To those uninformed, my account got hacked recently Some stuff was alright. Some stuff was changed and some stuff was missing This is a reupload. There was a few other videos that have been re-uploaded and some that I'm not going to bother with because they're so old/poor editing But yeah, this video was one of them. Which was a shame because it was the one that got the most views pretty much every week Edit - The algorithm for my videos is absolutely fucked so anyone sharing it to friends/groups/discord would be much appreciated
Sorry to hear that. A Russian hacker got my account in September 2022 and used it as a crypto scam account. I talked with Google on Twitter to get my Gmail account back, but during this time, TH-cam terminated my channel because it was a scam, but after gaining access to my account, refused to restore my channel and refused to tell me why. I still hate TH-cam for this and my original game review channel with 3,000+ subscribers and 900+ videos is still lost forever.
That’s the whole point of the show, there’s no moral black and white, it’s all grey area, because only Steve Rodgers was capable of seeing the black and white. That’s why people support the side characters more than the main characters, I mean half the time I’m supporting Zemo
@@getthegoons not really, the entire point of the show is to convey messages, there are a lot of details in it which do refer to real life topics, Acab/Racial Discrimination is blatantly obvious, Isaiah Bradley refers to secret testing performed on African Americans by the US/CIA, the Flagsmashers are a combination of Black Lives Matter and Terrorists in Gaza. Now the new Captain America starring Sam will be focused directly on US politics. Comics (and their TV/Film counterparts) have always referred to political movements and activists, government overreach, government corruption and more. So it’s not giving it more credit, it’s giving the show the credit it deserves.
One of the things that bugs me is no one seems to care about Walker's mental condition from both a narrative and in universe perspective despite the fact they gave Bucky a whole sub plot about therapy. It could have been a good narrative parallel about what happens if you neglect your own mental health or what happens if no one notices the signs.
and falcon has no reason to be upset that lamarr is called walkers wingman when he had a wingman of his own when he was in the armed forces that sadly was killed and falcon was so upset that he was in therapy over it these writers had no fucking respect for the source material
What I hate the most is they act like cap was a Saint. He wasn’t he was a soldier. And he killed when he had to. He never relished in it. He doesn’t like it, but he understands it’s necessary for the greater good. He can lift the hammer. Part of the hammer determining if you’re worthy or not, is if you would kill if the situation demanded it. Not that you’re a murderer, but to make the decision if it’s the best decision. He literally kills. All the time. Faulting walker for killing a super soldier terrorist who could literally rip your head off if he wanted to is asinine.
@@freshlyfishedbread5567 he fucking threw a guy out of a flying shield heli carrier rather than just knocking him out or just killing him instantly. Love captain america but the dude wasn't exactly clean in high stress situations
@@freshlyfishedbread5567 Thor beheaded a guy who was unarmed (literally) and totally at the Avengers's mercy. And he did it in the middle of the guy telling his daughter he loved her. Cap was right there, and didn't care.
Walker: *repeatedly tries to be friendly to two guys who show him nothing but distain for no reason, behaves reasonably in very hectic situations, kills a terrorist who just took part in murdering his friend* Marvel: “don’t you just hate this guy???” Audience: “… can Walker be Captain America from now on?”
@@chickenbacon5197 it all is so perfectly hypocritical that I would almost believe it was written intentionally in the most hypocritical way possible but given some of these writers, that would be giving them too much credit.
I hated this show so much because it makes Bucky and Sam come across as petty jerks angry at John simply because he's taken the mantle of Captain America. This is especially bad for Sam as in Winter Soldier he worked as the leader of Support groups of Veterans, thus should understand better than anyone what Walker is going through with his PTSD and when Lamar dies, yet instead treats him like shit because he believes he deserves the shield and shows more compassion for a violent unhinged, murderous terrorist just cause she's younger than the literal War Hero and soldier whose shown he is commpassionate and wants to help. This show ruined Bucky and Sam.
Also didn’t Sam say in the show that he didn’t want the shield? But the second John gets it, he suddenly acts like he should’ve gotten the shield. Bucky should’ve been the one, but no we have to have a black Captain America for Modern Audiences
I suppose the one semi-accurate part is that there’s a trend with well-established squads of soldiers having a hard time accepting new faces, probably even more so if said face is supposed to take up the whole symbol and title of their lost friend, but it still goes to show how stupidly stubborn Sam and Bucky were to him, which is quite sad to see.
@@justinbowers2749 The problem isn't the black captain America... What you wrote is a bit concerning. In the comics there have been many people with captain moniker. This version is just poorly written.
@@caboose3191When they first introduced Sam as Captain America in the comic i was fine with it, i saw it mostly like Nightwing being Batman for a time. But now they made him Captain America permanently and i fail to see a point in that, he was Falcon, he was the first Black American Superhero, he had his own identity. But now he is just a less successful version of Captain America
Well yes, the progressive view point is "White man bad" "establishment bad", so the terrorists are portrayed as sympathetic characters, Flacon deserves the mantle because it's "right" etc. The problem is this only works if you have a progressive mindset, otherwise it all falls apart.
The "killing the terrorist is wrong" doesn't work because it's not a cop arresting a criminal citizen and thus obligated to use minimal force- it's a soldier hunting an enemy combatant in a military operation- where kill mission are legitimate.
But the reason why he killed buddy in the first place was for a completely selfish reason, he said fuck the mission at that point; Steve and Sam (and even Bucky at this point) would’ve showed restraint and not killed him. This is the only defense I can think of, I still agree with everything else.
@@ZeroDividedByZero nah, Steve would just let them blow themselves up if they say “Bucky”. Let’s not try this. Theres nothing selfish about avenging your dead friend. I guess everyone who avenges fallen loved ones in stories is selfish at that point. The guy John killed is a super soldier terrorist. Tf you mean they wouldn’t have killed him? Steve, Tony, and Bucky have killed weaker enemies for LESS.
Cops aren't obligated to use minimal force. They're obligated to make the arrest. They're allowed to use the force necessary to do so. That means if you never give up as the criminal, they never give up until you are incapacitated. If you happen to die while incapacitated, the fault is 100% on you for not taking your opportunity to simply give up. There is no option for police to just say, "Well he's not willing to be arrested today so let's let him go and try again tomorrow so we don't accidentally hurt him too bad."
@@BruvahSulaiman It's important to make a distinction: "make an arrest" is a task, while "minimal force" is a method. Minimal force can be asking politely, and it can be a bullet. A soldier can be tasked with killing a man who harmless at the moment, a policeman cannot.
@@ZeroDividedByZero nah he did the right thing lmao, you're saying like the he should be in court when he's a literal terrorist that can kill people with his bare hands without any effort like so many have said.
The avengers literally killed thanos when he was spending the rest of his life in a garden with no intent of causing harm ever again. How did the writers not realize how that would come across in this show.
@@MaxRegistrator And he was more unarmed than the terrorist. Not just in the funny and literal sense (because they cut his arm off), but because he wasn't a conceivable threat to them, and there were no civilians around. The terrorist superhuman still is a threat to the civilians around, and conceivably to the friendly combatants too, he just killed one of them minutes earlier with his bare hands.
I think Thor killing Thanos was meant to show that the Avengers has hit rock bottom after failing to stop him. They killed a harmless villain and achived nothing.
Yooo did you watch the follow up video? He literally uses this argument about Hulk being unarmed. Doesn't mention the comment directly, but that's how you know you made a good one.
Everything after it makes sense from a political standpoint, he killed someone in front of a crowd, then the military threw him under the bus because he wasn't popular (very common) If only the MCU ever cared about politics making sense
Yeah the guy literally threw a large piece of concrete at him right before he was at Walker's mercy and he only tried to surrender because he was at his mercy.
@@AdeptKing He didnt surrender he was getting up to continue the fight then got pinned down the second that he didnt have a boot on his throat he would get back into the fight
This show makes walker feel like the last sane man on Earth hes the only one constistantly making reasonable choices and even the show concedes that several of his plans wouldve ended the conflict but hes treated like a moron the whole time
@@nigachu8249Whats the political message they were trying to tell with this story? Didn't watch the show so just basing it off the plot summary the video gave
All I see about why he is a bad guy is that he killed a person after they killed his friend. As if Cap never hit people with his shield so hard they died.
@@AJadedLizard To be fair, the pilot was literally a Nazi. At wartime. Trying to fly a bomb to its destination to blow up whichever city that one was for. But I get your point.
There are multiple times where cap's shield should have absolutely caused a bloody mess of a person prior to this, they just want to keep the pg-13 ratings lol
I hate how vilified Walker gets by Falcon and Bucky after killing a SUPER SOLDIER terrorist who helped murder his best friend. They treat him like a unhinged psycho when one of the first things he asks them afterwards was pretty much "are you two alright or need any medical attention". Not only that but they act like he sullied the shield by getting blood on it, acting like Steve never killed anyone before despite the fact he was a soldier in one of the most horrific Wars of our time which is something Bucky should absolutely understand.
Not only should Bucky understand being a WW2 vet but he's got half a century of blood on his hands as the Winter Soldier. John was temporarily not in his right mind because he took the serum, just like Bucky was when he was under mind control. But John killed a terrorist and Bucky killed innocents. But John is the vilified one??
@@Pherim_The white card can’t really work here, Bucky is also white and his character was ruined despite being on the “good side”. Of course, this example is more of the MCU’s forced politics and bad writing than John Walker being a white guy.
@@brandoncarnes Anyone who isn’t kissing up to the MC (and writers) is evil, its clear they’re just pushing a message of their ideology for this show, since the “good guys” are the flag smashers, and they’re anarchists
They threw away the fact that Falcon was a PTSD support group leader. John Walker was a mentally broken veteran who saw a lot of his friends die in war. I know a buddy of mine (OEF combat vet) stated he felt kind of that they almost took a jab at combat vets with PTSD. I don’t know if I feel that was their intent, but I couldn’t help but kind of get that vibe. Not to mention that they tried to make you feel sympathy for the terrorists, which I couldn’t see. I watched the entire show and couldn’t help but feel like it was just nonsense.
@@randomcenturion7264 Captain america kills dozens for standing in his way: John Walker kills a terrorist that didn't stop until given literally no alternative: (Surprised Pikachu face)
@@shawerful5209that's the point of the comment. Villains writing villains refers to have writers of the show *tried* to write a "villain", but failed miserably since the actual "villains" here are them
Yeah but those were white male nazis. They were bipocs just trying to burn down cities cuz they are hungry and want justice for saint floyd. Totally different.
@@jacliffh9221no no, he's right the whole avengers were killing hydra soldiers in modern day, they had stolen lokis staff and the avengers knew they were to dangerous to be kept alive
@@Pink.andahalf oh shoot, I realized I messed up on that, it's been a while since I saw that. I thought he was in that beginning scene, thanks for correcting me.
Watched some special forces people from various countries break down Walker's actions, and many determined he was not only correct, but TOO hesitant - especially considering a supersoldier is inherently ALWAYS ARMED (as cap has shown) and clearly deadly, and that would have been briefed and decided by superiors before engaging.
By similar logic you should bully Homelander…… That is just objectively wrong. There is a moral term called “broken”. A system has to pay for the pain it inflicts, every time. The more the pain, the more the damage. Plutonian principle. Homelander, after experiencing crimes against humanity squared…… is justified to just burn it all down, as the whole socio-economic system failed. This way you get notion of “people should not be afraid of their goverments, goverments should be afraid of their people”. Systems are, and should be, expendable. You undo the system and rebuild it as many times as it takes before it is right…. You do NOT let a rotten system stay in place because it is “convenient” to others…. Or else your feeble morals just radiate the same energy as “the nail that stands out gets smacked”. The only difference between a “terrorists” and “revolutionaries” is in the degree of success. Going against flawed system is always commendable. Hell, take any celestial in most media and you would understand. Just like Jews rebelled against WW2 Nazis, but NOBODY in their right mind would call them “terrorists”. Having a movement and fighting (literally) for one’s freedom is not terrorism. That is just defending one’s moral rights. What a pathetically weak take. Legality does not equal morality.
@kingol4801 Such an insane take. I'm not even gonna touch on that whole "Homelander is justified" nonsense. The Flagsmashers are a group who are fighting for the right to keep all the property and shit they stole from dead people. That was their entire motivation. People died, they stole those people's shit, moved in to their houses; then got upset years later when they came back to life and were legally given their shit and houses back.
