying to call that person the racist, lmao. You cannot erase history. Imagine the sheer ridiculousness of making a hero named Colonel Confederacy, black.
I feel like it's a leap to say that Batman's moves in Hong Kong were an allegory to the Bush Administration, it just seemed like a logical thing Batman would do
As an MCU fan, I agree. It’s a show that has interesting topics to discuss but it’s never challenged or resolved in the conclusion. Let’s just hope that Marvel doesn’t also screw up ‘Captain America 4’.
Yeah I think they are setting a lot of these stories up for that film. The Flagsmashers is a huge concept that I do not think will go unused. Their king just fell. I think they will rise again.
@@FULANODETAL I didn't mind the dark elves. Watching it now makes more sense. But I honestly think the flag smashers have a more relatable story. I think as The MCU fleshs out the time during the blip. The motives of the flag smashers will be more clear. I think it worked well enough in the show.
@@rwicks1746 their motives are dumb..unless they murder 4 billlom people .Also Who un the hell want to going black to snap.. remember the consecuences..thanos not only snapped people.he snapped Castle.fish.and even crops..so hunger civil wars scarce.. In real Life 3 wars started THX to covid than only killed 2m people..
@@FULANODETAL yeah ok, so there's a lot to unpack here and a lot of grammar mistakes even for me. Karli described that after the blip lots of communities came together, relinquished boarders and became more of a 1 people 1 world. Even racism is implied to have fallen apart by the people that survived the blip, 5 years after a global event like that would change a lot of people. It's only when the people that were blipped out, after coming back they want to continue their agenda against disenfranchised people, they even gave back those jobs, houses back to the people that blipped and kicked out people that were living in that home. This is why Sam understands Karli and her mission. Now I will say that it's definitely underdeveloped and that's a clear cause from covid and removing story elements. But their fight makes sense IMO
Marvel also did that weird jurisdiction thing at the end of Black Panther where the nation of Wakanda opened community centers in American inner cities as if that was just a normal thing to happen in the United States. Just imagine if Saudi Arabia was just like “oh, yeah, let’s open some community centers in Detroit to help youngsters.”
Well in that case, America sees Wakanda in-universe as being a humble yet impoverished country. Not a land rich with oil, sexism, oil, homophobia, oil, and theocratic practices. In other words, they tolerate Saudi Arabia (and other commodity-rich yet morally wrong countries like China) for what they can provide them, but won’t be buddies with them.
@@TheSuperRatt You may be right. I would have to check, but I thought those schools were built by private organizations not the US government. I assumed that the US just gave money to those countries’ governments. But maybe they’ve got the Army Corps of Engineers building stuff out there. I have heard of government contractors bidding for jobs to rebuild roads and infrastructure destroyed by US military attacks, so yeah maybe it’s the same thing with Wakanda. Maybe the US is like a battle torn third world nation to Wakandains? Look forward all the US emigration to Wakanda that happens in phase 7. 😂
I think the main issue you're finding comes down to the fact that the more down to earth and realistic the show gets to real world issues with ideology and politics the more messy it gets and they're afraid of alienating too many people. The ending was weak with the big speech but (I forget where it was) but I saw a video where the comparison between Spielberg and Kubrick was that Spielberg gives you the answers to the questions about humanity he asks where as Kubrick asks the questions and trusts you to find the answers you believe are correct. Disney can't let people come to answers other than generic popcorn movie/family friendly moral conclusions. They're not really equiped for that I think.
Exactly. It's like "Do you want to be a dumb action series or no?" If not, then commit to that and not pull out at the last minute. Or you can stay in your lane and be a dumb action series.
I think the whole “isn’t he hypocritical for saying violence is wrong yet he is also violent” is a bit misleading. Not all violence is created equal. Sam says that he’s against the Flag Smashers you know… murdering innocent people. When he used violence it’s always in self defence, he is being attacked and he fights back. He doesn’t go out of his way to up and murder innocent people to send a message like the FS.
F&TWS needed at minimum 10 episodes to give decent credit to it's 4 different plotlines of flagsmashers, walker, the refugee crisis, and the main characters to begin with (Sharon Carter and the power broker stuff was just dumb)
The thing about that scene with the FakeCap telling the Dora Milaje “You don’t have jurisdiction here” and the Dora Milaje going “fuck you, we have jurisdiction everywhere because we say so” is that... well, everything you say about FakeCap’s arrogance and the issues of American Empire are entirely right, no question at all. ...so why are we supposed to be cheering that exact same attitude on when it comes from the Dora Milaje? Its just more “they’re the good guys so the things they’re doing are good actually” weak screenwriting. And yeah, in the end they don’t murderize Zemo and take him to the international holding pen to be secured for good and not so he can join the Thunderbolts in a few years, but it just struck me how people were going “Fuck yeah, Dora Milaje, acting like arrogant-ass American imperialists insisting that their authority extends across the entire globe because no one can stop them!” without much thought...
Reminds me of all the people rightfully criticising America's blatant human rights abuses abroad and then saying nothing when Russia or China does the same thing or worse. If imperialism is inherently bad, criticise it wherever you see it, not only when it's done by your own country.
That's a major problem that many people refuse to recognize. The Dora Milaje were clearly in the wrong as they lacked jurisdiction and this would have been easy to fix by simply having the Dora Milaje get permission to arrest Zemo before trying to do this. Then the Dora Milaje would have been in the right, but that wouldn't allow black women to beat white men in a fight.
I think the show has a problen of Sam doing the same thing as the villains. Like Walker is condemed for killing a man while Sam literally kills dozens in the show and recklessly tosses the weapon used to decapitate a man.
My Problem with the John killed a man thing is that we know what happened the people don’t know johns best friend died in front of him saving his life and he took a serum that obviously makes people more evil because everyone who took post Steve became worse people
im glad you mentioned the korra villains because ive more or less come to the same conclusion as you, that each one presents a compelling argument but their writers fail them by making them so absurdly villainous as to allow the protags and their world to largely ignore their core beliefs, particularly with zaheer. they embrace the easy stuff but ignore the larger messages
Hard agree. Part of the biggest problem with Legend of Korra (apart from the entire first and second seasons) is that at the end of the third season they just return to the status quo and reinstate the monarchy in Ba Sing Se? The show almost explicitly says that the Earth Queen, and therefore monarchies in general, are inherently bad because they don't provide power to the people, and then immediately makes a 180 because Zaheer is evil and therefore everything he has ever said is categorically wrong.
@@mahrinui18 I saw a comment on a video critiquing Captain America The Winter Solider that while we are supposed to root for Steve Rodgers and his Ideologies, the film never questions and challenges Steve on it and just assumes that he is right, what are your thoughts on that?
@@mahrinui18 in the show's defence, they actually have the prince renounce monarch rule at the end and he pledges to hold elections (which they follow through on in one of the follow-up comic lines). but youre right that even the fact that they considered giving the kingdom back to a prince in the first place and the prince had to step up and say no is pretty fucking bizarre
The annoying one in Korra for me was Amon. I can sort of accept that Zaheer’s ideology would sort of have to be ignored by Korra because it involves her having to die as she is the literal living incarnation of “order” and at the very least we at least sort of get a direct continuation of some of those ideas in the next season ... but Amon secretly being a bender writes off the whole conflict of the first season that was just so boring ... Korra doesn’t actually have to counter his actual ideas ... she just punches him out a window and it is over
I mentioned this in reply to another comment, but I think it’s worth pointing out on its own: The comparison between this show and Black Panther is interesting because it highlights the difference between the levels of power each protagonist actually has. When it comes to enacting change power is all that really matters, and T’Challa has it where Sam Wilson does not. The King of Wakanda is able to create real change for his fictional country cause he’s the top dog who actually makes the rules, but what power does Sam Wilson have that’s not purely symbolic? What change *can* he actually directly enforce, *in the moment?* Sam could maybe round up a community and form a protest in service of Karli’s cause- hell, a protest March led by Captain America in the name of no borders would’ve been a spectacular way to end the show, but 1) that’s still, functionally, similar enough to giving a speech, and 2) given they chose not to do that, what’s Sam’s opportunity to enact change toward that end? What CAN he do beyond attempting to convince those with real power in this situation to compromise?
@@CDexie well he’s already *not* working for those in power. He’s been an independent agent, moreso than even Steve, from the moment we were introduced to him. Hell just his being Captain America is acting against them.
It rubs me the wrong way that people complain that Sam didn't give any free advice to the politicians in his speech. Is he supposed to? Isn't a politician supposed to be their position to figure that out and not have a random under-qualified person do the thinking for them? Sure, Sam has first hand experience with the flaws in the current plan, but he can't offer solutions on the spot.
It’s not about Sam, a fictional character. It’s about the producers of the show refusing to examine anything but “status quo must be preserved violence bad” within the show
@@tatianar9429 I disagree that that’s all that’s being examined. Karli’s violence is the PRODUCT of the status quo and the show knows this. Basically every major character is victimized by the status quo. But what is Sam Wilson, the protagonist, supposed to DO? What is reasonably within the producer’s scope to MAKE him do, given his position in the world he inhabits?
Why didn’t they call him “American Eagle”? There’s already one in the comics and it’s so fitting since he flies and was obviously “The Falcon”. I can’t be the only one who thought of this.
I feel I have to point out that The Falcon and The Winter Soldier was about Characters who have particular political ideologies, not political ideologies distilled into representative characters. That's an important distinction to make. The story was not about picking a particular ideology to 'win', it was about individual characters clashing and the aftermath those clashes had on them and, as a very secondary consideration, their ideals. Sam's speech at the end was not so much about what he was saying, it was about who was saying it: The New Captain America. And that's what gave it its weight.
5:08 what’s funny about this example is that Star Wars was almost explicitly criticizing the American Empire and more specifically it’s treatment of Vietnam
The thing I find interesting about this scene is it also clearly shows the difference between John Walker and Steve Rogers in the same role. I don't see Steve Rogers saying "They have no jurisdiction here." I see him trying to at least TRY to compromise with them first rather than being a passive aggressive dick about it. And the whole show does this with Walker. He CONSTANTLY introduces or refers to himself as Captain America, something I'm pretty sure Steve rarely, if ever did. He was Steve Rogers. Captain America was a title given to him. He introduced himself as Steve. The title didn't have as much meaning to him because it wasn't what he was. With Walker, the title meant EVERYTHING, especially to someone with clear feelings of inadequacy. So he overcompensates.
John Walker's "redemption arc" was totally rushed. No real consequences to him, besides being stripped of the title of Captain America (he just changed suits really).
I feel like people are treating Walker’s arc as over when it clearly isn’t though. He’s obviously still a bad guy ... he just didn’t let the GRC die. We are going to see Walker and Wilson face off again, they clearly set this up
If 'The Dark Knight' is about condemning Bush era foreign policy, you'd imagine it'd be shown to have any negative consequences. Batman's practices yield exclusively positive results. He's effective, incorruptible and while he says "Batman has no limits", Batman still has his own strong principals. He destroys the sonar computer showing he is not going to abuse his power. If the idea is that Batman is the 'exception the proves the rule' and he is what we should strive for, then the message would still be muddled. Because you'd now be condoning torture, spying on civilians and interfering in foreign affairs, just saying "they could be done better". I think the movie is just using the era as a setting. Using 'terrorism, NSA, civil liberties' as they were popular topics of the time, but I don't think it makes a definitive "statement" about them at all. "It doesn't matter whether America has jurisdiction or not. America's jurisdiction is everywhere." WHOA, You just said Walker has jurisdiction to be there. If you're trying to say that America's influence has forced Latvia to accept Walker's jurisdiction... okay. That's built completely on outside sources and inference but, okay. It's also ignoring that a global committee approved it because it's universally a priority to stop the Flag Smashers. And it still doesn't change the fact that he is the most qualified, and the person with the strongest moral motivation. Walker is legally the only one sanctioned to take Zemo in. Bucky and Sam broke Zemo out of prison, so they are criminals themselves and are completely in the wrong interfering with Walker. The Dora Milaje throw a spear at Walker's head to interfere. They tried to murder a government agent whose 'on their side' on foreign soil. "John Walker is driven by ego and the desire to dominate more than the desire to protect." John Walker is tired of everyone's dangerous and reckless treatment of Zemo's freedom. John wants Zemo in jail. The Wakandan's want Zemo in THEIR jail. They almost kill John for it. The Dora Milaje are clearly more motivated by ego and pettiness than he is. John Walker didn't need a redemption. He was acting in character the whole time. Stoping a super soldier terrorist is a thing he is allowed to do. It's what he is there to do. But because he did with 'the whole world watching' the tv show acts like the action was reprehensible. Saving the truck is always what Walker would do. He just gets "good press" for doing that with 'the whole world watching' this time. His "redemption" is just one in the eyes of the public. "...he faces minimal consequences for murdering someone in a foreign country." Is an interesting way to recontextualize a sanctioned kill of a terrorist. And I think this is the overall point; I feel like you ignored the facts of all the other character's criminal activity because of their motivations. But the Flag Smashers are terrorists and Bucky, Sam and the Dora Milaje are all murdering people on foreign soil. I get that it's annoying that the writer's 'made' the Flag Smasher's embrace violence, but they did. And it's annoying that Walker is played as unlikeable, but he doesn't commit any crimes. "The Dora Milaje don't have jurisdiction here." Walker does.
Just my thoughts on the Batman thing: while the resolution in Dark Knight Rises was changed a lot because of Heath Ledger's unavailability, even The Dark Knight shows that Batman has to lie to all of Gotham about Harvey Dent just to save the anti-corruption efforts that Bruce Wayne backed. In TDKR it's pretty clear that the Two-Face coverup was an ends to justify a means, much like how one could view any number of actions and misrepresentations surrounding the War on Terror. If we/Gotham found out about what the government/Batman actually did then we'd never accept the laws they wanted.
If you want a criticism of Bush foreign policy, here's one: it's fascinating to me how quickly you'll label someone a "terrorist", and then how easily you'll accept that anyone with that label deserves death or torture.
@@TheEvilCheesecake "Terrorist: A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Karli: *Blows up a building full of people* " This is the only language these people understand" The Flag Smashers are terrorists, the show made this clear. And I never said they deserve death or torture. To quote Falcon of all people: "I don't think [they're] the kind you save. [They're] the kind you stop." The Flag Smashers have killed innocent civilians for their political message and they're super-soldier enhanced. They're at all times armed and don't care about casualties. It's reasonable to use deadly force to stop them.
@@TheEvilCheesecake Walker doesn't kill innocent people. Karli kills innocents with a car bomb and then tries to burn people alive in an armored truck. They're not even close to the same.
The guy being “unarmed” is a little bit funny to me. These guys are super soldiers that in an of itself makes them permanently armed and extremely dangerous and hard to control. Karli literally just killed battlestar in a millisecond while “unarmed”
Yeah, it's funny Walker is condemned for killing the guy when the Avengers kill minions all the time, but Walker did it in a public, bloody manner, so killing is fine if it's quick and not public.
Yeah, Steve in the past has definitely thrown that shield hard enough to kill people, people who weren’t even super soldiers, and as you pointed out even an unarmed super soldier is still a pretty big threat.
He was giving up, though. Hands up, laying on his back. That's an execution. Walker was as much a super soldier as them, so it's not like restraining him would be impossible for Walker without killing him.
@@malcomchase9777 he did just hold Walker down while his boss murdered his friend. Keep in mind the terrorists real goal during that scene was to commit premeditated murder against WALKER HIMSELF. Should he have not killed the guy? Yeah, probably not. Is it understandable that he did? 100%
@@alanroberts6086 I'm replying to the comment saying he was a supersoldier, and therefore "armed" at all times as if that justifies killing him. Walker's mental state notwithstanding, he had the tools and the setup for a takedown, with an enemy giving up and all. Was he "armed"? He was less armed than Walker, even with the serum. Was he in a fighting stance? No. Was he threatening the people around him? No. Would Walker have any problems subduing him? Not anymore than a strong cop doing the same to a strong criminal, their relative power was the same as both were enhanced. Whether we rule it murder or manslaughter is up to the courts (what I mean is, what you say about understanding where he is coming from), but it was a killing nonetheless. The enemy was giving up and he used excessive force when he had the advantage.