@@kingol4801 That is… an extreme take. And notably, incorrect in one important way: the difference between terrorists and revolutionaries is not the level of success, but the methods they use. And it’s not a binary either, someone can be both a revolutionary and a terrorist or either one and not the other. Specifically, a terrorist is someone that weaponises terror. That’s a fairly simple definition, but the implications are the important part, because you need to consider who you’re weaponising that terror against. Sure, indirectly, you’re against the government. But you aren’t targeting the government with the terror, you’re targeting the people. You aren’t hoping that the terror will spread throughout the population and be useful as leverage against the government. That is why terrorism is not just morally corrupt, but also inefficient as a method of overthrowing governments. It’s indirect, it focuses more on inflicting harm to civilians and therefore pushes people away from your cause. It’s especially ineffective if you actually do have a noble cause, because noble people won’t want any part in it and regular people will outright hate you no matter how in the right you are. With a good cause, it’s far more effective to be peaceful unless absolutely necessary, because that maximises the number of people willing to sympathise. And even if that’s too slow of an option, there’s always targeted strikes and assassinations. Eventually the corruption will run out, so long as you’re willing to be accurate and thorough. Terrorism is ultimately a failure of warcraft. It’s ineffective and does more to harm your cause than help, and if you want to change a broken system, there are far better ways of going about it.
Im still laughing that disney expected me to feel bad walker killed a fucking terrorist who minutes ago, was about to execute walker and KILLED his best friend.
If you wield the title of captain America and do it, hell yes bro. No one got mad at iron man killing thanos and his army cause his legacy isn’t like boy scout Steve.
@androognoix1685 my brother i christ did you forget Steve wasted plenty of nazis in wwII. Not to mention he 100% would have killed Ted Skull if he could have back in the war.
Also, I believe it was was established that taking the serum could have temporary side effects like Roid Rage, so there is a very real argument that Walker wasn't in his right mind when he killed that dude since the serum was freshly administered and he was just in a huge life or death fight where his best friend died in front of him. I don't think your blood can be more UP than that. It was FAR from a corrupt cold blooded execution, or the callus act of incompetent arrogant hot-headed the show tried to frame it. He's been SO CAUSTIOUS for his entire screen time, showing humility, respect, political decorum, military decisiveness, and willingness to take sacrifice himself to bear greater responsibility. He took it on, even though he didn't want it. *_That's what SAM should have done. What is Sam's jumping on the grenade moment? Because he doesn't give up ANYTHING to take on the shield. He doesn't sacrifice his position on not taking the serum, he doesn't sacrifice his status, security, family, position, ANYTHING! He gets it all. His family's finances are saved, he gets the shield, he doesn't need the serum, he doesn't get in trouble with Wakanda, he's better friends with bucky, What the hell did he sacrifice? Steve lost EVERYTHING!!! E V E R Y T H I N G personal to him to save the world over and over again. "The price of freedom is high, it always has been, but it's a price I'm willing to pay. I might be the only one, but I'm willing to bet I'm not"?_* Sacrifice, hope, liberty, courage, all things Steve as Captain America stood for. Walker at least TRIED, while Sam said "nah, miss me with that shit."
All Sam's appearances from CA2, "I do what he does, just slower", things to that end. Could've been done _better_ in the show, agreed- but he does sacrifice things throughout his screen time in the movies.
The villain has killed countless, including those the hero cares about, puts the lives of those who disagree with him as necessary costs to reach their goal of an idealized world, and is left completely helpless, unable to fight back. The hero just lost someone they care deeply for, failed to protect and do his honor-bound duty, and finally has a one-up on someone they were arguably even with before, and decides to kill the helpless person in a moment of blind anger to fuel revenge. This applies as much to Thor as it does to John Walker. If we're supposed to hate John Walker for what he did, then hold Thor equally accountable for what he did to OG Thanos. Or, say that both were justified for what they did. Just because Falcon doesn't want us to call the Flag Smashers terrorists that doesn't mean that they're blame-free.
@@zoobatzjr371 This is sadly something that real people do, every single time I see a breadtuber talk about something like 9/11, people in the audience will talk about how they don't like the word terrorist because it gets thrown around a lot, effectively saying they don't agree with groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS being labelled as terrorist organizations.
Actually they are blame free. If you did not understand the point of the show, well…. There is no hope for you. Being revolutionary is good as long as you stand for what is morally right. To Nazis in WW2 Germany rebel jews were “terrorists”.
@kingol4801 Yeah, I feel like a lot of context was missed in all this discussion. Bucky mad at Battlestart name - they are soldiers, not supes, they didn't fight Thanos and should stop playing a game they aren't prepared for. Walker, or really "Captian America", killing someone surrendering (sorry, dude may be still armed due to super soldier, but that dude gave up), waiting to charge in on a funeral which DID HAVE INNOCENTS THERE, missing that these "terrorists" are fighting for a land that was theirs, very recently to their perspective too. John isn't as sympathetic as this video paints him. He does try, but killing that man was a character flaw.
Its funny how the Falcon acts like Walker is a lost case, and at the same time, asks for tolerance and forgiveness for Carly. Doesn't even make sense, Sam is a soldier just like John.
There is another point many fail to really touch on is Walker earned Three Medal of Honors. Earning one is usually means you're dead because you faced impossible odds with bravery and heroism. He earned Three separate MOH... He was a soldier before the shield and serum, where Rogers became a soldier when he got the serum after he was done dancing and making movies. All Disney wanted to do was to make a white American soldier be the enemy. It backfired with Walker and Zemo being the best out of the series.
And apparently all in "the worst day (singular)". I recommend reading some of the real-world citations and imagining how utterly insane those 24 hours must have been. I've been trying and failing to imagine a scenario that would be sufficient.
For reference most of those posthumous MOH stories go something like "he covered the escape of allies with nothing but one machine gun, he fought for like 18 hours straight, and when they recovered his body he was surrounded by dead bad guys and had been shot 30 times and bled out literally all of his blood." The living recipients usually did shit like capture 30 enemies single handedly or charged every single machine gun in the area or something absolutely insane like that.
I feel they never tried to make him the bad guy, as we see they purposely give him. A few scenes of being himself, for example his scenes with his wife and Lemar, especially where we see himself doubting or even questioning the things he did while on service, that I feel was down on purpose, similar to how view or reactors felt about him, cause we believe he will become a villain, he is a bit disrespectful to Sam and Bucky even if at first it wasn’t intentional, he also a bit impulsive and is willing to act first before of actually thinking of a plan. He never was a villain but just an antagonist who still did the right thing. In the end he accepted he was never meant to be captain America but us agent
@@freedomwriter9688Sam and bucky was the disrespectful one, like saying his not cap because of the shield, refusing his offer on the jeep, even disrespecting his friends nickname, or the part where John helps him get out of prison and buck didn't even give him a thankyou, considering how Sam and buck are both veterans,they should've been more understanding about Walker losing a friend in combat
@@dustinbagayao2120 you are so right and valid in all what you said, but here also the thing before walker takes the serum, even though he tries his best to be Captain America he has a little bit of pride and arrogance rub both bucket and Sam the wrong way, the way he call them both Steve’s wingmen( I don’t what he call them it’s been a while since I seen the show) and when he bail Bucky of jail it look like he was showing off his status higher, he doesn’t listen to Sam when he said he was going to talk Karli in Turing her self in. He is a tragic character as he was never given the chance to prove himself being criticized by both the character and fandom
Fun fact: the original X-Men animated series irons out the mutant oppression allegory by having mutants who don’t have any superpowers, which calls into question whether or not most mutants are like that
Most mutants end up more like The Morlocks where they're legit in NEED of help. Or they somehow roll an Omega ability so wild they cannot control it at all. Like that kid Wolverine had to kill because his power was so potent yet passive that killed people just existing around him. Yet how they screw up this message is ignoring the powerless in both humans and mutant reasoning. If mutants are fighting in the middle of the city and somebody beams through a building or throws cars, etc. Who's accountable for that?
@@ExeErdna Scenarios like the one you mentioned in the end there is why the Sentinels were invented. To capture all mutants involved and… neutralize the threat. The Sentinels are supposed to be impartial in their treatment of mutants. Kill or contain them all is the goal depending on the story. But then you get things like their AI evolving or them being reprogrammed by someone like Red Skull and now they’re a problem for everyone
@@TheUncivilizedNationwhat’s interesting to note that in the original comic Trask only made them because he was legimately worried about the dangers mutants could have. As at that point mutants just started to pop up rapidly in so few years they became public knowledge. And in the same issue he realizes the horror of the sentinels and sacrifices himself to stop them. Yet in every time he is revisited that make him worst and a hypocrite because he knowingly has mutant kids.
It's a common issue in comic and comics related media, Hard to feel bad for mutants when all we see are super powered gods, More goofy mutants would help
Sympathetic Strawman is such a clunky term. Lets just stick with John Walker. The 'John Walker' can serve as the inverse of the 'Mary Sue.' While a Mary Sue is a character the author desperately wants the audience to love, but who is instead hated and resented for the various forms of hackneyed/failed storytelling the author used to make him/her the bestest ever, the John Walker is a character the author desperately wants the author to hate, but who is instead loved or supported because of the various forms of hackneyed/failed storytelling the author used to make him/her the worstest ever...
15:19 If I recall correctly, after Superman was captured, Jonathan Kent has a conversation with Bruce basically telling him that while he is disappointed in his son and agrees that he needed to be stopped, he also points out that Bruce failed Clark by not being their for him. Jonathan argues that even if Bruce thought that Clark killing The Joker was a step too far, he still should have stood next to him and try to help Clark process his grief, instead of exacerbating it by accusing him of breaking their code and driving Clark further into depression and instability. “You held an unstoppable man to an impossible standard.”
That really doesn't apply here. Unlike Superman, John Walker is a soldier. He's killed people for his country. Superman has saved villains even when they were near death and even when he's at his lowest point (bar Lois and their baby dying). Walker was a man who took a drug that boosted his strength and speed while fucking up his brain AND just killed someone in broad daylight in front of the entire world. What do you think was gonna happen?
@@talon532 Nothing? Walker’s brain was alright. He fought another super-soldier, and it was a battle hard fought. And in the end, he had every right to relish in victory over his foe. That is just classical heroism tropes.
John Walker is the writing equivalent of the "Task failed successfuly" meme He was meant to be a hero antagonist to contrast the true heroes Bucky and Sam. And yet somehow, they succeeded in making John come off as more sympathetic than them both while Bucky and Sam came off as assholes. However, given the way the show is obviously biased against Walker, I'm pretty sure that was an accident.
Under the Red Hood is honestly the 3rd best DC film that's ever been put to screen, only behind TDRK and Superman 1. When you talk about a film being made in the gray area it really doesn't get much better than that.
I like how the wakanda police state say they can have jurisdiction wherever and when ever they see fit and it comes off like she’s the badass and walker needs to stand down. But if it was a white cop saying the same thing to the black character it would be completely different tones
I think the crowd’s reaction to the Flag Smasher death was the oddest thing ever. At this point, JW was beloved and the Flag Smashers were a problem. Why wouldn’t they be at least relieved? Also curious what the reaction would have been written to be if Cap beat the shit outta Iron Man with the shield in front of a crowd, or if he even would.
Oh, it's the new Captain America! I love him! Oh, that's somebody's brains/ throat/ spinal fluid/ lungs on his shield. From somebody that was begging for mercy. That doesn't look that heroic anymore.
It's absolutely absurd that the show tries to play up the "He killed an unarmed man" angle when the guy he killed was a supervillain who was more than capable of lifting a car.
What's really stupid about 28 Weeks Later is that Don LITERALLY FIGHTS OFF THE INFECTED AT THE START TO ALLOW HIS WIFE TO ESCAPE. So making him out to be a coward was even more idiotic considering he actually did risk his life trying to help. He just wasn't willing to commit suicide to prove to no one how noble he was.
Exactly he tried to save her but saw his wife get swarmed by infected he assumed she was either dead or infected and had no reason to believe otherwise
Yeah, it's sad how dirty the script did him after the opening. Also the infection takes 30 seconds to become active and he would have likely been infected and one of his wife's killers because of it. Like what happened later after the kiss.
In my opinion, the problem that results in a sympathetic strawman is refusal to properly consider their side of the argument. In some of these cases, the strawman could work if it either encourages the audience to decide who is right for themselves, promoting deeper interaction with the film, or provides actual proper reasoning for why the villain is wrong. The problem is, in these cases the main characters either don't argue their side at all and are just assumed to be correct, or use only poor base level arguments to counter their opponent, with the show treating their argument as better than it actually is.