The difference between Korra and the MCU is intent. LoK is *still progressive,* and the point of those stories is that the villains have noble goals and are either insincere grifters (i.e., authoritarians and tyrants who co-opt leftist aesthetics) or misguided and insufficiently concerned with collateral damage despite their sincere beliefs (i.e., terrorists for whom the rush of catharsis from retributive "justice" overrides their desire for progress). Considering how *most of Twitter* seems to treat leftism (hello, *unironic Stalinists*), it's a lesson the online left especially STILL NEEDS. The show and its supplementary material clearly does care about the idea of showing viewers the right way to push for progress. As much as Nickelodeon ever allowed it to, considering they kept trying to strangle the show and force it into a horrendous time crunch where they literally couldn't build on their ideas. But everything around that clearly indicates the narrative is encouraging a truly progressive thrust. It's not "violence bad durr" and presenting it as that is clear reductionism when they do contrast legitimate violence and justified anger with indiscriminate destruction and tyranny, and try to at least squeeze in as much narrative allusion toward constructive praxis as their runtime allows. Marvel on the other hand serves corporate interests and basically does just go "well see, extremism bad" without going particularly far with it. But they're not the same. I mean, the fact that people unironically and uncritically go "Killmonger was right" tells me the lesson of "extremism actually is bad and actively sabotages the left by serving far right interests" does absolutely need to be hammered into people's heads, just maybe not by an arm of corporate overlord Disney. But what do I know, I'm just a leftist who thinks hyper-performative violence and dogmatism are fundamentally antithetical to all of our actual principles and that maybe defensiveness over this trope is less apt than self-reflection.
I think you've hit upon one of the points JustWrite made with his LoK video, in that the antagonists are always defeated, but Korra and the world learn from their ideals, and subsequently, both Korra and the world are better off for having incorporated the good parts of those ideals into themselves. Did you watch that video he referenced? If not, I'd recommend it.
In the end, the only thing that heads off further violence is Zemo doing another set of murders. I got stuck for several days wondering if the lesson they were trying for was that terrorists are the only ones who can affect real change, as martyrs or otherwise.
Tangential topic: Guam currently has a population 30% of Wyoming's, the state with the smallest population. American Samoa's population is a third of Guam's. I'd vote in a heartbeat for a plan that allows Guam to join the Marianas (i.e. the country comprising the entire rest of the island chain they are part of) and American Samoa to join independent Samoa, but their population is too small and their location to remote to justify them having statehood. Contrast that to Puerto Rico which is as close to Miami, Florida as Washington, DC and has a population larger than 20 or so states. It should have been either the 51st state or an independent country a long time ago.
It’s up to Puerto Rico to apply for statehood, and only then can Congress vote on it. But they never do because the positives (such as tax incentives) outweigh the negatives (such as lacking voting rights)
@@Gemnist98 For one thing, they did vote to become a state. But more importantly, the simply solution is to stop letting them chose to remain commonwealth i.e. in limbo. Independence or statehood. Pick one and live with the consequences.
My understanding is that it was much more than the last few episodes. Apparently a major plot line involved the Flag Smashers obtaining and using a bioweapon (which gives further context to their vaccine theft in one of the early episodes.) I have no idea what the final show was supposed to look like, but it would be fascinating to see, say, a renegade edition (maybe with animation if Disney never makes the original footage available.) I can only hope it would have turned out some what less fractured and more coherent than what we ended up with.
Sorry to go full essay on your essay, but here goes: * Walker doesn’t have jurisdiction because of the GRC, he has it because of the Sokovia Accords. As mentioned by Jimmy Woo in the fifth episode of WandaVision, not only are the Accords still in effect, but people who previously rejected them (in that case, Wanda) are still beholden to them. And the Accords are dictated by the UN which, despite being massively swayed by America, still hold international jurisdiction. Since him being there would mean he would be breaking the Accords if he didn’t have express permission, it can be assumed that not only would Walker have been granted international jurisdiction to find the Flag-Smashers, but so would Sam and Bucky. Meanwhile, the Dora Mijale are not held to this because they are not metahumans, only the guard of one metahuman. The most we can assume for the objective truth behind what Ayo says is that T’Challa, in expanding Wakanda’s influence, made Wakanda somewhat of a pointillist empire himself. And yet we are never shown Wakanda having any physical locations in Europe, and even when they do apprehend Zemo, they still give him over to the Raft rather than taking him back to Wakanda, implying they were in service of international powers despite only being there in an act of revenge. * America being referred to as an empire would probably not make any politician bat an eye, aside from the most alt-right, ignorant of them. America may have broken away from an empire, but it never expressed disgust with Britain because it was an empire; they had no problems with the French after all. And in the centuries since, America has been routinely allied with empires and monarchies, not only being best friends with their former rulers (who now have basically the same government format as America), but also maintaining good relationships with the world’s only true remaining empire (Japan). What America has defined itself primarily as being against is oppression. They were fed up with the taxes, so they rebelled. They saw Santa Anna as a dictator so they went to war with him over a plot of land (this coming from a Texan). They found communism to be oppressive and inhumane so they pushed up against the parts of Korea and Vietnam that disagreed with them. And yes, it could be argued that America having military bases around the world is a form of oppression, but not within legitimate governmental context. They are there, but they don’t rule them. Their oppression is minimal at best, since they don’t dictate the decisions of the governments they are in, only really serving as a shoulder Angel/devil. Basically, a parasite should only be cleansed if it has dominated the host. I know that sounds hypocritical, but I’m not trying to express support of America’s interventionist policies; I’m trying to showcase the overall ideology and reasoning behind them. * Guam and Puerto Rico could always apply for statehood, but they never do. Why? Because the benefits to their governments, such as tax incentives, outweigh the negatives like voting rights. Congress has no ability or incentive to decide a territory’s statehood one way or the other; it’s all on the local governments to do so, but they have their own cans of worms to deal with. * In the MCU, Steve is never seen as THE moral center of the universe - except in his own mind. What makes the MCU so fascinating is that you can have multiple different characters all given the same amount of spotlight but with radically different ideologies and have none of them be 100% right. Steve’s whole arc throughout the MCU is to let go of a political ideology defining his life, and instead entrust the people around him to come to a common ground and move on to a better future. His “lie that the character believes”, therefore, is that he is the ultimate authority in the world because he is guided by this ideology. And even then, Steve’s actions are not set in stone towards any one side of the spectrum: his actions in Winter Soldier are of a liberal mindset, whereas his actions in Civil War are of a conservative one. His decisions are only in the service of what HE thinks is best for the world, and that is what puts him in constant conflict with Tony, because not only does Tony believe himself to be that ultimate authority, but Tony has no ideology other than his own ego, and his own arc is about letting go of the pressure he has put upon himself so that others can take the burden off of him. Yet Tony is morally right to want to always be prepared and cautious because of incoming threats that Steve doesn’t even consider until it’s too late. * I’m honestly kind of baffled with how many people think Walker has been redeemed. Even if he realized he went overboard with the violence, his views on America haven’t changed at all, and the fact that he’s once again doing a perverted version of what Steve did - rejecting the government - proves this. I mean, maybe you made this video without the context of Black Widow, but it still goes without mentioning since similar events happen in the comics - Walker is now affiliated with a Nazi that wants to, among other things, kill Hawkeye. Also, he probably would not have apprehended the soldiers and gone straight to bloodshed had Bucky not been chaperoning him. * Surprised that you didn’t mention Zemo, the only explicit “leftist terrorist” of the group. But on that subject, Zemo’s whole role in the story of Civil War directly contradicts your argument. Zemo wants all metahumans to die because he hates people in power for indirectly killing his family and then turning a blind eye on them. However, unlike the other examples you give, Zemo isn’t morally aligned with the protagonist, Steve; he’s aligned with the antagonist, Tony. As for the other examples you give, Toomes’ struggle isn’t about the class system. The conflict between him and Peter in their relation to Tony is how they deal with the unintentional oppression Tony lays on them. While Toomes leeches off of the work Tony has done, Peter takes actions into his own hands and carves his own identity. So while Toomes may be motivated by a “eat the rich” mentality, the actions themselves are the film’s thesis rather than the ideologies behind them. As for Killmonger, while he may view himself as a liberal, his actions are undeniably conservative. Note how he’s the only character in the entire movie that talks about black people being oppressed. That might seem like he’s alt-left, but his plan is about giving guns to black people around the world so that they can rise up and kill white people. An idea that parallels conservative legislation which actively allows black people to own more guns in order to, putting it bluntly, kill each other in gang warfare. The film’s political lesson is to do those gradually and with oversight so that such massive violence won’t happen; it’s an anti-isolationism story, not a racism or pro-interventionism one (as Killmonger wants you to believe). * Sam does have a stake in the political conflict. As you mentioned earlier in the video, Sam can’t support his sister and her family because of his getting Snapped. It’s not quite as affecting to him as it is to Karli, but it’s there nonetheless. And it also ties into Sam’s arc of living up to Steve. Sam has multiple motivations that leave him frustrated with the government over the course of the story: not only does he have the financial woes, but he also has to come to terms with his race through his interactions with Isaiah, and has to deal with the government’s fallibility in a way only Steve really had to deal with prior. Sam also never resorts to violence unless absolutely necessary, going as far as to use his therapy experience with Veterans Affairs to try and talk Karli down; this actually puts him a cut above Steve, who frequently would resort to violence when things didn’t go his way. * Sam giving the speech at the end may be hokey, but it’s also practical. Sam has no actual sway in the American government the way T’Challa does in the Wakandan government and the world stage. Isaiah even parallels him to Civil Rights leaders later on, which is apt, as people like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X had no positions of power but used their words and movements to inspire genuine change. This is only the start of Sam standing up to people this way; it took MLK a full decade before the Civil Rights Act took effect.
I just really wish they didn't have to change and cut so much from the show. I feel it would have made so much more sense and been received far better. With that said all the Isaiah Bradley scenes were very well written and acted.
My problem with the show is how it want to have its terrble speach at the end about how they were not terrorists after seeing them blow up a building full of people , try an assassination and try to have a transport full of people burned alive....
I don’t see John Walker’s story as a redemption arc. I think that in saving those people he was just demonstrating a better side of him, one that still believes in the ideals of Captain America. But I think we’ve just seen the beginning of his descent into villainy.
One problem. You said Walker pretty much does what he wants, yet the fact that he goes by committee and channels is the main reason why Falcon turns down joining him to remain freelance.
She was stupid & a convenience for writers bring huge threat so that fans can get excited & future movies can milk more money, putting whole universe Into the danger just because she had lonely childhood, thinking he's lying without any proof whatsoever, 'yeah kill him who cares what will happen to the world I want my *Revenge* '!!!
@@midnight.tantrum727 exactly. Many people criticize how Loki was depicted in show while ignoerinf lot of problematic aspects of his MCU movies run. I mean whole pilot adressed this. Loki King of Space
Another reason Kilmonger was different is that his reason for violence does come from somewhere. Paraphrasing Todd in the shadows, "Despite hating the west, he has absorbed only the worst parts of it's philosophy; might makes right." Kilmonger believes violence is the key to self determination because that has been true for him all his life, and when he achieves power he projects that perspective onto Wakanda. Meanwhile, Karli escalates to violence for seemingly no reason. Even her fellow freedom fighters don't understand why she does it.
With the explorations of the Black experience sprinkled throughout the series as well, did no one else think Walker murdering someone on the street felt like a George Floyd nudge-to-the-ribs? I know the guy wasn't black, but they focussed on showing people recording with their phones as a supposed symbol of American protection murdered a man in the street. And then Walker proceeded to get a fairly light court ruling due to his service record before finally being recruited by some other department to continue doing similar work regardless. This was my reading of the scene at least
Personally the only reason he was kind of redeemed for me was because he was going to kill Karly or Carly or whatever In some way I saw it like Deadpool 1 finale just because Sam was like Colossus "No Wade we can't kill is bad and you should be good and forgive everyone you can and..." Pulls the trigger* Sam/Colossus: Noooo!!!/Whyyy?!?!? Dude, this Mofo is a Sicopath
Of course This movie and this TV show are nowhere near the same, but I never felt empathy for those guys specially her it felt like "uugghh I like it when there were less people we got free stuff and more space why don't you support us" And yeah surely I missed something but I just wanted them to fail
I agree with a lot of this BUTTTT the thing I don’t understand is the idea that “a villain who solves their problem is with violence isn’t nuanced enough.”. I believe in the superhero genre, that a good villain has a believable vision but goes about it the wrong way. Violence is usually a means to a end for them which is why they are a villain. I would even argue that your favorite villain used violence in some manner to obtain what they wanted.
That's one of the reason's why I love comic book villains like Magneto, Doctor Doom, Mr Freeze, Killmonger and so many more, because all of those villains had noble intentions and understandable, even sympathetic reasons for their actions without being too contrived, yet the only reason why they have their eventual downfall's is because of their incentive to use violence as a means of either making a statement, fighting true inequality, discouraging suffering or just simply saving the ones they love. As it's simple for someone to use violence to make a point, but it's even more inspiring to see them use a healthier alternative, making hero's as beloved, such as Superman, Batman, Spiderman etc..., thus knowing the difference between a hero/protagonist and the villain/antagonist. Even though a villain can commit crimes, atrocities, and kill people, there should still be a moral reason for why they are doing it, thus seeing villains who do horrible things for clear reasons that can vary from either desperation, temptation, greed, power, sympathy etc... and as long as they have compelling characters/personalities, that's what makes a villain interesting to us the audience, thus having a larger presence.
i think violence is nuanced in stories when the villain aims it at the people who actually cause the problems, instead of low level goons karli blowing up a bunch of random grc soldiers is like attacking a local walmart and thinking you're sticking it to a megacorporation it doesn't accomplish anything
@@milkiassamuel780 beautifully written! These are also some of my favorite villains. They paint a better picture for the ones they love but they are radical with their execution which brings the hero to their opposition. This makes a great villain.
I always find it amazing how often times when I'm struggling to express something, someone else comes along takes the thoughts right out of my head and articulates them in such a well structured and eloquent manner. Great video.
Another thing about Killmonger is that his violence doesn't feel like it was added to take away nuance unlike the flagsmashers. He was a black ops killer- violence IS the only way he would approach his ideology. Whereas the flagsmashers were only violent cause the script said so. Also his violent approach actually reinforces his point- if the rest of the world has people like him running around, why isn't Wakanda helping?
If you're tired of this formula now, just wait until they add Magneto into the MCU. His whole deal is an "Ends justify the means" take on ending oppression by destroying the system that empowers the oppressors and reversing the power dynamic. Magneto is a survivor of the Holocaust in the books, which works in the 1960's origin and even somewhat in the early 2000's Fox Universe. This is a horror that viewers understand as wrong, and have a frame of reference for contextualizing the horror but unfortunately in a Universe set post 2025 this doesn't make sense for his origin any longer. Making him a survivor of a different and more recent genocide has two major problems; first in that it's either going to alienate a major foreign market (COUGH CHINA COUGH) or a good portion of America. Second, that it's going to likely require him to be cast as someone of a different minority or ethnic background - and a super powered minority fighting to create a new world where non-powered folks are a subclass of citizens is PROBABLY going to feel like a sloppy rehash of Killmonger at best. I do not envy the writers.
Bottomline, the Marvel writers don't have the chops to craft this level of commentary competently. They've been known for middle-of-the-road movies that pass the time, not political satires.
I generally agree with everything in the vid, but I'd also point out: 1. When violence is bad and when it's good comes across as very arbitrary, and always essentially defends the status quo, and those with power (who head organisations that acquired it with violence). 2. Disney and Hollywood also soft censor everything, just like the Pentagon. If you think of those who make movies and those with the money behind them, they'd never allow a truly radical solution that goes against their interests. At the end of the day the key motivator in a capitalist system is greed, this can be criticised by Hollywood for profit, but never replaced with other alternatives - and there are alternatives.