Yeah but that’s totally different because the Nazis only killed innocent people, unlike the flag smashers that… wanted to kill half the people on the planet…
I disagree with your classification of Jason Todd as a straw man. I don’t think that the film is trying to say that he’s wrong, only that Batman thinks he’s wrong. It’s a similar theme as in Batman: Hush, where at the climax Batman can’t let a villain die and he only survives because catwoman kills the villain and gets him to safety. Batman made the objectively wrong choice, because there is no possible way that he could have saved the villain, and in trying he would have died too. But he still couldn’t let him die, because he’s *Batman*. I interpreted Under the Red Hood as doing something similar. It wasn’t portraying Batman’s position as morally justified, only that he would never compromise on it because it’s a core part of his character.
Part of the problem is most writers forget to flesh out why Bats won’t kill. Well that and Bats is one of the few comic characters that are constantly challenged on that.
I think its a 50/50. On one hand, they often portray it as 'Jason just wants revenge on Batman and the Joker, and this is an excuse', but also that his criticisms are valid. The issue is that he blames Batman for what happened, and Batman, who has a lot of guilt about the situation, cannot deny that blame, even if its misguided. Batman is not the only person with a no kill rule, the issue is that his villains are always pressing the limits, and he is incredibly stubborn about it. Nobody really points at Flash and goes 'Why doesnt he just kill Captain Boomerang' (Thawn doesnt count because the writers know they can just bring him back), or Superman incinerating Dictator and part-time Race Supremecist Zod instead of putting him in the Phantom Zone, aka the other revolving door of DC Prisons. Batman just gets flack because 10% of his Rogues are serial killers that the court refuse to punish. Realistic Criminals who we know should die. I dunno why, 'This guy tortured and killed 5 people' is more persecutable than 'This guy literally enslaves planets for a living'. Theres also the running issue of modern writers missing the entire point of Batman and making him some edgy loner whos just as mentally ill as his rogues, which doesnt help perception of him.
It actually baffles me on how Rorschach was supposed to be morally grey he was an absolute moralist who never blinked for even a second, like was he supposed to have some negative traits?
Literally the only time a really disagreed with rorschach during the film was right at the end where he wants to tell the world the truth instead of let peace prevail but even then I can understand and sympathize with his position
@@assadsvengeance9952 I personally see that as the ultimate embodiment of virtue that even utopia built upon one sin can’t be given moral justification. It’s really what people means when they say you should do something right just because it’s right. even if doing what is moral makes you lose everything, and changes nothing about the world you should still pursue virtue for the sake of virtue you it’s self. It’s honestly the closest thing you can get to true martyrdom as you can get while the world may despise you for it, you still did what was right, which to me really puts Roshak up there with some of the greatest heroes. But yeah I get what your saying to.
this was probably the last peice of marvel content i watched before dropping them entirely only coming back to see what toby maguires spider man is up to. this show was all it took for me to see the direction marvel was going.
God damn, this video really indoctrinated & polarized enough ppl to have this cognitive perception against the movie, especially John Walker himself within the movie.
I'm probably using the terms wrong, but I've seen it as a rise of the watsonian vs doylist. More and more modern writers are focused on communicating their themes and views, and lacking understand or care that the logic of the world is ignored or even contradicted.
@@cthulhuman6162 to the failure of telling the story. too much focus on subtext that is not at all subtle while the plot is paper thin, lacks internal consistence and fails to entertain.
@@mephostoId say its moreso the themes are badly communicated, as in the end “inconsistency” really doesnt matter as long as its not noticable. We tell and read stories for ideas and themes expressed in plot and characters, not a perfectly logical math equation
Similar phenomenon with Rorschach from Watchmen. Literally designed as an absurd caricature of right winger beliefs; ended up being the only compelling and well remembered character from that comic.
Reposting something I said in another comment because I think it fits here too: The problem with Rorschach is that, by his own admission, his moral righteousness is only him trying to cope with the fact that life has no meaning. He is a boiling pot of hatred and rage who kills people for an ideology he doesn't even believe, and is incapable of perceiving any level of nuance or sympathy for people who have been hurt. Whether or not we agree with his actions is one thing, but his motivations are selfish and shallow. The book doesn't even portray him as "wrong" in the final conflict, since we have Mr. Manhattan telling Oz to his face that his plan will fail - because that's not relevant. It doesn't matter if Rorschach's actions are justifiable or not, because all he is is a man who seeks out violence against those he feels are worth less than him in order to appease his own sense of cosmic insignificance. He's a horrible person who just so happens to be doing the right thing a lot of the time.
@LazarNaskov Is the "why" of someone's actions really that relevant though? Your actions and their effects are what will stay with the people around you, not your inner turmoil. I feel that if someone is doing the right thing, complaining that their motivation isn't pure enough is missing the point.
@@YoshiTheyosh123 Ehhh I don't like a lot of the consequences of consequentialism, so I would say that motivations are relevent. Plus, I'd argue that a lot of what Rorscharch does isn't the "right choice", as he's often violent and impulsive.
This is exactly what the MCU fucks up, Civil War is in the same boat. If your name isn’t in the title, you are not allowed to have any nuance or sympathy. The heroes are treated as just that, heroes. They can’t be wrong because that’s what bad guys are. You aren’t allowed to have a grounded argument through your speeches as the villain solely because you aren’t the hero.
Even in real life, haven't we saw all the articles on human rights violations by El Salvador when literally no one give a damn when the triads were killing the country with drugs and trafficking.
100%, though the Red Hood section is a little off. In the film, Batman basically says, "I WANT to kill Joker. I want to kill all of them," implying that Batman's rage and desire for justice would turn him into a monster if he broke the rule, because there would be literally nothing holding him back anymore. He wouldn't *stop* at Joker if he crossed the line, because the line isn't reasonable, it is unending rage.
Characters like these are sad reminder that our culture and in result our society is set by people with moral compass that is broken and divorced from reality.
@@michaelknox3715 just because morality is subjective doesn't mean you can't hold people to standard. Him smashing a dude to death is bad, but so is being a terrorist who wants half the population to disappear again.
It makes sense for the military or the government to choose Walker as Cap rather than Sam. Sam hasn’t served in years, he took Cap’s side when Cap went against the establishment. Walker is a career soldier who is dependable and also has a friend he can rely on. Now, aside from having been a superhero, Sam doesn’t bring much to the table. And even the superhero bit had no transferable skills he can use to take Cap’s mantle. He just flew around, he didn’t really fight anyone hand to hand for the most part. In fact, Bucky would be a far better candidate but his past is very sketchy and that could actually be a really interesting plot . We could see Bucky trying to redeem himself to the public but instead we got this.
I always found it weird how they made such a big deal of John killing a terrorist when Cap and Bucky both fought in WWII and killed hundreds of nazis by themselves. We literally see Steve and Bucky in mutiple battle fields killing people in the first avenger and Steve throws whole motor cycle at a group of soliders in age of ultron. 💀
…… because you missed the whole point of they show. “Terrorism” is a definition when somebody rises up against the government and fails. “Rightful Rebels” is the definition when they succeed. Captain America was “terrorist”, as far as Nazi regime was concerned. It is a matter of perspective. But he fought for what was RIGHT, and that made him the hero. Same thing here. Those people were FIGHTING for their freedoms and rights. They were on the morally right side…. Used extreme methods, but were morally justified. You missed the ENTIRE POINT of the show. System became corrupt, and real terrorists were the governments, not the rebels. Walker was a nice dog for the governments and killed somewhat misguided rebels. THAT is why he is the “bad guy”. Whereas Cap had every justification to rise up and invade foreign lands (disrespecting the autonomy of Nazi Germany) to exercise his brand of justice…. Because he was fighting for the morally right side. Morality will always trump legality, and yes, battle for freedom is always messy. If goverment makes unjust actions, yes, rebellion SHOULD morally brew. As in V for Vendetta: “Governments should be afraid of their own people, not the other way around”
@@quorryraphael9980 _____ of nanking. I can't even say the first word. Also the literal ww2 Germans were disgusted with how inhumane the Japanese were to prisoners.
@@TheBurningcage27 so your argument is that the civilians in those cities weren't innocent because their military and government perpetuated horrific war crimes
I remember star wars expanded universe/legends did this with general grevious(canon did him way dirty) where he's supposed to be at best a sympathetic villain but even though it was the sith that crashed his ship and mutilated him and not the jedi and republic like he believed there's still the fact that the republic and jedi sent boots on the ground to help the huk slavers enslave his people(the kaleesh) for the crime of fighting against the huk slavers who were invading their world and afterwards causing a famine on kalee, grevious is entirely justified in hating the republic and jedi and the fact that the CIS affiliated banking clans agreed to give relief aid to kalee in exchange for grevious leading the CIS droid army entirely justifies him fighting for the separatists
According to legends Grievous' civillian killcount is in the billions (info from ROTS novelization). Just want to add that since I think it adds to the comment, but I agree that it's pretty good justification for his hatred
Grievous was one of my favorite characters in the EU. Lucas's initial idea was that each film's primary antagonist would in some way mirror Vader: a being consumed by hatred (Maul), a fallen Jedi still convinced he was doing the right thing (Dooku), and a good man driven to do horrible things for revenge (Grievous). He just kinda forgot those things when he greenlit Clown Wars (no that isn't a typo).
@@AJadedLizard I generally liked clone wars 2008 but they did grevious way dirty and the show generally couldn't decide between being a kids show or something for young adults
@@assadsvengeance9952 I've not made it past the second episode; it's got too much concentrated stupid for me. I've seen bits and pieces and it's got some of the worst dialogue of anything I've ever seen, alongside a cartoonishly simplistic view of warfare and how militaries work. (Never forget Pong Krell's grand plan in what's considered The Best Story Ever involved him getting a couple squads of clones to Blue on Blue each other in the hopes Dooku would take him as his apprentice. That's just stupid).
@@AJadedLizard it gets better as the seasons go on, the first couple of seasons are more for kids and it becomes more mature over time, and as far as things go with pong krell that was far from the only thing he did since he was known for having some of the most atrocious amount of casualties among republic forces(he did so purposely in order to kill more clones and weaken the GAR as a whole) and in his arc he was planning to send the clones on a suicide charge against the enemy stronghold which would have either been a crushing defeat at worst or a phyrric victory at best for republic forces on umbara
There's one more cause for the sympathetic strawman that you didn't mention: The writers thinking is so unreasonable that the reasonable person is the villain in their mind.
another thing. when walker tells lamars family that the flag smasher he killed is the one that killed lamar, hes trying to give them some kind of solace in the fact that lamar was at least avenged and went down fighting. much better than saying "ope, this other terrorist killed him, we have no idea where she is and we're also still trying to be peaceful with them. Your son's killer will probably get away with it."
Walker is single-handedly my favorite character in all of phase 4. He is the right man to inherit the mantle/shield/title of Captain America, and he still is in my eyes.
Soldier Boy did the same shield stab technique and everyone laughed at it. When John Walker does it, MCU stans immediately hate him for this. It seems like this show knows a bit too much about the internet and John Walker became my favorite MCU character.
There's an argument to be made that Batman doesn't kill because he understands that he isn't mentally stable and without those lines he runs the risk of becoming as dangerous as Joker. As for 28 Weeks Later...yeah I don't disagree but the whole film is so stupid I can't care about that specifically. What bugs me more is why the infected don't attack each other? With zombies it makes sense that they don't try to eat each other because they're drawn to living flesh. The infected are suppose to be hyper crazed to the point they don't even keep themselves alive. So how do they know who is and isn't infected and why does that make any difference?
That's the "modern" interpretation of Batman they use in the Harley Queen show and other "modern" slop. Batman doesn't kill simply because he believes in humanity's ability to do good. For Batman, redemption is possible for everyone, and this is also seen in Owlman, who has zero faith in humanity (f that evil Alfred version, that's also modern slop)
Because the virus would be sending signals off in some way to prevent that, otherwise the virus would kill itself off the first couple people that got infected.
Yeah I too was confused as to why the show was insistent on villainizing Walker. All he did was accept a job and wanted to help the best he could. Edit: they should've made him into a dollar store Homelander now that I think about it. An arrogant prick who only accepted the role of Captain America for purely selfish gain. He's the one undermining Sam and Bucky's help, not the other way around. His mistakes are entirely on him. It was probably the easiest way to make him be the villain the show wants us to see him as and would make his redemption arc at the end be more impactful
Because that does kinda make him the villain of the story, he may not be an outright bad guy, but to the viewer he's taking captain America's role when he shouldn't and proceeds to taint that role by killing a surrendering enemy
I have to assume at least one of the writers there believed in walker or was setting him up for US agent because they did such a good job of characterizing him and making you like him, maybe they had plans to make him an antagonist but I’m sure they had his end goal of being a hero as US agent in mind
@@freshlyfishedbread5567I just didn’t see it that way, Karlie was so unbelievably unlikable and we literally just watched his best friend get murdered. These guys are super soldiers, it’s not like they wouldn’t be able to break him out and just kill more people if he arrested him, maybe you shouldn’t kill someone surrendering but he just watched his best friend die, ofc he’s not going to be thinking rationally
Except none of Homelander’s actions are his fault. They were ENGINEERED into him. He is completely crazy, but any being would be after the extent and lengths humanity went to break him. I am surprised he is not Brightburn or a feral child grown up, given the depths of cruelty and torturous coercion he experienced.
The worst part about all of this to me is how they’ll push Sam being Captain America down your throat, but they won’t give any time of day to an original black character like Battlestar. And yes, I understand Battlestar is basically a cap offshoot character, but so is Falcon, and so is Eli Badley Patriot and I LOVE Patriot
They did my boy dirty. He was just trying to get back out there after getting over his wife dying of cancer. And you know he took a minute to hype himself up and she just broke his hand and stole the bike he rebuilt from scratch to keep his mind occupied.
@@TheSolidSnakeOil He was trying to find a new mother to love his infirm daughter as much as he does (she has a degenerative bone disease). He thought he found that in Captain Marvel, but he was wrong (she broke his wrist and stole his bike and jacket).
This just passed my feed. This series actually killed the MCU for me. I had been on the edge since infinity war. That movie has one of the greatest mistakes cinema history in it. Steve should have been snapped, not Bucky. Broken Bucky, forced back into war and loosing his only stable connection to the world would have forced him to lean on the others. He could have taken up the shield, to atone. He would have to work with Tony. The man who never got to really confront his parents killer, never got that closure. By time this show came around he would have been more stable. Then Bucky could have just been a catty B about walker and the shield (have Sam play referee not whiner) but at the end when Walker has his PTSD meltdown, Bucky could have actually had a moment of “oh shit” and stepped in to help. Because who would understand loosing your anchor like that like Bucky. It could have been framed more as “you did it on camera, let us help” and not “killing is wrong, imma beat you to death”. I didn’t even finish watching Loki and I don’t think I saw any MCU movie after this show.
Captain America literally shot and killed HUNDREDS of people during and after the war. He also faced deep emotional turmoil and didn't always cope in a healthy manner. (Remember how he tried to get drunk to ease the pain of losing his best friend during the war?) To believe he was a flawless pacifist who never killed even a fly is straight up delusional. 😂
Yeah I’m 99% sure Cap has the mentality of “I’m not a fan of killing, but I will not hesitate to put you down like a dog if I need to.” Not perfect, but he was also raised in the 30’s so I wouldn’t be surprised.
In injustice it’s Wonder Woman that pushes him to go further n further I remember in the game she was just evil basically and in the movie pushed him until he killed that factory of joker supporters
She was not evil. She just embodied the beliefs of her father (literal divinity, being Zeus). Morality is subject to time and place. WW in Injustice is the embodiment of what divinity represents, and just because people changed their beliefs and morals that does not mean that her (or Zeus’s perspective) are not valid. That is just collectivist thinking, and it is wrong.
That is incorrect. Only She Hulk deserves the shield. And that is not ironic. Falcon messed up in conclusion. Good spirit, but all those words were just sent to the void. Bucky is too traumatized to be anything sensible. Walker is uncharismatic buffoon. Only She Hulk is worthy of the shield. (And Captain Marvel, because of her heroism). There is objectively no pain which is remotely comparable to She Hulk’s. Daily oppression affects mental health far worse than some “boys play war” nonsense. When you are invincible, war becomes a joke…. It is trivial at best and you are completely detached from any stakes… which is a virtue. You can focus on the actual things that are important then, instead of crying and sobbing. Daily oppression is far worse, because being forced to coexist with others in an unwelcoming way would just any invincible being to their wit’s ends. “Sticks and stones don’t hurt me, but words do” - Homelander. She Hulk, Captain Marvel… any heavy-hitter in Marvel is instantly more justified than any of those street-level jokes.
@@kingol4801lmao yea I don't think marvel is ever going to pick up Ms marvel or she hulk again. She hulk was terrible 😂 and well Ms marvel sucked ass too
When Bucky kills Iron Man’s family under the control of Hydra, the movie makes such a big deal over how reasonable Tony’s rage is against him. You watch the final fight in Civil War and think, “this is just amazing”, because the movie does a good job of establishing how both sides think they are right and justified in their actions. This show tried to do the same thing by “humanizing” the flag smashers, and yet completely forgot that Walker’s big bad evil moment was literally what IRON MAN was “RIGHTFULLY” trying to do a few movies prior- against a very dangerous, very guilty, no-remorse man who has JUST killed the loved one.
…… Iron Man was right and Walker was wrong. As Homelander said “popularity is king”. If you are popular, you can do whatever you want and it will be OK. Go through enemies and massacre them like in video games… and you are still the HERO at the end. Movie logic. If you are not popular, well, time to fly under the bus. Bucky, Walker, whatever It just makes sense. Which is why I really like Homelander’s title of “greatest Superhero”….. because he is. He is the greatest. Not the right kind of greatest (think Zeus being the greatest god of Olympus), but greatest nonetheless. If you have popularity, you are rightful. If you do not, you are wrong. It is clear individual-driven perspective on justice and it works.
Ooof, bad take from both of you. Ironman was not in the "right". Hell, the movie's name is Captian America: Civil War to remind you what side you should root for. Sure, from a layman, we can see why Ironman would want to kill his parents' assassin, but from a morally good perspective, we know that revenge killing is wrong. If Ironman was concerned about doing the right thing, he would have wanted Bucky to face some kind of justice, but he didn't. Through the whole movie, Ironman scapegoats, manipulates, and takes justice into his own hands.
@@isabellross6110 The op said "reasonable" that means we can reasonably somewhat understand how he felt at that moment and what motivated his actions right then and there which we can sympathise with. Also the movie doesn't take anyone's side directly cause the stuff both sides do are wrong individually or questionable at least (If you had taken Civil war comics Iron man then I would have agreed no questions asked but this MCU one , as comics ones does more of a f up all the way) Also Tony doesn't manipulate them , he poses a question and answers with a predetermined answer of his own The predetermined answer part was wrong cause Tony tends to focus narrowly on one thing if it bothers him Till he comes to an answers and prioritizes it as the only answer (which is a character flaw as it is same thing he did to create ultron in the first place , make vision and then this) Also he doesn't scapegoat anyone as he is ready to take responsibility and ready to make the whole team take too as government controlled heroes which isn't a very bright idea but it seemed to be the only way he thought he could take responsibility So that doesn't work He does try to talk "sense" into them giving his reasoning which are justified but the answer that he has for thay isn't , so he doesn't exactly manipulate them. Also taking Justice in own hands is what he is against most of the movie by being government super heroes aided by them For which he tries to stop Cap team to stop them The only times he takes the things in his own hands were to aid cap going with Bucky and Zemo and tries to take Revenge when finds out about his parents death. Tbf his crash out is totally understood , also his given conflict with himself regarding being gov supes and best friend's getting crippled doesn't help his mental state I wouldn't say he's right to do it but that crashout is something very understandable Not to mention Cap saying he understands Tony Which being the entire plot Civil War , Tony thinking is Either cap doesn't understands his reasoning or if cap does then why he doesn't support Tony for it But rn Cap saying something like "I understand how you feel" feels condescending to Tony Cause either he doesn't feel the way Tony does regarding his parents death or if he does understands yet still has the nerve to try to calm him down/be totally okay with , seeming condescending to Tony leading to his 1v2 fight. Now Cap is a soldier and knows that it isn't exactly Bucky' fault and does feel bad for their Death But tells Tony what he would usually tell a fellow soldier if someone close to them dies/see someone close to them die That "He understands what Tony is going through" (to keep things logical and grounded to make smart/logical decisions in combat or other cases) The problem is that Tony is his friend but not a fellow soldier with the mental health of a "Billionaire Alcohol addicted individual who just found out his parents were murdered and the person is right in front of him" So well that isn't going to turn out well Although would say Cap isn't exactly wrong but bad circumstances mixed with bad choices can lead to disasters
@lordrj4203 No, he wasn't manipulating the other side. That isn't what I was referring to when I mentioned it. He manipulated and blackmailed a kid with his secret identity. Pretty fucked up to do just to win the scapegoat fight. He wanted to hand over jurisdiction because he no longer wanted to take responsibility for his own failings. That is established in the first 30 minutes of the movie really. Sure, vigilantes are taking justice into their own hands 100% of the time, but in comics and movies, the population accepts this because they are usually not out here killing people, the thing I mean when Ironman is in the wrong. Notice how Cap still fights Ironman despite Ironman's motivation. It is because, as human, we know that justice would mean holding the people responsible, not killing someone who isn't. Time and time again, through Age of Ultron and Civil War, we are shown that Ironman has a character flaw that makes less of a hero than Cap. That because Cap is the example. That is why Johnny is vilified. Reasonable or not, we know that what he did was wrong.
Dude I aways though the same like ok I can see a parallel with racism but other than that I think it's a big stretch to compare the struggles of most minorities with X-Men because unlike the X-Men universe a gay guy can't level a damm city or change the magnetic poles of the planet.
It wasn't even a comparison at first, it was just outcasts in general when they were first created. The X-Men were created in order to help fight off evil mutants who thought themselves superior to humanity (Magneto starting out as one of them before later writers gave him his backstory of being a survivor of the... special showers in germany).
I'm not 100% familiar with X-Men canon so maybe they already did this but I've always thought the idea of mutants being oppressed minorities would have worked better if only some mutants had powers like the X-Men and Magneto and the majority were like Break. No actual super powers and very obviously not human.
The oppressed minority angle was kind of added on after the fact when Claremont started writing the book. His run was good, but it caused some inconsistencies since the stories clearly wasn't intended to be that. The Magneto = Malcom X thing kinda falls apart when canonically he's committed acts of terror that would make Bin Laden blush.
@@azamonra many mutants in the comics do have really shit/obviously inhumane powers that functionally useless without a lot of training at best, and permanently debilitating and life altering at worst
I haven't played that far into Fable 3, but is there no one in that game that in relation to the "tyrannical" choices to side with Logan and prepare for the Darkness suggests that we repeal the laws once the threat has been dealt with? Like, yeah, we can't damn well have the 8-12 year olds _fighting_ the wars, but with training and some supervision, they'll be capable of at least _making the weapons_ for the adults to use. Let's defeat the Darkness and _THEN_ we'll ban child labour. They did this in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. It was depicted as a sad moment, but a VERY necessary decision to take "every able-bodied man and strong lad able to bear arms" to prepare for the encroaching army of Orcs numbering in the tens of thousands. Helms Deep was manned by a few hundred soldiers, for reference. It was shown to be a sad scene where we see 70-80 year old men clad in armour and 12-14 year old children carrying axes around while their mothers begged for the soldiers not to take their children, but this was the people of Rohan pushed to the very peak of their desperation as they faced the end of their lives. Every man, woman and child sheltered in Helms Deep was one night away from complete slaughter, they had no other choice than to take everything they had
Weirdly Logan is not the tyrannical side..Everything you find out about him is consider a middle road. In fact the person telling you the choices basically says in a sense "Or you can get more money by being worse the Logan." He aint no saint,but he aint the evil path either.
@@TOONYBOY Fable 3 is one of the few games a middle road is possible. You are given the choice to lower taxs, keep them as logan did or go even higher to the point people actually become poor. There is no middle road all the time but some of these are choices Logan would not amuse.
@@Carzeyday Huh. That sounds like something that should be mentioned in this video, because that doesn't sound like the Sympathetic Strawman trope. The whole reason that trope is erroneous in the first place is because it attempts to make a reasonable person look bad, but accomplishes the opposite, whereas it sounds like Fable is going out of its way to highlight that Logan isn't the pure evil tyrant we assume he is
@@TOONYBOY It is quite clear the game is saying ":It is easy to judge em, now try being better." Since you are given good karma for sparing him at the trail even If the people boo you.
I think another note about the Walker killing the unarmed terrorist thing that gets forgotten, is that this terrorizer was a super soldier. Being unarmed means nothing as their body is now a weapon. Anyone else (minus Bucky) wouldn’t likely be able to do what Walker did without the serum
What i got from watching the series is that John, Sam and Bucky were all at fault for different reasons. Sam and Bucky were simply pissed by the fact that this stranger was chosen to replace their dear friend; John's fault was that he was simply not ready to fill the shoes of Cap, he let his emotions get in the way and wasn't able to think straight under stress, wich is ridiculous since he wasn't a recruit, but an experienced soldier with a lot of combat experience. They should have presented Walker as a cold blooded professional who never questions orders and only cares about accomplishing the mission, no natter the cost.