"I agree with your fight, I just can't do it the way you're doing it" "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action" Did the writers intentionally pull from Letter from a Birmingham Jail?
@@BeautifulEarthJa Ehh, this only really concerns extreme conservatives though. There's plenty of people who are against violence and for peaceful means.
@@fellinuxvi3541 Yeah, it feels disingenuous to use, at the very least, that particular example as "oh, people aren't going to support nonviolent protest either" - most Americans were fine with that, and it was only the right-wing of the Republicans that had an issue with any kind of visible "disrespect" to American iconography. Plenty of Americans were supportive of police reforms in the aftermath of Floyd's murder, and many were supportive of protests all around the country last summer - even when a handful of them did become violent. If there's a bottleneck in reforms, it's due to the nature of the political system (with regards to elections, political accountability, and representation), but that's a different problem that requires a different solution - electoral reform is much harder.
@@fellinuxvi3541 hm? i don't get the point there are many ppl living comfortably that are telling people who are being killed every day that they should ask for permission to resist/protest. their opinions are invalid to me. all types of resistance/protest are valid, regardless of what comfortable ppl want to say.
@@BeautifulEarthJa That's fair, but wether you care for their opinions or not is irrelevant. Change isn't going to happen unless it's popular. It doesn't matter whose opinions you chose to listen to, you still need them. And again, there's a very big gap between denouncing violent riots and throwing a hissy fit over a bent knee, these things don't belong in the same groups.
I think based on the writing for the rest of the series, you are giving these writers a lot more credit than they deserve. Falcon saying “do better” to the us government when it’s an extremely complicated issue that would seem to have no right answer. Furthermore if he. Does have jurisdiction legally there how is that not better than the wakanda Gaurd pretty much ignoring legal and political protocols? How are they not technically terrorists then?
One think you pointed out,which I hope you do in a lot of future videos, is how there are several mechanisms that effect the way a script is writes. For example, if a story involves the US military the pentagon has a say in how they are portrayed, otherwise they will have to shoot without the use of their uniforms, vehicles and iconography. There is also the say of the studio, what can be done within the schedule across multiple departments, the effects of real world events, such as weather or a pandemic, the limits budget and time, or the obligations of the multiple contracts between several different entities connected to a film or series all effect how a story will come out in the end. I’m just pointing that out because a lot of people like to point out how a show or movie was written poorly, but not many people ask why or understand what happens to a story as it passes through the different stages of development. A lot of people really want to make a good story and a lot start out that way, but there are so many entities, obligations and factors that constantly change making it really hard to produce a great final product. Once a movie is free lite no matter what it has to come out! Ir be really cool if you did a video on that.
this show was setting up for something really cool and i was super surprised that marvel and Disney allowed something so clearly antinationalist and anti-imperialist to be made, and then it turned right back into standard marvel propaganda towards the end. especially coming after something so innovative and interesting like wandavision
I remember when the Dora Milaje said they had jurisdiction wherever they wanted I thought “oh that’s cool to see that they also imperialistically think like John Walker” but then I opened Instagram and the official marvel account posted the quote from the Dora Milaje and in the caption wrote “as they should 😌” and I was completely blown away, so that wasn’t intended to show that they were wrong too it was to say their government can go wherever they want enforcing their own will because they’re the good guys.
Thank you! I remember when that episode came out a lot of people on Twitter were cheering on that line and dunking on John Walker for his attitude and it bugged the Hell out of me.
One of the best examples of the many double standards and complacency that people excuse with the show.
The Dora Milaje actually do have jurisdiction though. In CA: Civil War, Zemo was extradited to Wakanda, so technically, they have the right to get him.
@@lani7148 that’s true but the line “The Dora Milaje have jurisdiction wherever the Dora Milaje find themselves to be.” Still screams if your the good govt you can go wherever you want enforcing your will it’s almost like most marvel movies are sponsored by the pentagon :/
@@rosshauler7688 Hmm... my take on it was after John told Ayo they don't have jurisdiction, she knew they did, and she didn't owe him any explanations. It was more of an "F you" to John for having the gall to try to dictate to her what her what her gov't can and can't do.
Unless someone can tell me if this troupe has another name, I'm making a term for this. I want to be able to call it out with a single phrase similar to Gail Simone's 'Women in refrigerators' when I see it. I'm calling it 'flag smashing."
Flag smashing: When a writer makes a character or their ideologies TOO sympathetic and worries the audience will be on their side, will make said character perform an over the top, remorseless act of evil that will make the audience disavow them.
Used in a sentence: I was rooting for Daenarys to win the game of thrones until her flag smashing moment where she burned a whole city to the ground for no reason.
What examples of Flag smashing do you know?
I don't think it perfectly fits your definition, but Bane in TDKR is the first example that comes to mind.
Lotor from Voltron. Started off as the noble prince of his empire that was against his father's ways of leading the Valra empire.
Then, as he tries to work with team Voltron in unifying and fixing the universe in peace, they find out he enslaved and captured a race of people to use as an energy source or something.
Then they fight him in one big battle with his own loyal team of five, but in the middle of that fight, he decides to ostracize and insult his own team of five who are risking their lives to help him fight Voltron. Something he has never done while working alongside them in the past.
They basically turned him from an interesting grey villain/anti hero into a mustache twirling monster
Any plotline that too closely resembles the French Revolution of 1789 has a tendency to veer in this direction, because hundreds of years of British propaganda have magnified the wrongs committed by the Jacobins several times over. Can’t have a villain who wants to upset the entrenched power structure get too sympathetic, people might get ideas. So, basically, I concur: Bane in TDKR.
They clearly worried about this with Killmonger in Black Panther, for no reason he just shoots and kills a member of his crew early on so the audience can go: "Oh right - bad guy..."
Honestly Thanos. I don't like how far he carried population control but i'm sure the planet he was a hero.
I really don't think the writing of Falcon and the Winter Soldier was nuanced enough to intentionally include a subtle jab at American imperialism. In fact the writing in this show has been so in-your-face with all the messages they want to get across that I'm more convinced the writers simply accepted John Walker having jurisdiction without a second thought. Same for the pentagon review, it's so widely accepted as normal that no one thought of it as a critique. It's actually an impressive thing for any viewers who picked up on it and questioned it.
...I am pretty sure everything about this was intentional. But yeah, nothing about this was in any way subtle. The message was very "in your face".
@yukie I agree.
Pretty much what you expect from a children’s cartoom
And the fact that John Walker is supposed to be their bad guy until having to try and make him an anti-hero for the Thunderbolts movie fucks me around because he is UNDOUBTEDLY the worst-treated character period.
Replacing a Black Man as the symbol for America isn't "nuanced" by any measure, lookkk what they did to the Black super soldier ffs
I love how Sam at the start literally kills like 20 enemy soldiers, it's good that he isn't considered a bad guy
Okay at the very least those were high tension situations, on a mission, with no civilians around. Walker killed a defenseless man begging for mercy infront of people. It's just a time and place kinda thing.
And in that scene he's acting as a Private Military Contractor! A mercenary! Of course most of what superheroes do is illegal and ethically... debatable it's just funny to point out.
I like superheroes killing the bad guys, but i also want to point out that technically John Walker committed a war crime (the guy was surrendering). Still have no problem with it doe, just wanted to point out why the government put him aside.
He also wasn't the guy who killed his friend. It was a cold blood thing. They all killed tons of those creatures Thanos sent during infinity war.
@@victorious0001 well, that guy kinda prevented John from saving lemar by grabbing him (because Karli wanted to stab him, which doesn’t help the situation) so John got the rights to be pissed
"Violence is bad, actually" said THE AVENGERS (insert that scene where Secretary Ross shows the Avengers a compilation of their destruction in Civil War)
Violence maybe good actually 👍
What they are really saying is "Violence against or not our imperialism is bad"
I find that scene...strange. When he shows the footage of New York, how come none of them remind Ross that the government he so proudly serves tried to...NUKE MANHATTAN and they're the ONLY reason why that didn't happen? Or how about the fact that, without them, Sokovia would have destroyed the planet, because Ultron turned it into a giant asteroid?
@@madsgrams2069
Wasn't it Shield's board of director's that tried to Nuke Manhattan? as in Hydra?
Further the point of that scene is not that The Avengers weren't acting in service to the greater good but that they need to be accountable for the damage their actions still cause. Consider how the inciting incident was Scalett Witch getting a bunch of civilians killed by saving a bunch of other civilians
@@madsgrams2069 I also find it annoying that no one mentions that Ross is the reason The Abomination exists, and that the destruction of Harlem in Hulk (2008) is therefore his fault.
As a guy living in the middle east, thank you for talking about this topic. You guys in the west have no idea how bad American Imperialism affects us. A small example: the president of Turkey who the west calls an Islamist dictator was supported and placed by the US, before that Turkey used to be much more secular. In a decade it became more and more conservative, because it's easy to control a country if it's a theocracy and you own its leader. Only after the president and US backed Gülen cult got in a fight and the Turkish government started not to listen to the west, it started being called a dictatorship. So many innocent, brilliant Turkish nationals, politicians, officers, journalists died in the process. It's a very long and sad story actually.
it's a shitty example because the US didn't place Erdogan in the office, Turkey was too strong but yeah they supported him as long as he didn't threaten influence. They support regimes like in Saudi Arabia.
As a guy who lives in Poland I have a positive view on US bases in Europe but their actions in the middle east are questionable (mostly wars).
President Erdoğan allowed America to bomb middle East through giving them airstrips
@@MyPrideFlag questionable? are you sure? OP just questioned them and you said no!
America is not "imperialist" bud. That's not the proper world.
@@Jordblitz what would the proper word be (assuming you meant word instead of world)
As someone who is from actual Latvia, I sure as hell hope some US military guy would not have unsupervised jurisdiction in a foreign country. If the new Cap was working there on the behalf of GRC, he would more likely be accompanied by Latvian GRC representives, not just running around on his own free will.
Your living in a post-Covid world and things are already weird. Imagine the chaos of the Snap and Reverse Snap. It's not that hard to imagine UN commandos doing whatever they wanted.
@@EmperorRahem Yes, it is hard to imagine. Especially someone allegedly working for the UN, but so strongly identified with the USA. Would the US be okay with Captain China running around, doing whatever?
But Wakandan's can do whatever they want wherever they want, right?
@@captainfordo1 No, they would not. It's just that videos main point was about America.
@@washulis Just making sure cause in that exact scene, the Wakandans said that they have jurisdiction wherever they want, and no one talks about that
An additional interesting layer to that "jurisdiction" scene is Zemo himself. The moment Walker breaks through the door he is silent. It's his house in a city & is the only character to indicate any personal connection with Latvia & has been very vocal about him opinion all episode. Yet in this moment he is purely a spectator, watching on as these 3 factions contest over his immediate future - and then slipping away when they become distracted by that contest.
Pretty good stuff
Exactly. Zemo is a character with immense depth and deserves more of a role. In that one scene, he played taichi and allowed his opponents to fall by their own momentum
Insert Homer in bush meme
@@ricmorales3406 I was thinking more Madagascar penguin "You didn't see anything" lol
@@freeworldofthemindmusicgroup Precisely and I am absolutely here for it 😄
I mean, Zemo isn't a Latvian national. He's Sokovian. He's wealthy nobility- a baron- who has a vacation house in Latvia.
When watching it, I thought an interesting ending would be if the Flag Smashers did nothing violent, and were just rebelling without killing. This would lead to Lamar accidentally dying though, making them question if they have gone too far. Meanwhile, this gives Zemo the ability to manipulate US Agent to hunt the Flag Smashers done. This would result in a finale where Sam and Bucky had to protect the Flag Smashers from US Agent, which I think would be a nice subversion. Not perfect, but INSTEAD the Flag Smashers become pretty much fully on evil, canceling out their motivations, and US Agent, who started to go down a really interesting path, just got redeemed haphazardly. That being said, though, I heard an episode and storylines may have been cut due to COVID, so I guess I'm a bit nicer on the show because of that. IMO, I still like the show, it just stumbled at the finish line.
Apparently there was a virus arc which was understandably cut considering the current climate 0-0
This is better than what the writers made
John Walker has not been redeemed, he's still a patsy for a shady organisation
@@maldon3659 he did nothing wrong. All he did was kill a terrorist in public. That’s it. Walker was the best character in this mess.
When they blew up a building of hostages it felt like just a jump in logic, you could practically hear the producers saying "we need a reason for people to feel alright seeing the military beat them up"
Now I didn't really see Walker as being "redeemed." I mean, HE certainly thinks he was, but choosing to do the obvious right thing once after a comical amount of anguished deliberation isn't that impressive.
I don't think he is supposed to be redeemed...fully. I think they wanted him to be an antihero figure who the audience won't find straight up villainous so half redeemed from villian/antagonist to anti hero. Kinda how punisher is an anti hero or deadpool. I think that worked if it's what they're going for
@@Thed538dhsk well that IS john walker in the comics. I think it is true for mcu john walker as well
@@thewriterforge Honestly John was done better in the comics to where it showed he REALLY didn't want to take away the shield from Falcon because he respected Cap. Yet it Falcon setup to take the heat which forced his hand. They basically switched whom was setup and the respect aspect for this show.
I guess with that logic anakin skywalker never got redeemed at the end of return of the jedi
I thought the whole point was that the redemption arc was fake. After all he was still working for that mysterious lady, so it's clear he's still the villain.
“Americas most popular fictional series is based on defeating an empire” also worth noting, much of Lucas’s inspiration for the empire is Vietnam era United States, even George was keenly aware back in the day just how imperialist the US actually is.
(Side note yes I’m aware additional inspiration is drawn from the nazis and Ancient Rome amongst other things but from the start George has made it clear that he wrote star wars during the nam era and one of the single largest influences was...nam.
I thought the Galactic Empire was based on the British tbh
This becomes really clear during the third movie were the heros are hiding in the jungle using guerilla tactics against the empire
You did your research. I love that.
Lucas' biography has some very good points about the creation of the original and prequel trilogies
@@rosechuma2006 isn’t American imperialism also based on British imperialism tho?
The Galactic Empire was based on Nazi Germany, though one of the great subversive successes of I-III was showing how easily that kind of fascism can grow from an ostensible democracy like ours by listening to to wrong people and going down the wrong path.
Every time someone says "violence is bad", remember to ask what violence is being marked as bad, who that violence was aimed at, and what it was meant to achieve. Violence to end the violence of others is justified and good.
Yeah, but you should always consider whether the violence will stop there.
Agree. The rebels in this show were killing people who did nothing but work for bad companies to support their families. The moment your violence "spills" like that it's no longer justifiable, no matter what the original cause was.
It was pretty on the nose that the writers wanted viewers to sympathize with the rebels or at least feel divided about it. I enjoyed the show overall but was absolutely not sold on that part. Same for Walker, total dickwad.
@@CidGuerreiro1234 The broader point I think is that the spillover violence of "rebels" is always open to critique, condemnation and requiring immediate action to stop it in shows like these, but the violence of imperialism and empire that they are fighting against is only conceptually condemned but never actually stopped with anywhere near the fervor, urgency or outrage as the violence of the rebels. Rebels not caring about civilians getting caught up in their resistance? That stops today, even if we have to kill them to do it! Systems grinding people up and spitting them out daily for profit? Eh, we'll make a speech about how naughty that is and call it a day.
@@TheKnightgee so, you're saying stopping systems is just as important as saving people from terrorist?
@@channel45853 considering the relative death tolls, it would be vastly more important
Glad I'm not the only one who felt the message in the series was really muddled. Everyone I talked to after seeing it was like "it's sooo good!" And Im just like 😬 "is it though?"
At least it wasn't a giant unfunny clickbait like wandavision.
@@motor4X4kombat what?
@@-j-4618 evan peters AKA the best quicksilver ever cast as ralph bohner?
It was good AND the theme was muddled. Both can be true.
The middle episodes were really good imo. Episodes 2-5 were actually really entertaining to me at least
One way of thinking about Walker's rushed redemption arc is that, from the meta-narrative point of view of your critique, it represents exactly the way that Americans really feel about American misdeeds on the world stage.
I feel like this arc clearly isn’t done yet, they clearly set up that he’s going to face off against Wilson again.
@@TheJadedJames Maybe not that specifically, but he’s definitely going to be an antagonistic threat from here on out. I have a feeling he’ll get a similar arc to that of his comic counterpart (and he’s already a quarter of the way there).
American mercenaries murdered 17 people in cold blood for no reason in Iraq and got away with it for the most part and over half of Americans see that as justice so... Yeah I think you're right.
@@ConnerCanatsey Are you referring to that one soldier who went off the deep end and basically committed a mass shooting?
@@ConnerCanatsey half of Americans see it as justice? You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about… Yeah I think you’re wrong.
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier is a series that the more I thought about it the less I liked
So, I'm bad for liking the show?
It really felt hacked together. There's a theory that the original script had the flag smashers trying to kill half the population again via a pandemic, but that plotline was abandoned for obvious reasons. You can sort of see with ep2 being about stealing vaccines, Karli's mentor dying of a disease, and Karli going back to the Soldier Serum researcher for a cure. It certainly felt like a major plotline, and thus the coherency of the story, was sort of ripped out and not adequately replaced, leaving Karli without much motivation or direction.
@@carlosroo5460 If that's what you took away from the above post, that's your problem.
Lol same
@@carlosroo5460 What? No, you can like it flaws and all, the thematic issues of the show are some of the issues alot of people tend to pose with The Dark Knight Rises, "You've identified a complex real world issue, and its proposed solution is held by the villain, who is VERY violent and bad, so the good guy punches the villain and problem away...... Maybe? the end".
This show seemed like it had a lot it wanted to say but Disney was afraid to alienate anybody so it took the safest route possible
That was my own (though I didn't finish the show).
It had some interesting ideas but the execution was consistently half - assed.
Violence is bad when it threatens the status quo. It's ok when used to defend or expand the interests of those in power.
Yeah the flag smashers are based af in the comics and in the show but "muh violence is not the answer but you're cause is good" so nothing happens bruh
r/im 14 and this is deep
@@the500mphtortoise you're cringe
Flag Smashers were just whiny leftists who believe in a fairytale world with no borders.
@@koocheezniffer7337 yeah ok but the thing is they lived in a world where that was the reality for a few years.
The whole "take the villain's ideology but without the violence" thing has an extra sour taste since it's usually the case that the heroes, being part of the status quo, have the political power necessary to put the ideology into practice, while the villains, eg Karli and Killmonger, don't. They're using the only political power available to them, violence.
I mean of course for narrative purposes, so we know they're the baddies, they're depicted as being extra callous about the violence they inflict. Particularly, Killmonger is shown as a character for whom violence is his natural way to solve problems, but Karli explicitly states that she's using the only language that will be listened to.
this is pure facts
i'm finding it harder and harder to consider heroes that perpetuate the status quo as true heroes
it's like politicians denouncing protests and then refusing to pass helpful policy, they're intentionally slowing down progress with their own hands
If violence was the only language people listen to, then why did so many people leap to help out Sam’s family in the fifth episode? Why was the media on his side following his speech to the officials? Karli was wrong. There were other ways to help people beyond trying to kill her opposition. Sam actively demonstrated this.
Karli was a bad person whose politics were in denial of reality and made no sense.
@@magnusprime962
Karli said violence was the only language the _GRC_ would understand.
The show actually never proved her wrong. The GRC tried to speedrun the repatriation act in response to the Flag Smasher's attack, and called it off when they were nearly killed.
I had a lot of complicated feelings about this series. The critique of imperialism is THERE but it doesn't quite go as far as I would like. It's hard to balance my excitement of "Holy shoot, Sam is Captain America, I've wanted this for years!" and my questioning whether having a superhero called "Captain America" is actually good or worthwhile. At the end of the day The Falcon & The Winter Soldier is a product. To be an easier sell, there are certain artistic and political risks the creators will not take. And I think that sucks.
Yeah I honestly felt a twinge of disappointment seeing Sam suit up in that final episode, because Isaiah Bradley's comment about "no self-respecting black man should call themselves Captain America" really struck me with a "wait, he's right" moment. I came around on Sam's optimistic viewpoint and the show's ending, but it would have been interesting and potentially groundbreaking to see the show end with the very idea of "Captain America" condemned as imperialist propaganda.
@@chuckbatman5 You seem to miss the point of what Captain America represents.
@@RM-cn8pw I'm guessing you mean that he represents what America should be, and the show agrees with you. But it also presents a second, more cynical argument, Captain America as a tool for imperialism, and the cynical part of me would've liked to see them go all the way with that argument
@@chuckbatman5 interesting. How do you feel about Roger's arc of getting disillusioned from the American government?
@@lubeau8296 silence
I think John Walker's redemption arc was a way of depicting how quickly America tends to forget its actions, forgive itself, and pat itself on the back for a job well done.
I always thought it was telling that the evil, ultranationalist, military type apparently deserved a redemption arc, and the evil, anarchist, egalitarian didn't. (Maybe that says something about our own country's ideologies...)
So basically... it's an anti-America commentary. Got it.
So basically Humanity in a nutshell. It's not an American thing, it's a human thing #fact
Humans since we came to be, have always look for an excuse to trample other humans, other societies, other countries, every other neighbor. Guess what, that's not going to change.
I'm still waiting to see what big/small event is going to cause World War 3 and believe me, it's going to happen
There's a theory that it's not even really a redemption arc. We've seen Julia Louis-Dreyfus in Black Widow, too, where
*SPOILER*
she reveals she already recruited Florence Pugh's character Yelena Belova. She's building a team, and it's been speculated that it's for HYDRA and she's Madame Hydra. Some people have also guessed that she's working for the Thunderbolts program, in which case which characters stay villainous and which decide the hero biz really is for them could make for some real edge-of-the-seat watching.
This jurisdiction thing also comes into play in Sam and Bucky's actions, and is strangely overlooked. They help Zemo break out of prison and suffer no consequences whatsoever... I'm pretty sure that's a crime? Even if they were doing it "for the greater good".
It's also bizarre that during this rogue operation, Sam promises Sharon Carter to clear her name, and no one even questions whether or not he actually has the authority to promise something like that, considering he's currently a fugitive (or at least, he should to be).
That's one of the plot holes were supposed to turn away from. Since in this show NOBODY is really "good"
@@ExeErdna Also when they finally hand Zemo over to the Dora Milaje, Okoye says they're gonna take him to The Raft, and like, can they do that? Just drop prisoners off at this secret, US-owned, maximum security prison in the middle of the ocean? Surely there's some sort of procedure here...
It's just a little thing, but this show has a many of these and they stack up.
@@ShirDeutch Yeah they technically can't do that. It's a whole pile of "don't think about it, it just works" Especially when their own logic end up flawed.
@@ShirDeutch yeah thats why I was so confused why they wanted to capture him in the first place just to take him to the prison that sam and bucky would have probably taken him to anyway.
Bucky broke Zemo out of prison on his own accord (actually there isn't any proof of that, but the audience knows Bucky helped Zemo), so Sam wouldn't be in trouble per se. Sam at this point it a paid employee of the Air Force (I think), so again, especially as an Avenger, has some power and limited authority. Sharon was pardoned, so Sam must have had some clout.
Cap, Sam and eventually Bucky were all pardoned, so none of them are fugitives. Bucky had a conditional pardon due to the crimes he committed as the Winter Solider. So, if the govt ever found out he helped Zemo break out, he could in theory be in some serious doo doo! Just my theory.
Jeremy Jahns had a good point, in that Walker could've easily said the same thing as the Dora Milaje and it would've sounded way worse. "Captain America has jurisdiction wherever Captain America happens to find himself."
Why is it worse for Captain America to say this? In both cases it's equally immoral to act in another country without justification.
@@uanime1 That's the idea. We would think of it differently in both cases, even though it's the same action.
@@grfrjiglstan he also said the same about how Wanda is a villain but we still root for her and hate Hayward and how the show framed that
@@uanime1 I saw a comment on a video critiquing Captain America The Winter Solider that while we are supposed to root for Steve Rodgers and his Ideologies, the film never questions and challenges Steve on it and just assumes that he is right, what are your thoughts on that?
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674 That's the whole plot of the movie. Steve never changes his ideology but looses his trust to his own government. It's up to people whether that's good or bad but the movie kinda misses the mark by blaming old nazi illuminati for US government's paranoid genocide which takes away that heavy hit the movie should had.
I can't be the only one who saw that scene of John Walker rather unhingedly building his own shield as set up for him going on some kind of murderous rampage as the twist final boss. So the flagsmashers would have team up with/turn themselves in in order to redemption arc and help our heroes stop him. I mean it would still have some issues but it would at least be you know... Coherent.
That would have been way better. But aside from not getting the Pentagon's approval, it's clear that any media going through Disney has a particular priority. Doing what's right is number 2. Number 1 is maintaining the status quo. Once you start pulling that thread, questioning American symbols and how they can be weaponized, you start questioning the very system that has allowed a children's entertainment company to become a global economic power. That's why you'll never see any real critiques of the current way of the world. The Flagsmashers questioned the very idea of borders as tools of imperialism and oppression. They had to be villainized. Disney has a vested interest in ideas like that not catching on.
@@rottensquid It’s actually very frustrating too. The MCU shows will raise some interesting, albeit mostly fashionable political/social topics, and present them in rather creative storytelling ways, but then completely distance themselves from the true depths of the topic. If they’re going to keep doing that, I’d almost wish they didn’t raise those issues in the first place.
Wanda got a pass for keeping an entire town hostage, even though it would have been more compelling to explicitly villanize her actions as an example of the destructive nature one’s grief can have on innocent bystanders (yes I know she has the darkhold at the very end, but the tone of that finale just felt so off). Loki technically should have been more evil in his show as that version of himself was the one that had just tried to conquer NYC. Moreover, there should have been more discussions on freewill, fascism, identity, etc but instead we get stuck with an entire episode of a nexus event on some pointless planet? And of course this video covers the issues in Falcon and the Winter Soldier very well.
Nah, you could argue that walker shouldn’t have had a redemption, but the flagsmashers were too far gone. That would pretty much be like trying to redeem the Boston Bomber or the terrorists on 9/11. John Walker killed one guy under the influence of a drug, and right after his best friend was killed not to mention the guy was a terrorist who had assisted in the deaths of dozens and planned to kill more.
I’m not saying this to justify his actions but I am saying this to point out that Walker is a far more complex character than the Flagsmashers. The Flagsmashers (Carly specifically) wanted their equitable world (which is a child’s dream at best) didn’t care who or how many they killed to get it.
Heck, I’d argue Zemo was more redeemable than Carly. At the end of the day this group was pretty much the perfect embodiment of people who fueled by anger at their life’s state and instead of trying to make the world a better place, they simply try to tear it down but do it under the guise of empathy and self righteousness. They really were the lowest of the low. And there redemption would not only have felt unearned and morally bizarre, but would have been out of character.
@@thedukeofchutney468 It sounds like your issue with the Flagsmashers is their goal as much as their methods. Either you missed the part where all their lives were essentially destroyed by uncaring politicians doing a sloppy job of smoothing over the mess the world was in, or you're fine with little people being sacrificed for the sake of political expediency. That "child's dream" you talk about is the dream that Carly could get back the life that was taken from her by politicians trying to "smooth things over," of wake the world up to the fact that she and her cohorts were thrown under the bus.
One of these days, and not too far off now, you and I will end up thrown under the bus of political convenience, and I assure you, you won't be thinking about the greater good.
Creating his own shield = creating his own VERSION of America.
Doing everything steve rogers wouldnt agree with.
Using a symbol of good for Evil
One thing that hurts this show’s themes is that the MCU already has a very blurry portrayal of the global role of the U.S. This show, Avengers 1, Winter Soldier and Civil War all seem to conflate the U.S. government and international/multilateral organizations. Avengers 1 and Winter Soldier seem to combine the U.S. intelligence community with a militarized UN Security Council. Civil War seems to make the U.S. Department of State the enforcement arm of the UN General Assembly. And this show seems to combine the UN Security Council, the International Organization for Migration and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees with the FBI and Interpol through a decidedly corporate lens. It’s so muddy that themes of jurisdiction, foreign policy, and national and global responsibility are so murky that they are vague and confusing at best, which is why Sam’s speech at the end sounds inspiring, but really has nothing substantive to offer.
Interesting video. Sam & Winter soldier show always felt like a mess, but it seems like thats primarily due to the lack of interest in 1. Actually exploring the real world implications of the thanos snap, and 2. The complete ineptitude with which they handle ideology and politics of the characters and wind up create an incoherent mess of a story. It just felt like it was saying "heres how you're supposed to feel" without ever justifying its position or challenge those positions in interesting ways. Just my two cents though. Thoughts?
Regarding your “Here’s how you are supposed to feel” statement, I personally believe its more of an audience issue and less of a writer issue
Excellent way of putting it
They revealed a hyper advanced society in Wakanda and nothing changed. Marvel has run into the sitcom problem: nothing can change.
They cant advance beyond the current day society. So the Snap and Wakanda don't actually affect the world.
Very well put, I think Loki and Wandavis worked a lot better because, to a degree, they could be a lot more self contained. But because F&WS can't. It has to at least look at large scale society issue because that's what a cap show should do. The trouble is Marvel doesn't want to tackle these issues head on becasue that would be far too controversial, which means we get stories that forever scratch the surface but can't go deeper on a societal level
@@FortuitusVideo and thats a very comics way to deal with it. It remember me one of the Transformers movies where evil Grandpa Prime transports part of Cybertron to earth's orbit. How cool would be if the next movie was about it, instead Grandpa Prime is defeated and Cybertron is.magicaly send back. Is really frustrating when the world build stops.
Tbh this could be a genius thing to do in a Captain America story if it were intentional because looking in from the outside (specifically a country that the USA subverted in the past: Chile), the “Lets barely acknowledge the problems, change the rhetoric, and then barely tweak the status quo” thing is very American, it's an attitude which has been consistent since at least post-WWII except for FDR’s internal policies, so it would make sense to make America-representing-characters this way and then criticize that either explicitly or implicitly. What's annoying is that the criticism never seems to happen, it's just non-stop masturbation about American supremacy.
Exactly.
Yes. I hope you're right, I hope we get to see the non-existent/negative consequences of that silly little speech given to power hungry rich maniacs in the next season
I think interpreting this scene as the Dora Milaje biting back at American imperialism sells Wakanda really short, and brings in too much of your real life understanding of global power.
A large part of Black Panther was selling the idea that Wakanda is an isolationist superpower who has entered the world stage to expand its influence. After watching that movie you aren’t supposed to think of Wakanda as a lesser power to the US.
In that context Ayo’s line makes much more sense as a power-play. The Dora-milaje are willing to assert power outside of their borders, and this is a stand-off between two global super-powers in a country neither belongs.
To support my point, I note that this isn’t the first place we’ve seen the Dora-milaje engage in overseas violence with no authority to protect their domestic interests.
*Ayo, not Okoye.
@@ThePonderer my bad I just googled Dora Milaje leader lol
This is a good point. Countries protect their interests unless a stronger power comes along to stifle them. Because of the threat of evil in the world, goodness is a luxury granted the strong if they do not abuse their power.
@@MattMorency Okayyyy that escalated quickly
@@MattMorency Which basically subs up WHY Killmonger wanted to do and why he failed. Also why Wakanda isn't a nation to praise honestly.
All this show had to do to not rub me the wrong way is: do not give US Agent a forced redemption arch and make is so the flag smashers didn't kill people.
John Walker was a brilliant anti-hero and the probably only reason I finished the show, Wyatt Russell is a brilliant actor and was glad to see him in such a significant role. The flag smashers were a terrible antogonists imo, dragged the show down so much.