I finished this show, and immediately cancelled Disney+. It was that bad. The real kicker was after the final fight. The terrorist lady gets shot and dies, while Hill also gets shot, but is alive. Who does sam pick up and carry out? The dead terrorist murderer, seemingly to use as an object lesson in his little political rant. He doesn't even ask if Hill is Ok as far as I remember, just leaves her there. Absolute stupidity.
Another excellent example of the John Walker Effect aka Sympathetic Strawman, are the Kens in the Barbie Movie. The filmmakers and writers want you to see the Kens as the Antagonists in this situation, as men who want to opress because they discovered the Patriarchy. But that's not how they come across because in Barbie society, the Kens are the oppressed party. They are homeless slaves to the Barbies, only existing for the sake of the Barbies. They have no agency or autonomy, no power whatsoever. So when Ryan Gosling's Ken encounters the real world, he is awestruck by the equality and opportunities he sees here (the movie fails to paint the real world as a "Toxic Patriarchy."). Ken Gosling returns to the Barbie world to liberate the other Kens and promote Equality. They even devise a Democracy in Barbie Land, which would benefit everyone. But instead the Barbies take that all away, and reinstate the systemic Sexism, even excluding the Kens from having any democratic power. The media coverage surrounding this movie tries to delegitimize the John Walker Effect, but that didn't stop Ryan Gosling for being awarded.
I disagree ever so slightly, because in the Barbie world they paint the real world as the cartoonish patriarchy that, sadly, many feminists see the world as, despite that objectively not being the case. Ken doesn't really bring "equality" as he still makes it so that the barbie's serve the Kens as opposed the Ken's serving the Barbies. I see it more as a warning that just because your the oppressed doesn't mean you can't eventually become the oppressor. But yeah the barbie movie makes me sympathize for the Kens way more than the barbies, especially at the end when everything goes back to how it use to and presumably the Kens are still homeless. Like, if THATS what the movie is trying to say is the ideal world when women run things, then I think you just spawned even more misogynistic men.
@@DANBAN119 I get what you're saying. The general point is that the people behind the film (and the media that praises and defends the film) is trying to push this idea that the Kens are the antagonists, and turned the Kens into a strawman fallacy in order to sell the film's message. And articles were raised blaming fans for sympathizing with the Kens. There were even people telling women to dump their male partners if they sympathize with Ken.
@@DANBAN119 If you breakdown the Kens and the Barbies into how LA itself is you see the problem. The Ken are clearly the homeless that roam the beach areas that they CLAIM doesn't exist. Where the Barbies are in the Hills, living in villas and have dynamic job freedom. That's where the problem lies they legit made the homeless out as the oppressor
@@DANBAN119 The movie is not making serious commentary on how a matriarchy would work. Outside of their hobbies the Barbies are supposed to be a caricature of men, while the Kens are supposed to be a caricature of women (atleast in their position before Ken finds out about patriarchy and after he gives up on it)
Wanda: You break the rules, and is held a hero. I break them, and I'm the villain. That doesn't seem fair. MCU Shills: YASS KWEEN!! John Walker: (Breaths) MCU shills: (Bully, attack and cancel the actual actor on Twitter).
I really like Walker because it showed what would realistically would happen If you actually tried to fill the position of captain America’s with anyone else. Walker sees that himself and trying to do so ruins his life
I love how writers just expect us to go along with whatever message they have in mind, ignoring the fact that readers also have what is called rationality and common sense
Yep, instead of building Sam to be the next Captain, the series somehow made John walker a more compelling character than Sam or Bucky instead. I don't know how they fuck things up this hard, but I'm glad at least we have another good character in the universe, just hope some competent writer know how to use him in the future.
Can't agree with the Red Hood example. It raises an interesting point, but you're forgetting that Batman isn't a government agent. He's a vigilante. There are lines he doesn't cross because he lacks the authority and rather critically needs the police to trust him. You're also slightly missing Bruce's issue. Sure, it's just deleting (censored for TH-cam) the Joker now, but the same logic of just offing the rest of the Rogues Gallery makes just as much sense. They get out, cause chaos, and Batman catches them. Rinse and repeat. The Joker is just the one Jason has a grudge against. The question is why no one in the GCPD just offed the Joker or why Jason didn't do it himself. If it was that important, Jason's wasted a lot of time and lives going on a deleting spree to get at the Joker instead of just going straight for him. It would be just as simple to set up a general breakout at Arkham and take Joker out in the chaos. Or just break in and delete him. It makes Jason here interesting, but his point is pretty weak.
@@arnowisp6244 Sorry this argument doesn't work considering Gotham is so messed up that a billionaire had to start fighting crime for anything to actually get done. Batman doesn't need the police, the police need Batman. And besides Batman has the entire criminal underworld wanting him dead, why would he fear the police department. Plus the public would be on Batman's side since all the weekly death marathons the villains keep trying would be over since he would kill them all.
Loomar went over this in the pinned comment of the original, so I’ll paraphrase it here: Red Hood is not the sympathetic strawman in that example, the example was brought up because Batman could not come up with a compelling argument to counter Red Hood’s ideology.
That show made Sam so unlikable. When he was introduced in Winter Soldier, he was helping people getting over PTSD and was ready to help people in need. The show just changed the character for the worst.
Its honestly bullshit that John walker was treated like a psychopath, while steve was treated like Jesus. Steve is not jesus, he even said it himself in the first film "I dont want to kill anyone, I just want to do what's right". If he had to kill someone, he will kill someone. John walker although in thst specific moment didn't necessarily need to keep bashing his sheild in the terrorist's head, he's kill was justified. That terrorist could have escaped and killed many more if john hadnt done such a thing.
I think Chloe from Miraculous Ladybug is something similar. She had many sympathetic and interesting points but the major writer decided to damn her to evil writing.
That whole show is damned by terrible writing. Hell, Adrien has more qualities to be the main character as he has a motivation for being a hero beyond being altruistic since it lets him act in a way he never got to because of his father. He has the secret connection to the main villain, his villainous side was much more terrifying in comparison, and many other points in his favor. What really makes me not like Marinette is the fact she is a severe stalker who likes to sniff Adrien's clothes. The fact that another character does exactly what she does and is called a creep but the show acts like it's fine when she does it is bonkers. Oh and the annoying "I'm just a normal girl" but she is in a very successful bakery while designing clothes for actual models and is one of the most popular people around shows that isn't true. Sorry about the rant, this show is a lot like RWBY where the potential was there but the actual writers did a bad job to the point I only watch it to understand what happens in the fanfics (which a vast majority of are much better written)
Thats much different from this case. Chloe is written as evil and comes off as evil. They give her redemptions but go back to making her evil. If the bad writing made her come off as good unintentionally then this would be similar
This isn’t a critique on the show solely (it has a lot of problems), but one critique I have with the whole MCU structure right now with the mantle of captain America is that they very quickly gave it to falcon. On its own, it would have been fine, but when they introduced Walker, throughout the show I found him very engaging. He was shown to surprisingly a humble man (saying things like he can’t replace Rogers etc) and displays very positive attributes. Like when after the killing incident, he asks falcon and Bucky if they’re ok, and overall tries to be friendly towards them. And even though he wasn’t a Boy Scout like Rogers, overall, he had more positives than negatives. However, he is a product of the US government. As in the position he is in, is part of the US, and obeys their order. If he was kept as Captain for a bit longer, it would have been a nice mirror to Rogers. Someone who by comparison, is more normal and less perfect, and at least for the most part, will listen to his superiors. Falcon as of right now seems to be playing a very similar role to Rogers, as seen at the end of the show and trailers from his movies. As of right now, the only difference i see with him is a jetpack and no powers. Walker was without a doubt, the most interesting part of the show. And this is based on another comment somewhere here, it would have been a nice contrast if he was a mirror of Bucky and mental health, where he neglects it after his friends death, slowly leading to him crumbling. But Bucky on the other hand has a friend and therapist (a better one than the one in the show, I hope) and thus is able to further improve himself.
I think it would have worked if the flag smashers hadnt killed anyone in their attacks. If they only destroyed infrastructure and had only fought sam and walker in defence, to escape, never trying to kill anyone. Walker killing that guy would have been a bad call, due to the dude not actually hurting anyone
I’d love to see a side by side breakdown between walking killing the guy after his friend died and Steve killing the hydra guy after he thought Bucky died. It’s the same scene but steve is the hero and Walker is the bad guy. I think the issue is the writers think the flag smashers are sympathetic whereas Hydra is not. The flag smashers are in reality just as bad as hydra except they are weaker and less organized.
Part of me feels like Steve Rogers would’ve liked John Walker (as the show is written) on some level. I think he would’ve not agreed with his arrogance (perhaps an overcorrection for John’s feeling of inadequacy in the role) but would’ve sympathized with how complicated it has become to serve the nation, as Steve found out in Winter Soldier. I think he would’ve seen that John’s heart is in the right place but would’ve needed some time to fully grow into it.
While this clearly *does* fit for Jason Todd, I think one of the parts of that storyline that makes it so compelling is that it highlights Batman's hypocrisy and instability. I don't actually think that we're supposed to root explicitly for Batman *or* Red Hood in Under the Red Hood, I think it's supposed to be an acknowledgement of how both of them are extremely flawed in their ideologies and actions. Jason claims that he ONLY wants Batman to kill Joker because he's the root cause of evil, yet he spends the previous few weeks filling the morgues of gotham with street-level thugs and bodyguards to set up this plan in the first place. Likewise, Batman's failures are laid bare in front of him throughout the entire storyline. It shows that he's not an objectively good force who does what needs to be done for the sake of the people. His rigidness in his ideology is shown to have extreme consequences that prolong the suffering of the people of Gotham, and Bruce believing that he can't change how he acts for even a moment or else he'll... instantly become a serial killer who will never stop killing any criminals no matter how big or small their crimes are highlights just how insane he actually is. In the end, no one's going to argue that Jason wasn't objectively right. However, the number of people that he kills to get to that point - to prove that he was right - also makes him wrong. If you have to kill 60 or more people to prove to someone else that one and only one person needs to die in order for all the killing to stop, you're basically blackmailing them into becoming a murderer to stop your own murder spree. The fact that Jason doesn't kill Joker at the first opportunity highlights his own insanity as well. He *needed* Bruce to be the one to do it, because that was the only way in his mind to satiate his own sense of betrayal. He was right about what he said concerning Joker, but he didn't do what he did because Joker's a murderer. He did it because Joker murdered him and he's upset that Bruce didn't kill him as revenge. Jason was objectively correct but ideologically wrong. Sorry for writing a full-on essay on a video mostly about John Walker, I just had more things to say about Red Hood.
Fable 3 logan was always a sympethic villian. He knew what was coming and knew that albion didnt need a hero but villian. A villian willing to do whatever it took.
28 weeks later was so stupid. I thought the beginning was made to set up how terrible the situation was, the father was a coward, sure, but the mother indirectly killed everyone else because she had to bring the child inside. Paul Atreides from Dune is another one. The modern movies did not understand the point of his character. They even rewrote some other characters to make him look worse.
Yeah I think people forget that Paul is ment to be a best case scenario to show even if the best person gains this power its can still lead to death and destruction
@@Cameron39829 In book 1 Paul can give up, but it will result in the deaths of his mother, his sister, himself and the entire Fremen population. In book 2, Paul can literally see every future and chooses the best one, and it comes at a great cost.
@Lampoluke that's what I'm saying tho, Paul is a good person it's why he eventually leaves and exiles himself but he still brought death and destruction and he himself realizes this
I think this sympathetic strawman idea applies perfectly to Jason in Stranger Things season 4. SPOILERS: He's portrayed as the villain for having an easily understandable reaction to his girlfriend's death, nobody tells him the truth about the supernatural things happening in Hawkins (even though Lucas told Max about it in season 2 for almost no reason), he comes to the only rational conclusion he can after his best friend dies in a supernatural way (with Eddie the presumed murderer being the only person nearby who could have possibly killed him), then he uses violence (after Lucas attacks him first) as a last resort after trying to persuade Lucas not to kill Max (that's his understanding of the situation in that scene). Then Jason gets cut in half and he's never mentioned again. I understand why a lot of people would find his character annoying or have an automatic rejection to his worldview, but it baffles me that so many people think he deserved his (extremely brutal) death. It's worth noting that while Sam and Bucky are actively antagonising Walker, the protagonists are basically nowhere near Jason throughout the season, so he comes to these conclusions based solely on the limited data he's presented, whereas every other time someone has needed to know about the upside down, they've been told the full story and given all the context.
Definitely agree with your Stranger Things statement. While I definitely didn’t enjoy his character, what he got was so undeserving. Now I know Lucas most likely wasn’t in his right mind either but how he couldn’t just try and get out his sentences and explain. Or even just go along with Jason (as we know that just listening to the music doesn’t instantly pull Max out of Vecnas realm, at the very least they could’ve PROLONGED her bones from snapping. Obviously thinking about it too deep now, but it just one of those things with writing in newer shows/movies that makes me scratch my head
I always really appreciate people who share the other side of the coin.... it is extremely difficult to try and comprehend what kind of choices and sacrifices these certain people have to make...if we ourselves are not in those situations...whose to say which is the right or wrong choice...i figure its impossible to truly know whats black and white at that moment... All of us are capable of things we thought we would never feel or do when in danger...
John Walker is possibly one of my favorite MCU characters of all time, and I’m not joking. John himself is exactly how I imagine a modern Captain America would be, his character was enjoyable for me to watch on screen, and to learn he’s being portrayed by Kurt Russel’s son Wyatt Russel was even more amazing, because I remember him from a movie called Overlord, I highly recommend watching that movie. Can’t wait to see this dude in Thunderbolts.
To those uninformed, my account got hacked recently
Some stuff was alright. Some stuff was changed and some stuff was missing
This is a reupload. There was a few other videos that have been re-uploaded and some that I'm not going to bother with because they're so old/poor editing
But yeah, this video was one of them. Which was a shame because it was the one that got the most views pretty much every week
Edit - The algorithm for my videos is absolutely fucked so anyone sharing it to friends/groups/discord would be much appreciated
Sorry to hear that. A Russian hacker got my account in September 2022 and used it as a crypto scam account. I talked with Google on Twitter to get my Gmail account back, but during this time, TH-cam terminated my channel because it was a scam, but after gaining access to my account, refused to restore my channel and refused to tell me why. I still hate TH-cam for this and my original game review channel with 3,000+ subscribers and 900+ videos is still lost forever.
Really sorry that this happened to you. Hope your views will escalate from here, this was definitely my favourite video from you.
But Loomar CrYpTo Is ThE fUtUtRe they'll obviously say
I looked for this video recently, thank you for reuploading
It's time for lightning to strike twice 🗿
The fact the US Government scapegoats him for doing exactly what hes supposed to only helps him be even more sympathetic.
Certified Government moment
And people say Marvel movies are unrealistic.
That’s the whole point of the show, there’s no moral black and white, it’s all grey area, because only Steve Rodgers was capable of seeing the black and white. That’s why people support the side characters more than the main characters, I mean half the time I’m supporting Zemo
@@LCaddyStudios you're giving the show way too much credit
@@getthegoons not really, the entire point of the show is to convey messages, there are a lot of details in it which do refer to real life topics, Acab/Racial Discrimination is blatantly obvious, Isaiah Bradley refers to secret testing performed on African Americans by the US/CIA, the Flagsmashers are a combination of Black Lives Matter and Terrorists in Gaza.
Now the new Captain America starring Sam will be focused directly on US politics.
Comics (and their TV/Film counterparts) have always referred to political movements and activists, government overreach, government corruption and more.
So it’s not giving it more credit, it’s giving the show the credit it deserves.
Pretty wild that Falcon has experience working with vets suffering from PTSD and acts like a total asshole towardsWalker.
Almost like the writers completely forgot who the character was and what made him like able
They most likely also supported the statues going down if they weren’t in the crowds committing them
Imagine if the writers and creators of a show claiming to be like TWS actually managed to watch that movie
Racism
@@untunedguitar45what statues?
John walker: saves sam's life and gets bucky out of prison
Sam and Bucky: hate this guy lmaoo
When did John Walker get Bucky out of prison?
@@Phat_trick910never. He is just babbling
@@AkkatlahDid you not watch the video at all? It's at 4:00, because Bucky missed his therapy sessions, he was about to go to jail!
@@aaronwishard7093 for a few hours until his terapist showed up.
Bro really said “he got me outta prison, fuck that guy” lmao
One of the things that bugs me is no one seems to care about Walker's mental condition from both a narrative and in universe perspective despite the fact they gave Bucky a whole sub plot about therapy. It could have been a good narrative parallel about what happens if you neglect your own mental health or what happens if no one notices the signs.
i remember even Bucky therapy ark was ass
@@killer-ox4rp God, the eye contact bit was cringey as hell.
Bucky’s therapy was terrible too. What were the writers thinking, honestly? And you’re right. You should have written the show 😂🤦🏼♀️
and falcon has no reason to be upset that lamarr is called walkers wingman when he had a wingman of his own when he was in the armed forces that sadly was killed and falcon was so upset that he was in therapy over it
these writers had no fucking respect for the source material
If Walker was in the dc universe that would work so much better since they’d atleats know how to deal with a hero whose gone rogue
What I hate the most is they act like cap was a Saint. He wasn’t he was a soldier. And he killed when he had to. He never relished in it. He doesn’t like it, but he understands it’s necessary for the greater good. He can lift the hammer. Part of the hammer determining if you’re worthy or not, is if you would kill if the situation demanded it. Not that you’re a murderer, but to make the decision if it’s the best decision.
He literally kills. All the time.
Faulting walker for killing a super soldier terrorist who could literally rip your head off if he wanted to is asinine.
Captain America never killed a surrendering enemy
@@freshlyfishedbread5567 he fucking threw a guy out of a flying shield heli carrier rather than just knocking him out or just killing him instantly. Love captain america but the dude wasn't exactly clean in high stress situations
@@freshlyfishedbread5567 Thor beheaded a guy who was unarmed (literally) and totally at the Avengers's mercy. And he did it in the middle of the guy telling his daughter he loved her. Cap was right there, and didn't care.
@@freshlyfishedbread5567he didn’t even surrender until he failed to fight back like 3 times so it’s not even like he surrendered at all.
Its the difference between "kill" and "murder"
Its not necessarily bad if someone is killed. But it is always bad if murder happens.
Walker: *repeatedly tries to be friendly to two guys who show him nothing but distain for no reason, behaves reasonably in very hectic situations, kills a terrorist who just took part in murdering his friend*
Marvel: “don’t you just hate this guy???”
Audience: “… can Walker be Captain America from now on?”
I was thinking the same thing
@@omnipresentl1316 Which is funny because Walker was to his friend what Capt. America was to Bucky.
@@chickenbacon5197 it all is so perfectly hypocritical that I would almost believe it was written intentionally in the most hypocritical way possible but given some of these writers, that would be giving them too much credit.
"Omg, Walker killed a man! Captain America never kills!"
WW2 Captain America:
@@Oropher420 Forgetting all the aliens they took out in Avengers too.
I hated this show so much because it makes Bucky and Sam come across as petty jerks angry at John simply because he's taken the mantle of Captain America. This is especially bad for Sam as in Winter Soldier he worked as the leader of Support groups of Veterans, thus should understand better than anyone what Walker is going through with his PTSD and when Lamar dies, yet instead treats him like shit because he believes he deserves the shield and shows more compassion for a violent unhinged, murderous terrorist just cause she's younger than the literal War Hero and soldier whose shown he is commpassionate and wants to help.
This show ruined Bucky and Sam.
Also didn’t Sam say in the show that he didn’t want the shield? But the second John gets it, he suddenly acts like he should’ve gotten the shield. Bucky should’ve been the one, but no we have to have a black Captain America for Modern Audiences
I suppose the one semi-accurate part is that there’s a trend with well-established squads of soldiers having a hard time accepting new faces, probably even more so if said face is supposed to take up the whole symbol and title of their lost friend, but it still goes to show how stupidly stubborn Sam and Bucky were to him, which is quite sad to see.
@@justinbowers2749 The problem isn't the black captain America... What you wrote is a bit concerning. In the comics there have been many people with captain moniker. This version is just poorly written.
@@caboose3191When they first introduced Sam as Captain America in the comic i was fine with it, i saw it mostly like Nightwing being Batman for a time. But now they made him Captain America permanently and i fail to see a point in that, he was Falcon, he was the first Black American Superhero, he had his own identity. But now he is just a less successful version of Captain America
Well yes, the progressive view point is "White man bad" "establishment bad", so the terrorists are portrayed as sympathetic characters, Flacon deserves the mantle because it's "right" etc. The problem is this only works if you have a progressive mindset, otherwise it all falls apart.
The "killing the terrorist is wrong" doesn't work because it's not a cop arresting a criminal citizen and thus obligated to use minimal force- it's a soldier hunting an enemy combatant in a military operation- where kill mission are legitimate.
But the reason why he killed buddy in the first place was for a completely selfish reason, he said fuck the mission at that point; Steve and Sam (and even Bucky at this point) would’ve showed restraint and not killed him. This is the only defense I can think of, I still agree with everything else.
@@ZeroDividedByZero nah, Steve would just let them blow themselves up if they say “Bucky”. Let’s not try this. Theres nothing selfish about avenging your dead friend. I guess everyone who avenges fallen loved ones in stories is selfish at that point. The guy John killed is a super soldier terrorist. Tf you mean they wouldn’t have killed him? Steve, Tony, and Bucky have killed weaker enemies for LESS.
Cops aren't obligated to use minimal force. They're obligated to make the arrest. They're allowed to use the force necessary to do so. That means if you never give up as the criminal, they never give up until you are incapacitated. If you happen to die while incapacitated, the fault is 100% on you for not taking your opportunity to simply give up.
There is no option for police to just say, "Well he's not willing to be arrested today so let's let him go and try again tomorrow so we don't accidentally hurt him too bad."
@@BruvahSulaiman
It's important to make a distinction: "make an arrest" is a task, while "minimal force" is a method.
Minimal force can be asking politely, and it can be a bullet.
A soldier can be tasked with killing a man who harmless at the moment, a policeman cannot.
@@ZeroDividedByZero nah he did the right thing lmao, you're saying like the he should be in court when he's a literal terrorist that can kill people with his bare hands without any effort like so many have said.
The avengers literally killed thanos when he was spending the rest of his life in a garden with no intent of causing harm ever again. How did the writers not realize how that would come across in this show.
True. From that perspective, Thor decapitated a literally unarmed enemy 💀
@@MaxRegistrator And he was more unarmed than the terrorist. Not just in the funny and literal sense (because they cut his arm off), but because he wasn't a conceivable threat to them, and there were no civilians around. The terrorist superhuman still is a threat to the civilians around, and conceivably to the friendly combatants too, he just killed one of them minutes earlier with his bare hands.
@@kukuc96 yep. This just makes this show seem even more dumb
I think Thor killing Thanos was meant to show that the Avengers has hit rock bottom after failing to stop him. They killed a harmless villain and achived nothing.
tbf
he still killed haft of the people in the universe
he should still face something for that
Mfw ironman is a fascist because when he used the hulk smasher, Hulk was unarmed.
I can't believe Thor tried to murder Thanos while he was unarmed! Clearly Thanos is the victim here!!!
@@ICantThinkOfAFunnyHandleThor did murder Thanos while he was unarmed, and injured at that. What a monster that Thor is
And then Thor had the temerity, the TEMERITY, to feel bad about failing to kill Thanos the first time around.
@@ICantThinkOfAFunnyHandle Thanos dindunuffin, he was a good boy.
Yooo did you watch the follow up video? He literally uses this argument about Hulk being unarmed. Doesn't mention the comment directly, but that's how you know you made a good one.
"Wahhh, the EVIL Captain America killed the defenseless mass murderer!!"
that was a super soldier so not even defenseless
Everything after it makes sense from a political standpoint, he killed someone in front of a crowd, then the military threw him under the bus because he wasn't popular (very common)
If only the MCU ever cared about politics making sense
A Super Soldier is never defenseless
Yeah the guy literally threw a large piece of concrete at him right before he was at Walker's mercy and he only tried to surrender because he was at his mercy.
@@AdeptKing He didnt surrender he was getting up to continue the fight then got pinned down the second that he didnt have a boot on his throat he would get back into the fight
This show makes walker feel like the last sane man on Earth hes the only one constistantly making reasonable choices and even the show concedes that several of his plans wouldve ended the conflict but hes treated like a moron the whole time
You’re telling me Disney wrote a script that makes a reasonable moral man who appears to be the last sane man on earth out to be a bad guy?
@volt42reDisney's political doublespeak backfired.
They wanted to make him a racist white devil yet did everything in their power to make him the most sane man
@@nigachu8249Whats the political message they were trying to tell with this story? Didn't watch the show so just basing it off the plot summary the video gave
He looks sane to You because he is white. If he was a Black guy like Sam You would have a different opinión.
All I see about why he is a bad guy is that he killed a person after they killed his friend. As if Cap never hit people with his shield so hard they died.
I mean, if I remember right he threw a pilot into a fan blade in TFA.