@@ifxthenwhy6202 they should’ve kept Zemo and Carter as the villains
The Flag Smashers were so luke warm and boring. They should either be ruthless in trying to achieve their goals or Robinhood types, noble "freedom fighters". They killed people in cold blood yet the show asks us to sympathize with them... Which isn't even my biggest problem with them. The Flag Smashers were utterly uninteresting in their characterization.
I cant think of anyone the flag smashers killed that didnt deserve it. They were all either hired guns keeping vaccines from sick people, rich bureaucrats voting to displace refugees, or some other stormtrooper type. Why is it bad that the flag smashers do this but the avengers can cut thru scores of hydra and luke skywalker can nuke hundreds of imperials. This show had such a dumb parameter for morality when u think ab it longer than a single second.
@@ramisgoogleacc702 The difference between it being ok for the Avengers or Luke to tear through faceless hordes is because 1.) They're faceless for a reason, so you don't humanize them. 2.) Those properties do an exceptional job of making sure you know who the bad guys are. They don't just rely on the word of a boring whiney teenager to relay that point. 3.) The "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" has been done better in other countless other properties, so it isn't even a new idea.
So yea, take more than a second to ponder why people say these villains come off as cold blooded murderers.
As someone who is not American, it pissed me off that so much of the show was set outside of the US. If it's about Captain America, let it be set in America, please. Also, I've volunteered in the refugee movement in Europe for the past six years, and have a lot of insight into the real no borders movement here. To me, the whole flag smashers storyline was incredibly stupid, clearly not researched and just overall poorly executed if not outright offensive. It was by far the weakest link in the whole show. It could've been a decent show if they'd just dropped the whole flag smashers thing, focused on the growth and personal lives of the main characters and let it be that buddy cop show that the actors promoted it to be.
You do know that only 1 Captain America movie was set in America right? I’m not gonna argue the merits of FaWS, but Captain America being an inherently political character probably can say just as much in America as outside of it and what theme or message the authors are trying to convey
@@hobbes6392 I am very aware, and never said I liked that either. In the first movie it was at least motivated and an integral part of Steve's growth. But now it's not Steve Rogers anymore, it's Sam Wilson and the show does A LOT to tie Sam to the struggles within the US, so it feels like a cop out to then give him an enemy on foreign soil in a plot line that is only poorly weaved in with his personal struggles and growth. That time could've been much better used and served his character better if he'd stayed at home. It could've allowed the shield to stand for something new and fresh. I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
I so agree with dropping the Flag Smashers. If that storyline really was affected by the pandemic, they should've just cut it. The show was overstuffed as is.
The Flags Smashers were just as superficial as all the rest of political stuff in the show
It’s quite frustrating
Sounds like you want different peoples and races to stay where they are from(kinda sus)
The ending where Falcon say "do better" is fucking laughable lmao.
He said more than that, if you watched the show.
I think you're giving the show too much credit. You say that Carlie Morgenthau is anti-Nationalist and anti-Capitalist, but that's not really what I got from her. She believes in a world "without borders" because "things were better during the blip", but the specific language she uses is dripping with contempt for the people who were dusted and then came back. About how they're getting all of the resources and that they should look after people who weren't blipped instead. She talks about them like how nationalists talk about immigrants. The sum is a mix of open-borders dressing on anti-immigration talking points that results in an ideology that has a shape but no texture. It's the same with how the Global Repatriation Council is hinting at, and dressed up as, a sort of neo-liberal international organization but we're sort of left to fill in the blanks on what that means ourselves.
Bingo, people see the visuals aspects and ignore the "flavor". Carlie wasn't a revolutionary she LOVED the status quo. Of those 5 short years which makes her more of a horrible person. She's mad that lives were saved that were taken away because Thanos was being selfish. GRC are just bumbling buracrats that know they can't do what they're doing yet do it anyway. What their goals were wasn't helping nobody
yes remember how GREY and depressing was the snap as showed in endgame?,....
You've got a good point there, Mr TopHat. I think the show's biggest failure was in defining Karli and what she stood for. We got an unclear (and as you point out, somewhat contradictory) idea of what she wanted in MCU terms, but the show creators failed to generalize that to any kind of real world situation that would make us care about what she was fighting for.
The way I would describe it is that people are seeing too much real-world parallelism - probably more than was actually intended (which is also partially because TF&TWS does have a lot of social commentary in it, so the audience would naturally think the whole show is social commentary when it isn't). Karli talks like a supporter of open borders, which is usually associated with left-wing politics, but it's in the specific context of the Blip - a very much not-real event. Half of humanity was literally dusted and borders collapsed because of that kind of black swan event. In that context, her tirades against borders ironically becomes, as you say, a right-wing political point - she's anti-dusted-people, because the world she and others came to love during the Blip is now gone. She's a conservative, struggling to conserve the world that used to exist when only half of humanity was left. I really like how you describe this as "an ideology that has a shape but no texture" - there is no real-world equivalent for this kind of ideology because the show is fiction and the context surrounding that ideology's creation simply doesn't exist.
Honestly, I think the show overreached with its villain. I thought it was mostly going to focus on American race relations with regards to Sam - a very much not blond-haired, blue-eyed white American - becoming Captain America, and with respect to that, I thought the show did a reasonably good job. All the stuff with Karli was window dressing on the side IMO, and it ended up being the half-cooked stuff anyway.
@@EscapeVelocity11186 borders still éxits..Also in far from home its shower than nothing happens apart of s joke in the first scene..all Europe its just fine..
Also her motivación got no sense at all..
Absolutely great insights. I find the politics of marvel so problematic in its desperate attempt to please everyone. They say 'Yes there are problems with the establishment. But, here is a disenfranchised person suffering under the system who turns to killing. So who is really the bad guy?' It's a subtle way of reinforcing the status quo by suggesting the only alternative is violence and the collapse of our individual safeties.
In trying to continue an ideology of things as they are Marvel films are really reinforcing a view that those suffering in the present are not worth the risk of change.
I read Walker very differently (assuming that’s who you’re talking about). Walker’s bad actions *are the establishments bad actions.*
It’s just trust in television that the establishment is too legally powerful to suffer any tangible consequence, but the establishment IS the reason John Walker is the way he is.
It’s not that those suffering aren’t worth the risk of change, it’s that change is, for better or worse, out of the hands of many of our characters. The King of Wakanda is able to create real change for his fictional country cause he’s the top dog who actually makes the rules, but what power does Sam Wilson have that’s not purely symbolic? What change *can* he actually directly enforce?
Given we are living through an unprecedented period of plenty, freedom and security for about 200 years, it's hard to deny that defending the status quo is bad
@@Canadish 'things are fine for me so we shouldn't change to make things better for others', This is an argument borne from being one of the few in the modern world fortunate enough to have a good life. I sincerely think you need to step outside your bubble and go and see those who suffer under the present situation. It isn't hard to find those who do.
Just because the present seems good for you (and judging by how many people are depressed, miserable and unfulfilled, it is less than you think), does not mean we should stop and rest. There is much work to do before humans stop exploiting one another and the world around us, if it's possible at all
@@snakespreader International poverty is the lowest it has ever been?
Also, I'd agree it's always good to try keep improving, but worth keeping things in perspective as well. Before you flip the world upside down, remember things are really good right now.
@@ThePonderer what were your thoughts on Sam’s speech in the end?
10:21 his redemption was shit, he could have been a tragic hero at this point, his speech here could have been more relevant, more emotional
he could the representation of the dark side of the US military that generates tormented men
13:24 look how the suit limits the neck's moviment of anthony mack
probably they will remove the neck white tissue next time reappears
looks uncomfortable
His redemption was shit because he didn't have a redemption. It was a reaffirmation simply of what the core of his character always had been that they established, someone who does care about protecting people and wants to do the right thing. Walker was never some evil monster, he did care about people, he did care about doing his job to protect them, and him pulling up that truck was to remind people that even if he doesn't have the morality to be Captain America, it doesn't mean he's a monster completely devoid of anything good. He is still the tragic fallen hero, he's not redeemed, he's still someone who's now being used by shady people for their own purposes.
I would have loved it if they, after being given a speech, just told him "no".
@@CaptainPikeachu You do not care about people if you actively prop up an oppressive regime.
This show had me rooting for the antagonists the whole time. Because the writers couldn't actually create a critique of their philosophy, they resorted to "Let's blow up buildings for no reason!" Laziness.
Also, it's a small thing, but one more way they biffed the ending was "Captain America and the Winter Soldier" -- not "Captain America and the White Wolf". How many times did Bucky say he wasn't the Winter Soldier anymore?
The problem is the writers were trying to write propaganda and *wanted* you to agree with Carly.
But anyone who knows history understands why her method of radical redistribution is terrible, it always leads to totalitarianism, starvation and a stripping of dignity.
Sam basically just argues for the Fabian approach, which is admittedly more effective, albeit more insidious.
Ok but many leftoids on Twitter believe that mass deaths will be necessary in the impending "revolution". Not too far-fetched for characters to act on these motives in a comic book movie.
@@Canadish I don't think so, if the writers really wanted you to agree with Carly, she wouldn't have killed anyone. Also, what would be the point of making propaganda against the Global Repatriation Council if that doesn't exist in real life?
I think the reason was that the drama works better when you can understand the villain's motivations.
What it was weird is that Walker seemed less relatable than Carly, even when Carly was a worse person by far. There can be many ways to interpret that. One of those could be that the shows claim that is better to side with oppressed minorities regardless how wrong they are in their actions; but another interpretation(and my preferred one) could be to not judge people based on how relatable they are.
I had a strange feeling about this show the moment it opened with a supposedly "fun, epic" scene of Sam flying about, blowing stuff up, having a military adventure somewhere in North Africa. Instead of enjoying the action, all I could think was "what the hell is he doing there?".
Then maybe watch the scene.
@@RM-cn8pw I did. You did not get the point of my comment.
@@nazgullord3198 I did get the point of your comment. It’s not even remotely that much to get.
It’s that your comment is wrong.
@@RM-cn8pw Mmkay. Care to explain why?
@@nazgullord3198 Because you’re choosing to ignore context to manufacture a “point.”
It's on Sam's arc where I believe you are wrong, and it's something I find most people miss out on. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of ideas in this that I disagree with, but this one is probably the most pertinent. Sam struggles with his blackness and the scar that American culture has left on the legacy of black people. Most importantly, Karli Morganthaw and her movement embodies otherness, or the way people are other and treated indifferently by the systems that are meant to protect them. Sam is a black man, who must take on the mantle of the very face of America, chosen by the "ideal" American, he battles the identity of blackness as seen through the treatment of Isaah Bradley. Isaah says this: "No self respecting black man would ever take the mantle of Captain America," a moment that for me hurt, because Sam has to be able to reconcile with black Americans by showing he is not the lap dog of corrupt white leaders, while also giving white Americas a figure they feel can still represent them. He must embody the entire ideal nature of what America "should" stand for.
I find it pretty frustrating when engaging in this topics because for me it feels like so many people miss this about the show. And that's not to say that there aren't different interpretations/themes in the show, but I would really like for someone to do a video on this topic in particular.
You are right and his strugle makes his end speech more empty.
@@toribiogubert7729 not exactly
I think the problem is that this show is barely any deeper than surface level... Ever. I was rolling my eyes on this show because I thought everything was so cliche. So when you gave that paragraph about Sam's inner conflict I doubt the writers even considered what you just said. Like I think they thought yeah racism bad black Captain America will show them. I'm sorry but I don't believe they meant it to ever go any deeper than that.
@@jasperblanch4184 really…? It’s pretty explicit on dealing with that. Like it makes specific call outs on the weight of giving a black man the shield and all the implications of doing that. In fact if they weren’t thinking about that why did Sam even reject the shield in the first place??
@@ImBackLikeHerpes goes to show ppl often don't like something progressive being proclaimed in anyway, shape, or form simply because they feel like they're being attacked when it's ppl that look or think like them being made the bad guy.
"Its most popular fictional universe is about defeating an Empire"
An Empire that, time and time again, was written to be in some regards an analog and parallel to the U.S' own political and colonialist actions-Lucas knew what he was doing, even when that inspiration does go over the head of the general viewing audience.
EDIT: Emphasis on "in some regards". Not every aspect of the Empire is meant to mirror America, and there's political and visual inspiration from many empires and dictatorial states throughout history, especially as the Original Trilogy went on. But the Rebel Alliance's battle with the Empire in 'Star Wars (1977)' took direct inspiration from the Viet Cong's resistance to American forces in Vietnam-which is to say a smaller, ill-funded force using makeshift means to lead an assault on a larger imperial force against all odds. Lucas shows his hand even further in Return of the Jedi with the militarization of the Ewoks. They may be teddy bears, but they were also written as a native population that were able to, again, overpower the impossibly well-equipped Imperial forces.
Not to mention Lucas continuing to write the Empire as an American analog within the Prequels-therein getting more directly explicit in his opinions of America politics and a Republic's "downfall" into Empire. There's a secondary villain character whose name is a reference to Newt Gingrich, for god's sake.
There are certainly some comparisons, but that's basically George writing what he knows and years later saying it was some sort of political message after a bunch of people analyze it. The Empire was inspired by the Roman Empire with the Emperor being some impotent, weak leader being controlled by others. Of course that changed when Palpatine was turned into a wizard.
I'm not sure that "Lucas knew what he was doing", but by basing his villains on Nazi Germany -- a state which also used imperialism as a political tool, he stumbled onto a truth that exposed the problems with his own nation's policies.
@Mictchell Mueller where can I read/watch and learn more about the political and historical influences Star Wars drew from?
@@Seasonal-Shadow_4674 One of the most common brought up arguments would be the Ewoks taking down the Imperial forces as a comparison to Vietnam. Though it's a common misconception, as the US military was dominating the entire conflict and it was the political opponents of the War that brought it to an end.
But real truth was Ewoks were just there to sell toys.
@@goldfishprime US military was "dominating the entire conflict"? Man, that's some prime historical revisionism right there.
I see John's redemption as critique. Look at him at the end, happy and saying "I'm back!" It doesn't look like he learned a lesson.
I don't even understand what he's supposed to learn exactly. Killing a surrendering terrorist is bad instead only kill them in self defense or when America's says it OK? Also said America launches nukes at new york.
@@emptyblank099a You'd think the guy would at least have second thoughts about trusting shady authority figures after his rant at the trial about he only did what he was told to do and they military made him what he was.
@@emptyblank099a I mean...that makes perfect sense, it's just kind of being said as if it didn't there. Yes, killing in self defense against people attacking you is very different from killing an Unarmed man in the street.
The council was potrayed as wrong as well
But it wasn't a redemption arc....
Let me give my non-american perspective to all those people trying to defend Walker:
There are rules, even in war. Killing someone who is unarmed and surrendering to you is a war crime. It might not be the same as shooting children or reporters, but it is still a war crime. And revenge is not a redeeming motivator. Revenge is not justice, even though many people seem to think so.
Honestly, it is infuriating to see how many cases of exposed US war crimes there are and how few people actually face consequences for what they did or what kind of orders they gave. The "judgement" Walker faced was perfectly in line with how the US treats their own war criminals.
The thing is, the terrorist was an active threat only seconds before "surrendering" (in which the guy never states his intention to surrender for some reason). It's also important to note that super soldiers are still very much dangerous without any weapons as shown throughout the entire MCU. I'd agree with you if this guy actually stated he would surrender and if he didn't rip out a concrete fountain for a weapon seconds earlier but there's too much of a silver line here to compare this to say, Americans killing captive soldiers in Iraq.
@@kingexplosionmurder3764 You're advocating for a war criminal, and you do not care that he is a war criminal.
@@TheSuperRatt By legal definition, there is a solid case that the terrorist hadn’t yet officially surrendered, therefore making John’s actions perfectly legal.
John, Bucky, and Falcon are already wanted for another war crime anyway of impeding a country’s jurisdiction without permission.