@@AJadedLizard To be fair, the pilot was literally a Nazi. At wartime. Trying to fly a bomb to its destination to blow up whichever city that one was for. But I get your point.
He also dragged that one guy on his bike in Age of Ultron
There are multiple times where cap's shield should have absolutely caused a bloody mess of a person prior to this, they just want to keep the pg-13 ratings lol
You are forgeting this is Modern Marvel and he is White. Marvel see this as reason enough
I hate how vilified Walker gets by Falcon and Bucky after killing a SUPER SOLDIER terrorist who helped murder his best friend. They treat him like a unhinged psycho when one of the first things he asks them afterwards was pretty much "are you two alright or need any medical attention". Not only that but they act like he sullied the shield by getting blood on it, acting like Steve never killed anyone before despite the fact he was a soldier in one of the most horrific Wars of our time which is something Bucky should absolutely understand.
Its Modern Marvel, and he is White. This is reasoning enough for Disney
Not only should Bucky understand being a WW2 vet but he's got half a century of blood on his hands as the Winter Soldier. John was temporarily not in his right mind because he took the serum, just like Bucky was when he was under mind control. But John killed a terrorist and Bucky killed innocents. But John is the vilified one??
@@Pherim_The white card can’t really work here, Bucky is also white and his character was ruined despite being on the “good side”. Of course, this example is more of the MCU’s forced politics and bad writing than John Walker being a white guy.
@0neiros. Bucky has accepted he is subordinate to Sam so he's the right kind of white. John is only accepted when he also submits to sam
@@brandoncarnes Anyone who isn’t kissing up to the MC (and writers) is evil, its clear they’re just pushing a message of their ideology for this show, since the “good guys” are the flag smashers, and they’re anarchists
They threw away the fact that Falcon was a PTSD support group leader. John Walker was a mentally broken veteran who saw a lot of his friends die in war. I know a buddy of mine (OEF combat vet) stated he felt kind of that they almost took a jab at combat vets with PTSD. I don’t know if I feel that was their intent, but I couldn’t help but kind of get that vibe. Not to mention that they tried to make you feel sympathy for the terrorists, which I couldn’t see. I watched the entire show and couldn’t help but feel like it was just nonsense.
Literally what happens when villains write villains lmfao
Aye. When you get evil people to try and make a villain, their idea of "Villainy" starts looking pretty noble.
@@randomcenturion7264
Captain america kills dozens for standing in his way:
John Walker kills a terrorist that didn't stop until given literally no alternative: (Surprised Pikachu face)
It really is. Because the writers blatant racism helped make a great hero
John walker is not a villain tho. The fandom considers him one but he is not actually a villain
@@shawerful5209that's the point of the comment. Villains writing villains refers to have writers of the show *tried* to write a "villain", but failed miserably since the actual "villains" here are them
"OMG, Walker killed a known terrorist" - Marvel
Me: "2:45, do you think Steve is shooting bean bags here?"
clearly a marshmellow gun
It's Yakuza/Like A Dragon logic.
@@GumshoeClassicKiryu has never killed anyone
Yeah but those were white male nazis. They were bipocs just trying to burn down cities cuz they are hungry and want justice for saint floyd.
Totally different.
Pretty sure you see Sam kill a bunch of terrorists in age of ultron too
In Civil war tho, but true
@@jacliffh9221no no, he's right the whole avengers were killing hydra soldiers in modern day, they had stolen lokis staff and the avengers knew they were to dangerous to be kept alive
@@BrightLord1823 He referenced Sam, who only shows up at the end to shoot Ultrons in that movie.
@@Pink.andahalf oh shoot, I realized I messed up on that, it's been a while since I saw that. I thought he was in that beginning scene, thanks for correcting me.
@@Pink.andahalf That was Rhodey, not Sam.
Watched some special forces people from various countries break down Walker's actions, and many determined he was not only correct, but TOO hesitant - especially considering a supersoldier is inherently ALWAYS ARMED (as cap has shown) and clearly deadly, and that would have been briefed and decided by superiors before engaging.
By similar logic you should bully Homelander……
That is just objectively wrong.
There is a moral term called “broken”. A system has to pay for the pain it inflicts, every time. The more the pain, the more the damage.
Plutonian principle.
Homelander, after experiencing crimes against humanity squared…… is justified to just burn it all down, as the whole socio-economic system failed.
This way you get notion of “people should not be afraid of their goverments, goverments should be afraid of their people”. Systems are, and should be, expendable. You undo the system and rebuild it as many times as it takes before it is right…. You do NOT let a rotten system stay in place because it is “convenient” to others…. Or else your feeble morals just radiate the same energy as “the nail that stands out gets smacked”.
The only difference between a “terrorists” and “revolutionaries” is in the degree of success.
Going against flawed system is always commendable. Hell, take any celestial in most media and you would understand.
Just like Jews rebelled against WW2 Nazis, but NOBODY in their right mind would call them “terrorists”.
Having a movement and fighting (literally) for one’s freedom is not terrorism. That is just defending one’s moral rights.
What a pathetically weak take. Legality does not equal morality.
@kingol4801 Such an insane take. I'm not even gonna touch on that whole "Homelander is justified" nonsense.
The Flagsmashers are a group who are fighting for the right to keep all the property and shit they stole from dead people. That was their entire motivation.
People died, they stole those people's shit, moved in to their houses; then got upset years later when they came back to life and were legally given their shit and houses back.
@@kingol4801 who tf are you talking to. just making up imaginary arguments lol
@@kingol4801 That is… an extreme take. And notably, incorrect in one important way: the difference between terrorists and revolutionaries is not the level of success, but the methods they use. And it’s not a binary either, someone can be both a revolutionary and a terrorist or either one and not the other.
Specifically, a terrorist is someone that weaponises terror. That’s a fairly simple definition, but the implications are the important part, because you need to consider who you’re weaponising that terror against. Sure, indirectly, you’re against the government. But you aren’t targeting the government with the terror, you’re targeting the people. You aren’t hoping that the terror will spread throughout the population and be useful as leverage against the government.
That is why terrorism is not just morally corrupt, but also inefficient as a method of overthrowing governments. It’s indirect, it focuses more on inflicting harm to civilians and therefore pushes people away from your cause. It’s especially ineffective if you actually do have a noble cause, because noble people won’t want any part in it and regular people will outright hate you no matter how in the right you are. With a good cause, it’s far more effective to be peaceful unless absolutely necessary, because that maximises the number of people willing to sympathise. And even if that’s too slow of an option, there’s always targeted strikes and assassinations. Eventually the corruption will run out, so long as you’re willing to be accurate and thorough.
Terrorism is ultimately a failure of warcraft. It’s ineffective and does more to harm your cause than help, and if you want to change a broken system, there are far better ways of going about it.
@@kingol4801Bullying homelander is objectively morally correct
Im still laughing that disney expected me to feel bad walker killed a fucking terrorist who minutes ago, was about to execute walker and KILLED his best friend.
If you wield the title of captain America and do it, hell yes bro. No one got mad at iron man killing thanos and his army cause his legacy isn’t like boy scout Steve.
@androognoix1685 my brother i christ did you forget Steve wasted plenty of nazis in wwII. Not to mention he 100% would have killed Ted Skull if he could have back in the war.
@ hmmmm…….it seems you specifically mentioned only ww2 cause the saga explicitly calls out on him for his ways later. Discreet and selective
@@androognoix1685 pretty sure he killed plenty of hydra too.
@lelouche25 who fought back, not ones who gave themselves up already
Also, I believe it was was established that taking the serum could have temporary side effects like Roid Rage, so there is a very real argument that Walker wasn't in his right mind when he killed that dude since the serum was freshly administered and he was just in a huge life or death fight where his best friend died in front of him. I don't think your blood can be more UP than that. It was FAR from a corrupt cold blooded execution, or the callus act of incompetent arrogant hot-headed the show tried to frame it.
He's been SO CAUSTIOUS for his entire screen time, showing humility, respect, political decorum, military decisiveness, and willingness to take sacrifice himself to bear greater responsibility. He took it on, even though he didn't want it. *_That's what SAM should have done. What is Sam's jumping on the grenade moment? Because he doesn't give up ANYTHING to take on the shield. He doesn't sacrifice his position on not taking the serum, he doesn't sacrifice his status, security, family, position, ANYTHING! He gets it all. His family's finances are saved, he gets the shield, he doesn't need the serum, he doesn't get in trouble with Wakanda, he's better friends with bucky, What the hell did he sacrifice? Steve lost EVERYTHING!!! E V E R Y T H I N G personal to him to save the world over and over again. "The price of freedom is high, it always has been, but it's a price I'm willing to pay. I might be the only one, but I'm willing to bet I'm not"?_* Sacrifice, hope, liberty, courage, all things Steve as Captain America stood for. Walker at least TRIED, while Sam said "nah, miss me with that shit."
Well you see, cops are mean to Sam sometimes, and he can't take a loan because he got dusted away
All Sam's appearances from CA2, "I do what he does, just slower", things to that end. Could've been done _better_ in the show, agreed- but he does sacrifice things throughout his screen time in the movies.
Sam and Bucky really didn’t give a shit about Lamar, so when he died they really didn’t care that Walker was angry, what a great hero Sam is…
Based
This was my interpretation of the scene too. John watches Lamar die and takes the serum in a moment of desparation and anger, causing him to roid out.
The villain has killed countless, including those the hero cares about, puts the lives of those who disagree with him as necessary costs to reach their goal of an idealized world, and is left completely helpless, unable to fight back.
The hero just lost someone they care deeply for, failed to protect and do his honor-bound duty, and finally has a one-up on someone they were arguably even with before, and decides to kill the helpless person in a moment of blind anger to fuel revenge.
This applies as much to Thor as it does to John Walker.
If we're supposed to hate John Walker for what he did, then hold Thor equally accountable for what he did to OG Thanos. Or, say that both were justified for what they did. Just because Falcon doesn't want us to call the Flag Smashers terrorists that doesn't mean that they're blame-free.
Falcon: They aren't terrorists.
Senator: With all due respect they meet the exact definition.
@@zoobatzjr371 This is sadly something that real people do, every single time I see a breadtuber talk about something like 9/11, people in the audience will talk about how they don't like the word terrorist because it gets thrown around a lot, effectively saying they don't agree with groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS being labelled as terrorist organizations.
Actually they are blame free.
If you did not understand the point of the show, well…. There is no hope for you.
Being revolutionary is good as long as you stand for what is morally right.
To Nazis in WW2 Germany rebel jews were “terrorists”.
@kingol4801 Yeah, I feel like a lot of context was missed in all this discussion. Bucky mad at Battlestart name - they are soldiers, not supes, they didn't fight Thanos and should stop playing a game they aren't prepared for. Walker, or really "Captian America", killing someone surrendering (sorry, dude may be still armed due to super soldier, but that dude gave up), waiting to charge in on a funeral which DID HAVE INNOCENTS THERE, missing that these "terrorists" are fighting for a land that was theirs, very recently to their perspective too. John isn't as sympathetic as this video paints him. He does try, but killing that man was a character flaw.
Thor is judged differently than what Captain America is supposed to represent. Are you judging Spider-Man and Deadpool by the same ideals?
Its funny how the Falcon acts like Walker is a lost case, and at the same time, asks for tolerance and forgiveness for Carly. Doesn't even make sense, Sam is a soldier just like John.
There is another point many fail to really touch on is Walker earned Three Medal of Honors. Earning one is usually means you're dead because you faced impossible odds with bravery and heroism. He earned Three separate MOH... He was a soldier before the shield and serum, where Rogers became a soldier when he got the serum after he was done dancing and making movies. All Disney wanted to do was to make a white American soldier be the enemy. It backfired with Walker and Zemo being the best out of the series.
And apparently all in "the worst day (singular)". I recommend reading some of the real-world citations and imagining how utterly insane those 24 hours must have been. I've been trying and failing to imagine a scenario that would be sufficient.
For reference most of those posthumous MOH stories go something like "he covered the escape of allies with nothing but one machine gun, he fought for like 18 hours straight, and when they recovered his body he was surrounded by dead bad guys and had been shot 30 times and bled out literally all of his blood."
The living recipients usually did shit like capture 30 enemies single handedly or charged every single machine gun in the area or something absolutely insane like that.
If walker had all his gear Sam and Bucky would have been nothing but stained shit on a wall
You can't even get 3 medals of honor today. Rather stupid but he must've done some truly exceptional things
@@Venneroth Singlehandedly stopping an entire army like you would in a video game, multiple times?