The thing is, I WAS siding with the GRC on the basic notion that, if I was dusted and came back into existence five years later , I would want to live in my own damn house again. I just feel both sides of the conflict were not explored properly to justify the actions on either behalf, making Sam's "mediator" stance uninteresting.
Also "do better"? TF is that gonna solve?
John Walker's redemption arc, while rushed, was probably always planned since they seem to have plans for him later on. U didn't think it felt forced, though; unlike his comic counterpart MCU John at the start is portrayed as a generally decent fellow, just a realistically flawed one not suited to be CA. When those pressures, the negative effects of the serum , and Lemar's death get to him he does hit a low point, but I honestly saw him rebounds from it from the get go. They clearly painted him in a sympathetic light as someone who suffered through the horrors of war and was shaped by those experiences, rather than an out-and-out gloryhound.
I think one thing that could've helped us sympathize with walker if they had the redemption planned would be to actually show what happened in Iraq or Iran or wherever he was. See John and Lamar fight their way out of some building and watch his men die around him. Throw in some shaky cam and ear ringing sound effects. That would bring audience sympathy up in no time.
Even putting aside the Political issues or how rushed it was...Having Walker descend into Villainy feels like it works narratively? Like, the story of a well meaning but flawed man who's slowly consumed by his flaws, Trauma and Pride til he becomes a villain.
The thing is, no one knew at this point that the dusted people were going to come back. We take that knowledge for granted, but the world believed this was just how things were. If half the population outright vanished, you'd be fine with just allowing those homes to... rot, forever?
David Graeber has a really interesting article called 'Superposition' in which he talks about how superheroes have almost always been reactionary, while the villains are the creative and idealistic characters in comics and movies. Villains have ideas about how the world could be and act for it-although sometimes they are not praiseworthy ideas-but superheroes are just there to react and protect the status quo.
The last few seasons of The Handmaid's Tale are really what you're looking for. A big question of "Ok I'm on your side, but do you have to be violent? Well yeah you do but..hum...do you? I mean ok maybe?" 😅
"We wanna be for your cause, but oh golly, your BEHAVIOR is just a bit problematic, I dunno, maybe we should keep the status quo after all..."
@@ktownshutdown21 There’s a big gap between maintaining the status quo and threatening world leaders at gunpoint. Yes, peaceful methods work slowly and don’t always turn out the way you want. But in the long run they are better. Hearts and minds are what need to be won, not battles.
@@magnusprime962 Peaceful methods only work when there is the threat of violence, examples being the Indian Independence movement and the American Civil Rights movement. Peaceful methods, when used against empires willing to crush dissent... will only end in a boot to the throat. There needs to be a reason why the oppressive regime is afraid to use violence against the rebels. The rebels need to have leverage, or they're dead.
This critique is pretty much why I tapped out of this show after the first scene. From the word go, the show is acting like America and the American military are intrinsically on the side of good. And even (maybe especially?) as someone who grew up in an American military family, I was intensely not here for a show that just treats America as default good. I don't think the military is bad, I've actually gotten to see some of the non-combative work that it does which I think most civilians aren't aware of. But I hated the undertone that this show and a lot of other media has in their portrayal of the US military as this inherently good entity. Thank you for breaking it down and confirming that I shouldn't waste my time on this show. Even though I think Falcon is pretty damn cool.
"From the word go, the show is acting like America and the American military are intrinsically on the side of good."
Well they are obeying international law, unlike Wakanda, and trying to prevent terrorism, unlike the Flag Smashers.
"But I hated the undertone that this show and a lot of other media has in their portrayal of the US military as this inherently good entity."
They do this because the military gives them money and lets them use their equipment in this movie.
I mean, I don't think it treats the US military as default good though. The whole thing with the John Walker character happened because the military wanted to capitalize on Steve Rogers' heroism and shove in their own Captain America for propagandistic reasons. And then when he inevitably goes crazy and kills someone, they just toss him aside and don't own up to even a shred of their own responsibility in his situation. I'd hardly call that a laudatory depiction.
Right? For all the talk this show has about “violence and murder being bad”, it sure seems strange that in the first scene Sam kills several people (who speak in a different language so I guess the show wants us to think it’s ok to kill foreigners?) to save the life of 1 American soldiers
@@vitoriawithanaccent Well, to be fair, the vast majority of superhero fiction talks about murder and violence being wrong, and they're ALL hypocrites about it. Even the superheroes who don't kill use violence and intimidation to solve all their problems anyway. Which isn't wrong in and of itself, but acting like it's wrong while you're doing it IS wrong. Which, again, they all do. It's less a problem with this show in particular and more a problem with the superhero genre in general, and the only reason it's done so much is to keep popular superheroes kid-friendly and marketable to younger audiences.
"From the word go, the show is acting like America and the American military are intrinsically on the side of good."
We're talking about same show that had an entire sub plot about a black super soldier that was experimented on and treated terribly by the military and constantly criticizes the idea of a black Captain America because he didn't believe that would be accepted with our history. Hell even Walker pretty clearly had PTSD and talks about how despite being hailed as a hero for his military service he never felt like one because of the shit he had to do.
I think I like it. But it wasn't what I was expecting, which is why I think I prefered _WandaVision_ and _Loki._
I was thinking it'd be a kind of buddy cop thing. They chase Zemo around, they butt heads as they deal with each other, Diet Capt. America keeps crossing paths, etc.
Bucky and Sam's chemistry just wasn't that strong. Zemo felt kinda under-utilized. The Flag-Smashers were a cool idea, but felt a little too shallow.
I would like to see this come back for another season, cause I think this still has a lot of potential to be good.
I like it based mostly on the strength of its acknowledgement of these issues. It’s the most explicitly “real” Marvel production so far, not shying away from putting the issues it was dealing with (race, geopolitics, what America stands for, etc). Even if it stumbled in executing the narrative in a thematically consistent or fully engaging way, I still think it stands out for being the most boldly political in its themes. I do get the same sense the video takes about that the Pentagon or the CIA or some producer or somebody kinda crippled the script a bit and wanted to make sure America still came off as the good guy in the end and all that, which did shoot the criticisms in the foot a bit.
That being said, I can also see something like the “redemption” of Walker as just being an acknowledgement that things aren’t black and white in reality. Even someone as “bad” as Walker can still do good things and have a good side in them, and really just be making mistakes as he tries his best. It’s not like they didn’t set up Walker to have an understandable motivation from his perspective to make the mistakes he does... Lamar getting killed made him lose it. He wasn’t necessarily meant to be irredeemable because of that. It just so happens that police brutality is a particularly sensitive matter these days, which may be part of why everybody was so quick to see Walker’s actions as unforgiveable, rather than just being a terrible mistake in the heat of the moment, which he works to redeem himself for in the finale by helping to actually save lives. It’s meant to be complexity, not contradiction, but unfortunately, a lot of people can’t seem to differentiate the two.
I think Walker is meant to be a gray character, maybe on the darker side, but definitely existing somewhere in the middle. I think the rumour is that Julia Lous-Dreyfus’ character is putting together the “Dark Avengers”... the “bad cops” to the Avengers’ “good cops”, I guess. I don’t know much about it, but if that’s the plan, then it sounds like it’s intentional on Marvel’s part to have Walker be a very flawed, dubious kind of character. They didn’t mean for him to come off as “fully redeemed” and an out and out good guy now just because he saved some people and is quipping around like he was before. He’s supposed to still be cringey, morally flawed and generally unlikeable, but still able to save people sometimes. It’s Marvel adding gray characters between our good and bad ones. Kinda the same thing they’re doing with Wanda, except she’s still on the more likeable side, even though she enslaved a whole town, painfully and traumatically, as puppets in her fantasy. AND with Loki, taking a “bad guy” and making him more good, but still somewhere in the middle. I like that they’re adding complexity, and TFAWS actually may have done that the most, which is exactly why everybody’s having tough time figuring out if they even like it or not, because it makes them feel so many conflicting things.
@@AWSVids I can acknowledge that it definitely did it's best to discuss these issues. But to be honest, I'm just burnt out when it comes to politics. And it certainly came off as preachy and idealistic.
The topics are important to discuss, but maybe a Marvel superhero series isn't the best platform to use for it.
The fans who just wanna see some hero action will get frustrated by the politics and the people who are interested in the politics won't be satisfied with how simplified it is.
“Sam’s internal struggle is about how to live up to the mantle of Captain America”
Yes but isn’t it also about contextualizing that legacy as a black man when being faced with what has been done to his people in the name of said nation?
nah, not really
Yes it is. It would be odd seeing a Native American so passionate about being Captain America and not even thinking about how America viewed people like himself only 60 years ago
IMO it was less about living up to the mantle Steve created, but to figure out what it would be for him and to him to be CA, what mantle he himself would like to create. It is spelled out right early on when Walker says "I am not trying to be/replace Steve, I am just trying to be the best CA _I_ can be", the very thing Sam started rejecting to be and become, until at the end he embraces he is capable of building that symbol up and what he want it to mean. What you're saying is part of that meaning he comes up with.
@@tansrr1269 Only if you assume people should or do hold certain beliefs based on the color of their skin . . .
@@OntheOtherHandVideos Really, you're trying to call that person the racist, lmao. You cannot erase history. Imagine the sheer ridiculousness of making a hero named Colonel Confederacy, black.
I feel like it's a leap to say that Batman's moves in Hong Kong were an allegory to the Bush Administration, it just seemed like a logical thing Batman would do
More like Bush administration's wet dream...
Batman is also not the Govermant, him doing that isn't setting a standard that it's an okay thing for the Govermant to do
As an MCU fan, I agree. It’s a show that has interesting topics to discuss but it’s never challenged or resolved in the conclusion. Let’s just hope that Marvel doesn’t also screw up ‘Captain America 4’.
Yeah I think they are setting a lot of these stories up for that film. The Flagsmashers is a huge concept that I do not think will go unused. Their king just fell. I think they will rise again.
@@rwicks1746 Flagsmasher where the worst villains since that dark elves...gotn o f... sense at all
@@FULANODETAL I didn't mind the dark elves. Watching it now makes more sense. But I honestly think the flag smashers have a more relatable story. I think as The MCU fleshs out the time during the blip. The motives of the flag smashers will be more clear. I think it worked well enough in the show.
@@rwicks1746 their motives are dumb..unless they murder 4 billlom people
.Also Who un the hell want to going black to snap.. remember the consecuences..thanos not only snapped people.he snapped Castle.fish.and even crops..so hunger civil wars scarce..
In real Life 3 wars started THX to covid than only killed 2m people..
@@FULANODETAL yeah ok, so there's a lot to unpack here and a lot of grammar mistakes even for me. Karli described that after the blip lots of communities came together, relinquished boarders and became more of a 1 people 1 world. Even racism is implied to have fallen apart by the people that survived the blip, 5 years after a global event like that would change a lot of people. It's only when the people that were blipped out, after coming back they want to continue their agenda against disenfranchised people, they even gave back those jobs, houses back to the people that blipped and kicked out people that were living in that home. This is why Sam understands Karli and her mission. Now I will say that it's definitely underdeveloped and that's a clear cause from covid and removing story elements. But their fight makes sense IMO
I love how in the USA being unemployed is a reasonable motive to become a villain.
Making the villain a homeless person would be too insensitive.
Vulture was a good villain, but this bitch karli is a terrible one.
Because clearly there is something wrong with them if they aren't working.
That's bullshit, but that's how most Americans act.
@@lilelo208 jokers daughter in a nutshell
Marvel also did that weird jurisdiction thing at the end of Black Panther where the nation of Wakanda opened community centers in American inner cities as if that was just a normal thing to happen in the United States. Just imagine if Saudi Arabia was just like “oh, yeah, let’s open some community centers in Detroit to help youngsters.”
Well in that case, America sees Wakanda in-universe as being a humble yet impoverished country. Not a land rich with oil, sexism, oil, homophobia, oil, and theocratic practices. In other words, they tolerate Saudi Arabia (and other commodity-rich yet morally wrong countries like China) for what they can provide them, but won’t be buddies with them.
I wouldn’t say Wakanda is the equivalent of Saudi Arabia lol
And nobody talk about it. Fucked
I mean, doesn't the US do this? Building schools in impoverished nations, and all that jazz?
@@TheSuperRatt You may be right. I would have to check, but I thought those schools were built by private organizations not the US government. I assumed that the US just gave money to those countries’ governments. But maybe they’ve got the Army Corps of Engineers building stuff out there.
I have heard of government contractors bidding for jobs to rebuild roads and infrastructure destroyed by US military attacks, so yeah maybe it’s the same thing with Wakanda. Maybe the US is like a battle torn third world nation to Wakandains? Look forward all the US emigration to Wakanda that happens in phase 7. 😂
I think the main issue you're finding comes down to the fact that the more down to earth and realistic the show gets to real world issues with ideology and politics the more messy it gets and they're afraid of alienating too many people.
The ending was weak with the big speech but (I forget where it was) but I saw a video where the comparison between Spielberg and Kubrick was that Spielberg gives you the answers to the questions about humanity he asks where as Kubrick asks the questions and trusts you to find the answers you believe are correct.
Disney can't let people come to answers other than generic popcorn movie/family friendly moral conclusions. They're not really equiped for that I think.
Exactly. It's like "Do you want to be a dumb action series or no?" If not, then commit to that and not pull out at the last minute. Or you can stay in your lane and be a dumb action series.
It's hilarious how this show expects you to sympathise with terrorists and think US Agent is evil.
I think the whole “isn’t he hypocritical for saying violence is wrong yet he is also violent” is a bit misleading. Not all violence is created equal. Sam says that he’s against the Flag Smashers you know… murdering innocent people. When he used violence it’s always in self defence, he is being attacked and he fights back. He doesn’t go out of his way to up and murder innocent people to send a message like the FS.
He stands for basic decency but it would be better if he had a more robust creed.
The FSs behave worse but are fighting for an idea.
F&TWS needed at minimum 10 episodes to give decent credit to it's 4 different plotlines of flagsmashers, walker, the refugee crisis, and the main characters to begin with (Sharon Carter and the power broker stuff was just dumb)
Sam kills like 20 people in the first episode and then goes lecturing karli about how violence is bad
The thing about that scene with the FakeCap telling the Dora Milaje “You don’t have jurisdiction here” and the Dora Milaje going “fuck you, we have jurisdiction everywhere because we say so” is that... well, everything you say about FakeCap’s arrogance and the issues of American Empire are entirely right, no question at all.
...so why are we supposed to be cheering that exact same attitude on when it comes from the Dora Milaje? Its just more “they’re the good guys so the things they’re doing are good actually” weak screenwriting. And yeah, in the end they don’t murderize Zemo and take him to the international holding pen to be secured for good and not so he can join the Thunderbolts in a few years, but it just struck me how people were going “Fuck yeah, Dora Milaje, acting like arrogant-ass American imperialists insisting that their authority extends across the entire globe because no one can stop them!” without much thought...
Like it was said in the video, they are challenging the American hegemony... with more imperialism. So awesome concept, not so stellar execution.
Reminds me of all the people rightfully criticising America's blatant human rights abuses abroad and then saying nothing when Russia or China does the same thing or worse. If imperialism is inherently bad, criticise it wherever you see it, not only when it's done by your own country.
I think they're both in the wrong in that scene. And the fact that they're comparable is what makes the scene go brr
That's a major problem that many people refuse to recognize. The Dora Milaje were clearly in the wrong as they lacked jurisdiction and this would have been easy to fix by simply having the Dora Milaje get permission to arrest Zemo before trying to do this. Then the Dora Milaje would have been in the right, but that wouldn't allow black women to beat white men in a fight.
I think the show has a problen of Sam doing the same thing as the villains. Like Walker is condemed for killing a man while Sam literally kills dozens in the show and recklessly tosses the weapon used to decapitate a man.
He killed during a combat scenario where those people were trying to kill him and none of them were defeated and begging for mercy.
My Problem with the John killed a man thing is that we know what happened the people don’t know johns best friend died in front of him saving his life and he took a serum that obviously makes people more evil because everyone who took post Steve became worse people
im glad you mentioned the korra villains because ive more or less come to the same conclusion as you, that each one presents a compelling argument but their writers fail them by making them so absurdly villainous as to allow the protags and their world to largely ignore their core beliefs, particularly with zaheer. they embrace the easy stuff but ignore the larger messages
Hard agree. Part of the biggest problem with Legend of Korra (apart from the entire first and second seasons) is that at the end of the third season they just return to the status quo and reinstate the monarchy in Ba Sing Se? The show almost explicitly says that the Earth Queen, and therefore monarchies in general, are inherently bad because they don't provide power to the people, and then immediately makes a 180 because Zaheer is evil and therefore everything he has ever said is categorically wrong.
@@mahrinui18 I saw a comment on a video critiquing Captain America The Winter Solider that while we are supposed to root for Steve Rodgers and his Ideologies, the film never questions and challenges Steve on it and just assumes that he is right, what are your thoughts on that?
@@mahrinui18 in the show's defence, they actually have the prince renounce monarch rule at the end and he pledges to hold elections (which they follow through on in one of the follow-up comic lines). but youre right that even the fact that they considered giving the kingdom back to a prince in the first place and the prince had to step up and say no is pretty fucking bizarre
The annoying one in Korra for me was Amon. I can sort of accept that Zaheer’s ideology would sort of have to be ignored by Korra because it involves her having to die as she is the literal living incarnation of “order” and at the very least we at least sort of get a direct continuation of some of those ideas in the next season ... but Amon secretly being a bender writes off the whole conflict of the first season that was just so boring ... Korra doesn’t actually have to counter his actual ideas ... she just punches him out a window and it is over
@@TheJadedJames thats a great point!
Walker killed a super powered terrorist who just threw a concrete bin at him, the guy was definitely dangerous
I mentioned this in reply to another comment, but I think it’s worth pointing out on its own:
The comparison between this show and Black Panther is interesting because it highlights the difference between the levels of power each protagonist actually has.
When it comes to enacting change power is all that really matters, and T’Challa has it where Sam Wilson does not.
The King of Wakanda is able to create real change for his fictional country cause he’s the top dog who actually makes the rules, but what power does Sam Wilson have that’s not purely symbolic? What change *can* he actually directly enforce, *in the moment?*
Sam could maybe round up a community and form a protest in service of Karli’s cause- hell, a protest March led by Captain America in the name of no borders would’ve been a spectacular way to end the show, but 1) that’s still, functionally, similar enough to giving a speech, and 2) given they chose not to do that, what’s Sam’s opportunity to enact change toward that end? What CAN he do beyond attempting to convince those with real power in this situation to compromise?
Stop working for those in power? Actively join groups and organisations that he believes in and that will have an impact?
@@CDexie well he’s already *not* working for those in power. He’s been an independent agent, moreso than even Steve, from the moment we were introduced to him.
Hell just his being Captain America is acting against them.
It rubs me the wrong way that people complain that Sam didn't give any free advice to the politicians in his speech. Is he supposed to? Isn't a politician supposed to be their position to figure that out and not have a random under-qualified person do the thinking for them? Sure, Sam has first hand experience with the flaws in the current plan, but he can't offer solutions on the spot.
It’s not about Sam, a fictional character. It’s about the producers of the show refusing to examine anything but “status quo must be preserved violence bad” within the show
@@tatianar9429 I disagree that that’s all that’s being examined. Karli’s violence is the PRODUCT of the status quo and the show knows this. Basically every major character is victimized by the status quo.
But what is Sam Wilson, the protagonist, supposed to DO? What is reasonably within the producer’s scope to MAKE him do, given his position in the world he inhabits?
Why didn’t they call him “American Eagle”? There’s already one in the comics and it’s so fitting since he flies and was obviously “The Falcon”. I can’t be the only one who thought of this.
I feel I have to point out that The Falcon and The Winter Soldier was about Characters who have particular political ideologies, not political ideologies distilled into representative characters. That's an important distinction to make. The story was not about picking a particular ideology to 'win', it was about individual characters clashing and the aftermath those clashes had on them and, as a very secondary consideration, their ideals. Sam's speech at the end was not so much about what he was saying, it was about who was saying it: The New Captain America. And that's what gave it its weight.
5:08 what’s funny about this example is that Star Wars was almost explicitly criticizing the American Empire and more specifically it’s treatment of Vietnam
The thing I find interesting about this scene is it also clearly shows the difference between John Walker and Steve Rogers in the same role. I don't see Steve Rogers saying "They have no jurisdiction here." I see him trying to at least TRY to compromise with them first rather than being a passive aggressive dick about it.
And the whole show does this with Walker. He CONSTANTLY introduces or refers to himself as Captain America, something I'm pretty sure Steve rarely, if ever did. He was Steve Rogers. Captain America was a title given to him. He introduced himself as Steve. The title didn't have as much meaning to him because it wasn't what he was. With Walker, the title meant EVERYTHING, especially to someone with clear feelings of inadequacy. So he overcompensates.
I think the main difference is that Walker is a murderous psychopath
John Walker's "redemption arc" was totally rushed. No real consequences to him, besides being stripped of the title of Captain America (he just changed suits really).
Nah, they just changed the colors
@@TagRoss True!
I feel like people are treating Walker’s arc as over when it clearly isn’t though. He’s obviously still a bad guy ... he just didn’t let the GRC die. We are going to see Walker and Wilson face off again, they clearly set this up
He killed a terrorist, what's the problem?
@@TheJadedJames why is he a bad guy? They killed his partner
If 'The Dark Knight' is about condemning Bush era foreign policy, you'd imagine it'd be shown to have any negative consequences. Batman's practices yield exclusively positive results. He's effective, incorruptible and while he says "Batman has no limits", Batman still has his own strong principals. He destroys the sonar computer showing he is not going to abuse his power. If the idea is that Batman is the 'exception the proves the rule' and he is what we should strive for, then the message would still be muddled. Because you'd now be condoning torture, spying on civilians and interfering in foreign affairs, just saying "they could be done better". I think the movie is just using the era as a setting. Using 'terrorism, NSA, civil liberties' as they were popular topics of the time, but I don't think it makes a definitive "statement" about them at all.
"It doesn't matter whether America has jurisdiction or not. America's jurisdiction is everywhere."
WHOA, You just said Walker has jurisdiction to be there. If you're trying to say that America's influence has forced Latvia to accept Walker's jurisdiction... okay. That's built completely on outside sources and inference but, okay. It's also ignoring that a global committee approved it because it's universally a priority to stop the Flag Smashers. And it still doesn't change the fact that he is the most qualified, and the person with the strongest moral motivation. Walker is legally the only one sanctioned to take Zemo in. Bucky and Sam broke Zemo out of prison, so they are criminals themselves and are completely in the wrong interfering with Walker. The Dora Milaje throw a spear at Walker's head to interfere. They tried to murder a government agent whose 'on their side' on foreign soil.
"John Walker is driven by ego and the desire to dominate more than the desire to protect." John Walker is tired of everyone's dangerous and reckless treatment of Zemo's freedom. John wants Zemo in jail. The Wakandan's want Zemo in THEIR jail. They almost kill John for it. The Dora Milaje are clearly more motivated by ego and pettiness than he is.
John Walker didn't need a redemption. He was acting in character the whole time. Stoping a super soldier terrorist is a thing he is allowed to do. It's what he is there to do. But because he did with 'the whole world watching' the tv show acts like the action was reprehensible. Saving the truck is always what Walker would do. He just gets "good press" for doing that with 'the whole world watching' this time. His "redemption" is just one in the eyes of the public.
"...he faces minimal consequences for murdering someone in a foreign country." Is an interesting way to recontextualize a sanctioned kill of a terrorist. And I think this is the overall point; I feel like you ignored the facts of all the other character's criminal activity because of their motivations. But the Flag Smashers are terrorists and Bucky, Sam and the Dora Milaje are all murdering people on foreign soil. I get that it's annoying that the writer's 'made' the Flag Smasher's embrace violence, but they did. And it's annoying that Walker is played as unlikeable, but he doesn't commit any crimes.
"The Dora Milaje don't have jurisdiction here." Walker does.
Just my thoughts on the Batman thing: while the resolution in Dark Knight Rises was changed a lot because of Heath Ledger's unavailability, even The Dark Knight shows that Batman has to lie to all of Gotham about Harvey Dent just to save the anti-corruption efforts that Bruce Wayne backed. In TDKR it's pretty clear that the Two-Face coverup was an ends to justify a means, much like how one could view any number of actions and misrepresentations surrounding the War on Terror. If we/Gotham found out about what the government/Batman actually did then we'd never accept the laws they wanted.
If you want a criticism of Bush foreign policy, here's one: it's fascinating to me how quickly you'll label someone a "terrorist", and then how easily you'll accept that anyone with that label deserves death or torture.
@@TheEvilCheesecake "Terrorist: A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Karli: *Blows up a building full of people* " This is the only language these people understand" The Flag Smashers are terrorists, the show made this clear.
And I never said they deserve death or torture. To quote Falcon of all people: "I don't think [they're] the kind you save. [They're] the kind you stop." The Flag Smashers have killed innocent civilians for their political message and they're super-soldier enhanced. They're at all times armed and don't care about casualties. It's reasonable to use deadly force to stop them.
@@StevenRichter the only difference between Walker and Karli is that one of them is paid by a government and is therefore lawful.
@@TheEvilCheesecake Walker doesn't kill innocent people. Karli kills innocents with a car bomb and then tries to burn people alive in an armored truck. They're not even close to the same.
The guy being “unarmed” is a little bit funny to me. These guys are super soldiers that in an of itself makes them permanently armed and extremely dangerous and hard to control. Karli literally just killed battlestar in a millisecond while “unarmed”
Yeah, it's funny Walker is condemned for killing the guy when the Avengers kill minions all the time, but Walker did it in a public, bloody manner, so killing is fine if it's quick and not public.
Yeah, Steve in the past has definitely thrown that shield hard enough to kill people, people who weren’t even super soldiers, and as you pointed out even an unarmed super soldier is still a pretty big threat.
He was giving up, though. Hands up, laying on his back. That's an execution. Walker was as much a super soldier as them, so it's not like restraining him would be impossible for Walker without killing him.
@@malcomchase9777 he did just hold Walker down while his boss murdered his friend. Keep in mind the terrorists real goal during that scene was to commit premeditated murder against WALKER HIMSELF. Should he have not killed the guy? Yeah, probably not. Is it understandable that he did? 100%
@@alanroberts6086 I'm replying to the comment saying he was a supersoldier, and therefore "armed" at all times as if that justifies killing him. Walker's mental state notwithstanding, he had the tools and the setup for a takedown, with an enemy giving up and all.
Was he "armed"? He was less armed than Walker, even with the serum. Was he in a fighting stance? No. Was he threatening the people around him? No. Would Walker have any problems subduing him? Not anymore than a strong cop doing the same to a strong criminal, their relative power was the same as both were enhanced.
Whether we rule it murder or manslaughter is up to the courts (what I mean is, what you say about understanding where he is coming from), but it was a killing nonetheless. The enemy was giving up and he used excessive force when he had the advantage.
The difference between Korra and the MCU is intent.
LoK is *still progressive,* and the point of those stories is that the villains have noble goals and are either insincere grifters (i.e., authoritarians and tyrants who co-opt leftist aesthetics) or misguided and insufficiently concerned with collateral damage despite their sincere beliefs (i.e., terrorists for whom the rush of catharsis from retributive "justice" overrides their desire for progress). Considering how *most of Twitter* seems to treat leftism (hello, *unironic Stalinists*), it's a lesson the online left especially STILL NEEDS.
The show and its supplementary material clearly does care about the idea of showing viewers the right way to push for progress. As much as Nickelodeon ever allowed it to, considering they kept trying to strangle the show and force it into a horrendous time crunch where they literally couldn't build on their ideas. But everything around that clearly indicates the narrative is encouraging a truly progressive thrust. It's not "violence bad durr" and presenting it as that is clear reductionism when they do contrast legitimate violence and justified anger with indiscriminate destruction and tyranny, and try to at least squeeze in as much narrative allusion toward constructive praxis as their runtime allows.
Marvel on the other hand serves corporate interests and basically does just go "well see, extremism bad" without going particularly far with it. But they're not the same.
I mean, the fact that people unironically and uncritically go "Killmonger was right" tells me the lesson of "extremism actually is bad and actively sabotages the left by serving far right interests" does absolutely need to be hammered into people's heads, just maybe not by an arm of corporate overlord Disney. But what do I know, I'm just a leftist who thinks hyper-performative violence and dogmatism are fundamentally antithetical to all of our actual principles and that maybe defensiveness over this trope is less apt than self-reflection.
I think you've hit upon one of the points JustWrite made with his LoK video, in that the antagonists are always defeated, but Korra and the world learn from their ideals, and subsequently, both Korra and the world are better off for having incorporated the good parts of those ideals into themselves. Did you watch that video he referenced? If not, I'd recommend it.
In the end, the only thing that heads off further violence is Zemo doing another set of murders. I got stuck for several days wondering if the lesson they were trying for was that terrorists are the only ones who can affect real change, as martyrs or otherwise.
Tangential topic:
Guam currently has a population 30% of Wyoming's, the state with the smallest population. American Samoa's population is a third of Guam's.
I'd vote in a heartbeat for a plan that allows Guam to join the Marianas (i.e. the country comprising the entire rest of the island chain they are part of) and American Samoa to join independent Samoa, but their population is too small and their location to remote to justify them having statehood.
Contrast that to Puerto Rico which is as close to Miami, Florida as Washington, DC and has a population larger than 20 or so states. It should have been either the 51st state or an independent country a long time ago.
It’s up to Puerto Rico to apply for statehood, and only then can Congress vote on it. But they never do because the positives (such as tax incentives) outweigh the negatives (such as lacking voting rights)
@@Gemnist98 For one thing, they did vote to become a state.
But more importantly, the simply solution is to stop letting them chose to remain commonwealth i.e. in limbo. Independence or statehood. Pick one and live with the consequences.
This is a really well-thought out video. The problem is you thought about it *way* harder than anyone on the writing team.
I kinda noped out of FatWS at the first episode when I saw the 'spooky foreign country' sepia filter -.-
I had heard that the last few episodes of the show had to be rushed and reworked because of coronavirus, but I cannot confirm that.
My understanding is that it was much more than the last few episodes. Apparently a major plot line involved the Flag Smashers obtaining and using a bioweapon (which gives further context to their vaccine theft in one of the early episodes.) I have no idea what the final show was supposed to look like, but it would be fascinating to see, say, a renegade edition (maybe with animation if Disney never makes the original footage available.) I can only hope it would have turned out some what less fractured and more coherent than what we ended up with.
Sorry to go full essay on your essay, but here goes:
* Walker doesn’t have jurisdiction because of the GRC, he has it because of the Sokovia Accords. As mentioned by Jimmy Woo in the fifth episode of WandaVision, not only are the Accords still in effect, but people who previously rejected them (in that case, Wanda) are still beholden to them. And the Accords are dictated by the UN which, despite being massively swayed by America, still hold international jurisdiction. Since him being there would mean he would be breaking the Accords if he didn’t have express permission, it can be assumed that not only would Walker have been granted international jurisdiction to find the Flag-Smashers, but so would Sam and Bucky. Meanwhile, the Dora Mijale are not held to this because they are not metahumans, only the guard of one metahuman. The most we can assume for the objective truth behind what Ayo says is that T’Challa, in expanding Wakanda’s influence, made Wakanda somewhat of a pointillist empire himself. And yet we are never shown Wakanda having any physical locations in Europe, and even when they do apprehend Zemo, they still give him over to the Raft rather than taking him back to Wakanda, implying they were in service of international powers despite only being there in an act of revenge.
* America being referred to as an empire would probably not make any politician bat an eye, aside from the most alt-right, ignorant of them. America may have broken away from an empire, but it never expressed disgust with Britain because it was an empire; they had no problems with the French after all. And in the centuries since, America has been routinely allied with empires and monarchies, not only being best friends with their former rulers (who now have basically the same government format as America), but also maintaining good relationships with the world’s only true remaining empire (Japan). What America has defined itself primarily as being against is oppression. They were fed up with the taxes, so they rebelled. They saw Santa Anna as a dictator so they went to war with him over a plot of land (this coming from a Texan). They found communism to be oppressive and inhumane so they pushed up against the parts of Korea and Vietnam that disagreed with them. And yes, it could be argued that America having military bases around the world is a form of oppression, but not within legitimate governmental context. They are there, but they don’t rule them. Their oppression is minimal at best, since they don’t dictate the decisions of the governments they are in, only really serving as a shoulder Angel/devil. Basically, a parasite should only be cleansed if it has dominated the host. I know that sounds hypocritical, but I’m not trying to express support of America’s interventionist policies; I’m trying to showcase the overall ideology and reasoning behind them.
* Guam and Puerto Rico could always apply for statehood, but they never do. Why? Because the benefits to their governments, such as tax incentives, outweigh the negatives like voting rights. Congress has no ability or incentive to decide a territory’s statehood one way or the other; it’s all on the local governments to do so, but they have their own cans of worms to deal with.
* In the MCU, Steve is never seen as THE moral center of the universe - except in his own mind. What makes the MCU so fascinating is that you can have multiple different characters all given the same amount of spotlight but with radically different ideologies and have none of them be 100% right. Steve’s whole arc throughout the MCU is to let go of a political ideology defining his life, and instead entrust the people around him to come to a common ground and move on to a better future. His “lie that the character believes”, therefore, is that he is the ultimate authority in the world because he is guided by this ideology. And even then, Steve’s actions are not set in stone towards any one side of the spectrum: his actions in Winter Soldier are of a liberal mindset, whereas his actions in Civil War are of a conservative one. His decisions are only in the service of what HE thinks is best for the world, and that is what puts him in constant conflict with Tony, because not only does Tony believe himself to be that ultimate authority, but Tony has no ideology other than his own ego, and his own arc is about letting go of the pressure he has put upon himself so that others can take the burden off of him. Yet Tony is morally right to want to always be prepared and cautious because of incoming threats that Steve doesn’t even consider until it’s too late.
* I’m honestly kind of baffled with how many people think Walker has been redeemed. Even if he realized he went overboard with the violence, his views on America haven’t changed at all, and the fact that he’s once again doing a perverted version of what Steve did - rejecting the government - proves this. I mean, maybe you made this video without the context of Black Widow, but it still goes without mentioning since similar events happen in the comics - Walker is now affiliated with a Nazi that wants to, among other things, kill Hawkeye. Also, he probably would not have apprehended the soldiers and gone straight to bloodshed had Bucky not been chaperoning him.
* Surprised that you didn’t mention Zemo, the only explicit “leftist terrorist” of the group. But on that subject, Zemo’s whole role in the story of Civil War directly contradicts your argument. Zemo wants all metahumans to die because he hates people in power for indirectly killing his family and then turning a blind eye on them. However, unlike the other examples you give, Zemo isn’t morally aligned with the protagonist, Steve; he’s aligned with the antagonist, Tony. As for the other examples you give, Toomes’ struggle isn’t about the class system. The conflict between him and Peter in their relation to Tony is how they deal with the unintentional oppression Tony lays on them. While Toomes leeches off of the work Tony has done, Peter takes actions into his own hands and carves his own identity. So while Toomes may be motivated by a “eat the rich” mentality, the actions themselves are the film’s thesis rather than the ideologies behind them. As for Killmonger, while he may view himself as a liberal, his actions are undeniably conservative. Note how he’s the only character in the entire movie that talks about black people being oppressed. That might seem like he’s alt-left, but his plan is about giving guns to black people around the world so that they can rise up and kill white people. An idea that parallels conservative legislation which actively allows black people to own more guns in order to, putting it bluntly, kill each other in gang warfare. The film’s political lesson is to do those gradually and with oversight so that such massive violence won’t happen; it’s an anti-isolationism story, not a racism or pro-interventionism one (as Killmonger wants you to believe).
* Sam does have a stake in the political conflict. As you mentioned earlier in the video, Sam can’t support his sister and her family because of his getting Snapped. It’s not quite as affecting to him as it is to Karli, but it’s there nonetheless. And it also ties into Sam’s arc of living up to Steve. Sam has multiple motivations that leave him frustrated with the government over the course of the story: not only does he have the financial woes, but he also has to come to terms with his race through his interactions with Isaiah, and has to deal with the government’s fallibility in a way only Steve really had to deal with prior. Sam also never resorts to violence unless absolutely necessary, going as far as to use his therapy experience with Veterans Affairs to try and talk Karli down; this actually puts him a cut above Steve, who frequently would resort to violence when things didn’t go his way.
* Sam giving the speech at the end may be hokey, but it’s also practical. Sam has no actual sway in the American government the way T’Challa does in the Wakandan government and the world stage. Isaiah even parallels him to Civil Rights leaders later on, which is apt, as people like Martin Luther King and Malcolm X had no positions of power but used their words and movements to inspire genuine change. This is only the start of Sam standing up to people this way; it took MLK a full decade before the Civil Rights Act took effect.
Good post.
I just really wish they didn't have to change and cut so much from the show. I feel it would have made so much more sense and been received far better. With that said all the Isaiah Bradley scenes were very well written and acted.
My problem with the show is how it want to have its terrble speach at the end about how they were not terrorists after seeing them blow up a building full of people , try an assassination and try to have a transport full of people burned alive....
I don’t see John Walker’s story as a redemption arc. I think that in saving those people he was just demonstrating a better side of him, one that still believes in the ideals of Captain America. But I think we’ve just seen the beginning of his descent into villainy.
One problem. You said Walker pretty much does what he wants, yet the fact that he goes by committee and channels is the main reason why Falcon turns down joining him to remain freelance.
It’s a good thing Loki Season One ended with Sylvie, the actual antagonist, getting what she wanted then.
She was stupid & a convenience for writers bring huge threat so that fans can get excited & future movies can milk more money, putting whole universe Into the danger just because she had lonely childhood, thinking he's lying without any proof whatsoever, 'yeah kill him who cares what will happen to the world I want my *Revenge* '!!!
@@Sirrajj well she is a loki variant so...yeah. makes sense lol. i mean loki attacked earth just because daddy didn’t love him enough so 🤷
@@Sirrajj Starlord hitting Thanos gave us Endgame
Sylvie killing He who remains gave us whole goddamn phase.
@@midnight.tantrum727 exactly. Many people criticize how Loki was depicted in show while ignoerinf lot of problematic aspects of his MCU movies run. I mean whole pilot adressed this.
Loki King of Space
Sylvie was someone who yes, made the wrong choice but made it out of trauma and anger.
Another reason Kilmonger was different is that his reason for violence does come from somewhere. Paraphrasing Todd in the shadows, "Despite hating the west, he has absorbed only the worst parts of it's philosophy; might makes right." Kilmonger believes violence is the key to self determination because that has been true for him all his life, and when he achieves power he projects that perspective onto Wakanda.
Meanwhile, Karli escalates to violence for seemingly no reason. Even her fellow freedom fighters don't understand why she does it.
I mean Falcon killed more people in the first episode then John did in the entire series
He killed combatants in a military battle.
@@ShadowSonic2 and Walker killed a terrorist who just helped kill a government agent
With the explorations of the Black experience sprinkled throughout the series as well, did no one else think Walker murdering someone on the street felt like a George Floyd nudge-to-the-ribs? I know the guy wasn't black, but they focussed on showing people recording with their phones as a supposed symbol of American protection murdered a man in the street. And then Walker proceeded to get a fairly light court ruling due to his service record before finally being recruited by some other department to continue doing similar work regardless. This was my reading of the scene at least
Was there even a redemption arc for Walker? I felt like they just set him up as a future villain. No way he's redeemed.
That's what I keep saying
What did he do wrong?
@@callmeej8399 murder?
Personally the only reason he was kind of redeemed for me was because he was going to kill Karly or Carly or whatever
In some way I saw it like Deadpool 1 finale just because Sam was like Colossus "No Wade we can't kill is bad and you should be good and forgive everyone you can and..."
Pulls the trigger*
Sam/Colossus: Noooo!!!/Whyyy?!?!?
Dude, this Mofo is a Sicopath
Of course This movie and this TV show are nowhere near the same, but I never felt empathy for those guys specially her it felt like "uugghh I like it when there were less people we got free stuff and more space why don't you support us"
And yeah surely I missed something but I just wanted them to fail
I agree with a lot of this BUTTTT the thing I don’t understand is the idea that “a villain who solves their problem is with violence isn’t nuanced enough.”. I believe in the superhero genre, that a good villain has a believable vision but goes about it the wrong way. Violence is usually a means to a end for them which is why they are a villain. I would even argue that your favorite villain used violence in some manner to obtain what they wanted.
That's one of the reason's why I love comic book villains like Magneto, Doctor Doom, Mr Freeze, Killmonger and so many more, because all of those villains had noble intentions and understandable, even sympathetic reasons for their actions without being too contrived, yet the only reason why they have their eventual downfall's is because of their incentive to use violence as a means of either making a statement, fighting true inequality, discouraging suffering or just simply saving the ones they love. As it's simple for someone to use violence to make a point, but it's even more inspiring to see them use a healthier alternative, making hero's as beloved, such as Superman, Batman, Spiderman etc..., thus knowing the difference between a hero/protagonist and the villain/antagonist. Even though a villain can commit crimes, atrocities, and kill people, there should still be a moral reason for why they are doing it, thus seeing villains who do horrible things for clear reasons that can vary from either desperation, temptation, greed, power, sympathy etc... and as long as they have compelling characters/personalities, that's what makes a villain interesting to us the audience, thus having a larger presence.
i think violence is nuanced in stories when the villain aims it at the people who actually cause the problems, instead of low level goons
karli blowing up a bunch of random grc soldiers is like attacking a local walmart and thinking you're sticking it to a megacorporation
it doesn't accomplish anything
@@milkiassamuel780 beautifully written! These are also some of my favorite villains. They paint a better picture for the ones they love but they are radical with their execution which brings the hero to their opposition. This makes a great villain.
@@XaviKun okay now it makes sense in the context of Karli.
I always find it amazing how often times when I'm struggling to express something, someone else comes along takes the thoughts right out of my head and articulates them in such a well structured and eloquent manner. Great video.
Another thing about Killmonger is that his violence doesn't feel like it was added to take away nuance unlike the flagsmashers. He was a black ops killer- violence IS the only way he would approach his ideology. Whereas the flagsmashers were only violent cause the script said so.
Also his violent approach actually reinforces his point- if the rest of the world has people like him running around, why isn't Wakanda helping?
I think what ever the show wanted to depict, it wasn't put as tight and strong that it could have or should have been.
If you're tired of this formula now, just wait until they add Magneto into the MCU. His whole deal is an "Ends justify the means" take on ending oppression by destroying the system that empowers the oppressors and reversing the power dynamic.
Magneto is a survivor of the Holocaust in the books, which works in the 1960's origin and even somewhat in the early 2000's Fox Universe. This is a horror that viewers understand as wrong, and have a frame of reference for contextualizing the horror but unfortunately in a Universe set post 2025 this doesn't make sense for his origin any longer. Making him a survivor of a different and more recent genocide has two major problems; first in that it's either going to alienate a major foreign market (COUGH CHINA COUGH) or a good portion of America. Second, that it's going to likely require him to be cast as someone of a different minority or ethnic background - and a super powered minority fighting to create a new world where non-powered folks are a subclass of citizens is PROBABLY going to feel like a sloppy rehash of Killmonger at best.
I do not envy the writers.
won't happen because the mcu is 2020+, would make Magneto a senile oldie.
@@Atlasss97 op literally explained how they would hypothetically rectify that, were it not for china
Yes. Yes it was.
Bottomline, the Marvel writers don't have the chops to craft this level of commentary competently. They've been known for middle-of-the-road movies that pass the time, not political satires.
I generally agree with everything in the vid, but I'd also point out:
1. When violence is bad and when it's good comes across as very arbitrary, and always essentially defends the status quo, and those with power (who head organisations that acquired it with violence).
2. Disney and Hollywood also soft censor everything, just like the Pentagon. If you think of those who make movies and those with the money behind them, they'd never allow a truly radical solution that goes against their interests. At the end of the day the key motivator in a capitalist system is greed, this can be criticised by Hollywood for profit, but never replaced with other alternatives - and there are alternatives.
I got an ad in Walker’s line so he sounded like:
“The Dora Milaje don’t have jurisdiction. Welcome to Sonic may I take your order?”
"I agree with your fight, I just can't do it the way you're doing it" "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"
Did the writers intentionally pull from Letter from a Birmingham Jail?
also very pertinent to the 'take a knee debate' because there is never a 'right' way (for black/brown people) to protest in capitalism/white supremacy
@@BeautifulEarthJa Ehh, this only really concerns extreme conservatives though. There's plenty of people who are against violence and for peaceful means.
@@fellinuxvi3541 Yeah, it feels disingenuous to use, at the very least, that particular example as "oh, people aren't going to support nonviolent protest either" - most Americans were fine with that, and it was only the right-wing of the Republicans that had an issue with any kind of visible "disrespect" to American iconography. Plenty of Americans were supportive of police reforms in the aftermath of Floyd's murder, and many were supportive of protests all around the country last summer - even when a handful of them did become violent. If there's a bottleneck in reforms, it's due to the nature of the political system (with regards to elections, political accountability, and representation), but that's a different problem that requires a different solution - electoral reform is much harder.
@@fellinuxvi3541 hm? i don't get the point
there are many ppl living comfortably that are telling people who are being killed every day that they should ask for permission to resist/protest. their opinions are invalid to me. all types of resistance/protest are valid, regardless of what comfortable ppl want to say.
@@BeautifulEarthJa That's fair, but wether you care for their opinions or not is irrelevant. Change isn't going to happen unless it's popular. It doesn't matter whose opinions you chose to listen to, you still need them.
And again, there's a very big gap between denouncing violent riots and throwing a hissy fit over a bent knee, these things don't belong in the same groups.
I agree “can’t have this villain be too complex, gotta make sure they kill someone innocent so you know hey are the bad guy
I think based on the writing for the rest of the series, you are giving these writers a lot more credit than they deserve. Falcon saying “do better” to the us government when it’s an extremely complicated issue that would seem to have no right answer. Furthermore if he. Does have jurisdiction legally there how is that not better than the wakanda Gaurd pretty much ignoring legal and political protocols? How are they not technically terrorists then?
Sam said more than "Do Better".
I am glad you take these subjects on. Its stimulating and informative. Dont stop.
One think you pointed out,which I hope you do in a lot of future videos, is how there are several mechanisms that effect the way a script is writes. For example, if a story involves the US military the pentagon has a say in how they are portrayed, otherwise they will have to shoot without the use of their uniforms, vehicles and iconography. There is also the say of the studio, what can be done within the schedule across multiple departments, the effects of real world events, such as weather or a pandemic, the limits budget and time, or the obligations of the multiple contracts between several different entities connected to a film or series all effect how a story will come out in the end.
I’m just pointing that out because a lot of people like to point out how a show or movie was written poorly, but not many people ask why or understand what happens to a story as it passes through the different stages of development. A lot of people really want to make a good story and a lot start out that way, but there are so many entities, obligations and factors that constantly change making it really hard to produce a great final product.
Once a movie is free lite no matter what it has to come out!
Ir be really cool if you did a video on that.
this show was setting up for something really cool and i was super surprised that marvel and Disney allowed something so clearly antinationalist and anti-imperialist to be made, and then it turned right back into standard marvel propaganda towards the end. especially coming after something so innovative and interesting like wandavision
I don't think they had much choice about that.
Still it was an interesting muddle
4:20 can someone with super powers really be considered unarmed?
he was also surrendering
@@kellenoconnor4396 no he wasnt.