I'm glad I'm not the only one who see John more as a sympathetic character over the bad guy they tried to make him
I feel they never tried to make him the bad guy, as we see they purposely give him. A few scenes of being himself, for example his scenes with his wife and Lemar, especially where we see himself doubting or even questioning the things he did while on service, that I feel was down on purpose, similar to how view or reactors felt about him, cause we believe he will become a villain, he is a bit disrespectful to Sam and Bucky even if at first it wasn’t intentional, he also a bit impulsive and is willing to act first before of actually thinking of a plan. He never was a villain but just an antagonist who still did the right thing. In the end he accepted he was never meant to be captain America but us agent
@@freedomwriter9688The problem is he's a better Captain America than Sam is in the show.
@@freedomwriter9688Sam and bucky was the disrespectful one, like saying his not cap because of the shield, refusing his offer on the jeep, even disrespecting his friends nickname, or the part where John helps him get out of prison and buck didn't even give him a thankyou, considering how Sam and buck are both veterans,they should've been more understanding about Walker losing a friend in combat
@@dustinbagayao2120 you are so right and valid in all what you said, but here also the thing before walker takes the serum, even though he tries his best to be Captain America he has a little bit of pride and arrogance rub both bucket and Sam the wrong way, the way he call them both Steve’s wingmen( I don’t what he call them it’s been a while since I seen the show) and when he bail Bucky of jail it look like he was showing off his status higher, he doesn’t listen to Sam when he said he was going to talk Karli in Turing her self in. He is a tragic character as he was never given the chance to prove himself being criticized by both the character and fandom
Fun fact: the original X-Men animated series irons out the mutant oppression allegory by having mutants who don’t have any superpowers, which calls into question whether or not most mutants are like that
Most mutants end up more like The Morlocks where they're legit in NEED of help. Or they somehow roll an Omega ability so wild they cannot control it at all. Like that kid Wolverine had to kill because his power was so potent yet passive that killed people just existing around him. Yet how they screw up this message is ignoring the powerless in both humans and mutant reasoning. If mutants are fighting in the middle of the city and somebody beams through a building or throws cars, etc. Who's accountable for that?
@@ExeErdna Scenarios like the one you mentioned in the end there is why the Sentinels were invented. To capture all mutants involved and… neutralize the threat. The Sentinels are supposed to be impartial in their treatment of mutants. Kill or contain them all is the goal depending on the story. But then you get things like their AI evolving or them being reprogrammed by someone like Red Skull and now they’re a problem for everyone
@@TheUncivilizedNationwhat’s interesting to note that in the original comic Trask only made them because he was legimately worried about the dangers mutants could have. As at that point mutants just started to pop up rapidly in so few years they became public knowledge. And in the same issue he realizes the horror of the sentinels and sacrifices himself to stop them.
Yet in every time he is revisited that make him worst and a hypocrite because he knowingly has mutant kids.
It's a common issue in comic and comics related media,
Hard to feel bad for mutants when all we see are super powered gods,
More goofy mutants would help
@@TheUncivilizedNation Except neutralizing individuality is the same kind of logic that Nazi/Hydra used in Captain America 2…….
Sympathetic Strawman is such a clunky term. Lets just stick with John Walker. The 'John Walker' can serve as the inverse of the 'Mary Sue.' While a Mary Sue is a character the author desperately wants the audience to love, but who is instead hated and resented for the various forms of hackneyed/failed storytelling the author used to make him/her the bestest ever, the John Walker is a character the author desperately wants the author to hate, but who is instead loved or supported because of the various forms of hackneyed/failed storytelling the author used to make him/her the worstest ever...
Rorschach would be better since he's more widely known.
A John Cena/Big Dog Roman vs Eddie Guerrero types
@@redline841❤❤❤
New Guy was one
@@experimentalchannel2259 The New Guy Effect.
15:19 If I recall correctly, after Superman was captured, Jonathan Kent has a conversation with Bruce basically telling him that while he is disappointed in his son and agrees that he needed to be stopped, he also points out that Bruce failed Clark by not being their for him.
Jonathan argues that even if Bruce thought that Clark killing The Joker was a step too far, he still should have stood next to him and try to help Clark process his grief, instead of exacerbating it by accusing him of breaking their code and driving Clark further into depression and instability.
“You held an unstoppable man to an impossible standard.”
That really doesn't apply here. Unlike Superman, John Walker is a soldier. He's killed people for his country. Superman has saved villains even when they were near death and even when he's at his lowest point (bar Lois and their baby dying). Walker was a man who took a drug that boosted his strength and speed while fucking up his brain AND just killed someone in broad daylight in front of the entire world. What do you think was gonna happen?
@@talon532 Nothing?
Walker’s brain was alright. He fought another super-soldier, and it was a battle hard fought.
And in the end, he had every right to relish in victory over his foe.
That is just classical heroism tropes.
John Walker is the writing equivalent of the "Task failed successfuly" meme
He was meant to be a hero antagonist to contrast the true heroes Bucky and Sam. And yet somehow, they succeeded in making John come off as more sympathetic than them both while Bucky and Sam came off as assholes.
However, given the way the show is obviously biased against Walker, I'm pretty sure that was an accident.
UTRH always reminds me of this line from TDKR: "How many people have I murdered by letting you live?"
What’s UTRH?
@patrickholt8782 Under The Red Hood
And TDKR means The Dark Knight Returns
damn that is a great line
Under the Red Hood is honestly the 3rd best DC film that's ever been put to screen, only behind TDRK and Superman 1. When you talk about a film being made in the gray area it really doesn't get much better than that.
I like how the wakanda police state say they can have jurisdiction wherever and when ever they see fit and it comes off like she’s the badass and walker needs to stand down.
But if it was a white cop saying the same thing to the black character it would be completely different tones
I think the crowd’s reaction to the Flag Smasher death was the oddest thing ever. At this point, JW was beloved and the Flag Smashers were a problem. Why wouldn’t they be at least relieved?
Also curious what the reaction would have been written to be if Cap beat the shit outta Iron Man with the shield in front of a crowd, or if he even would.
Oh, it's the new Captain America! I love him!
Oh, that's somebody's brains/ throat/ spinal fluid/ lungs on his shield. From somebody that was begging for mercy. That doesn't look that heroic anymore.
@@The_Viktor_Reznov when did the terrorist beg for mercy?
It's absolutely absurd that the show tries to play up the "He killed an unarmed man" angle when the guy he killed was a supervillain who was more than capable of lifting a car.
I legitimately never viewed John Walker as an antagonist. He was a hero legitimately the whole time he just had ptsd.
What's really stupid about 28 Weeks Later is that Don LITERALLY FIGHTS OFF THE INFECTED AT THE START TO ALLOW HIS WIFE TO ESCAPE.
So making him out to be a coward was even more idiotic considering he actually did risk his life trying to help.
He just wasn't willing to commit suicide to prove to no one how noble he was.
Exactly he tried to save her but saw his wife get swarmed by infected he assumed she was either dead or infected and had no reason to believe otherwise
Yeah, it's sad how dirty the script did him after the opening. Also the infection takes 30 seconds to become active and he would have likely been infected and one of his wife's killers because of it. Like what happened later after the kiss.
In my opinion, the problem that results in a sympathetic strawman is refusal to properly consider their side of the argument. In some of these cases, the strawman could work if it either encourages the audience to decide who is right for themselves, promoting deeper interaction with the film, or provides actual proper reasoning for why the villain is wrong. The problem is, in these cases the main characters either don't argue their side at all and are just assumed to be correct, or use only poor base level arguments to counter their opponent, with the show treating their argument as better than it actually is.
Worst part about all this is Steve wouldn't have agreed with the execution, BUT he would have been on Walkers side the whole time
He kills a terrorist but no one talks about Steve Rogers kicking open a door and literally mag dumping Nazi”s in the first one.
Yeah but that’s totally different because the Nazis only killed innocent people, unlike the flag smashers that… wanted to kill half the people on the planet…
I disagree with your classification of Jason Todd as a straw man. I don’t think that the film is trying to say that he’s wrong, only that Batman thinks he’s wrong. It’s a similar theme as in Batman: Hush, where at the climax Batman can’t let a villain die and he only survives because catwoman kills the villain and gets him to safety. Batman made the objectively wrong choice, because there is no possible way that he could have saved the villain, and in trying he would have died too. But he still couldn’t let him die, because he’s *Batman*. I interpreted Under the Red Hood as doing something similar. It wasn’t portraying Batman’s position as morally justified, only that he would never compromise on it because it’s a core part of his character.
Part of the problem is most writers forget to flesh out why Bats won’t kill. Well that and Bats is one of the few comic characters that are constantly challenged on that.
We don't fucking speak about the animated hush movie that shit was ass
Which is actually really weird because Batman once said “ Just because I won’t kill you doesn’t mean I have to save you”
@@mohammadhosseini6675 Yeah, that… That was stupid.
I think its a 50/50. On one hand, they often portray it as 'Jason just wants revenge on Batman and the Joker, and this is an excuse', but also that his criticisms are valid. The issue is that he blames Batman for what happened, and Batman, who has a lot of guilt about the situation, cannot deny that blame, even if its misguided.
Batman is not the only person with a no kill rule, the issue is that his villains are always pressing the limits, and he is incredibly stubborn about it. Nobody really points at Flash and goes 'Why doesnt he just kill Captain Boomerang' (Thawn doesnt count because the writers know they can just bring him back), or Superman incinerating Dictator and part-time Race Supremecist Zod instead of putting him in the Phantom Zone, aka the other revolving door of DC Prisons. Batman just gets flack because 10% of his Rogues are serial killers that the court refuse to punish. Realistic Criminals who we know should die. I dunno why, 'This guy tortured and killed 5 people' is more persecutable than 'This guy literally enslaves planets for a living'.
Theres also the running issue of modern writers missing the entire point of Batman and making him some edgy loner whos just as mentally ill as his rogues, which doesnt help perception of him.
Similar reasoning explains why Rorschach became a fan favorite.
Thats how i felt well my English was trying to explain why hes a bad guy well also explaining his detication and backstory
It actually baffles me on how Rorschach was supposed to be morally grey he was an absolute moralist who never blinked for even a second, like was he supposed to have some negative traits?
Literally the only time a really disagreed with rorschach during the film was right at the end where he wants to tell the world the truth instead of let peace prevail but even then I can understand and sympathize with his position
Didn’t he let his teammate get assaulted because he thought she deserved it?
@@assadsvengeance9952 I personally see that as the ultimate embodiment of virtue that even utopia built upon one sin can’t be given moral justification. It’s really what people means when they say you should do something right just because it’s right. even if doing what is moral makes you lose everything, and changes nothing about the world you should still pursue virtue for the sake of virtue you it’s self. It’s honestly the closest thing you can get to true martyrdom as you can get while the world may despise you for it, you still did what was right, which to me really puts Roshak up there with some of the greatest heroes. But yeah I get what your saying to.
this was probably the last peice of marvel content i watched before dropping them entirely only coming back to see what toby maguires spider man is up to. this show was all it took for me to see the direction marvel was going.
God damn, this video really indoctrinated & polarized enough ppl to have this cognitive perception against the movie, especially John Walker himself within the movie.
@@godzillazfriction What?
@@ltb1345 I think it's pretty clear... buddy.
@@godzillazfriction It's pretty clear you aren't of sound mind.
@@Lysvsyl projection...
I'm probably using the terms wrong, but I've seen it as a rise of the watsonian vs doylist. More and more modern writers are focused on communicating their themes and views, and lacking understand or care that the logic of the world is ignored or even contradicted.
All writers everywhere have always been focused on getting themes across.
@@cthulhuman6162 to the failure of telling the story. too much focus on subtext that is not at all subtle while the plot is paper thin, lacks internal consistence and fails to entertain.
@@cthulhuman6162 say that to Tolkien and his worldbuilding
@@cthulhuman6162
Don't be obtuse. You know what he's trying to say.
@@mephostoId say its moreso the themes are badly communicated, as in the end “inconsistency” really doesnt matter as long as its not noticable. We tell and read stories for ideas and themes expressed in plot and characters, not a perfectly logical math equation
Similar phenomenon with Rorschach from Watchmen. Literally designed as an absurd caricature of right winger beliefs; ended up being the only compelling and well remembered character from that comic.
It's because at the end he was the only one who stood up against a literal God, he was a man unwilling to let a massacre occur
If you are talking about the movie version, i agree but comic is another thing
Reposting something I said in another comment because I think it fits here too:
The problem with Rorschach is that, by his own admission, his moral righteousness is only him trying to cope with the fact that life has no meaning. He is a boiling pot of hatred and rage who kills people for an ideology he doesn't even believe, and is incapable of perceiving any level of nuance or sympathy for people who have been hurt. Whether or not we agree with his actions is one thing, but his motivations are selfish and shallow. The book doesn't even portray him as "wrong" in the final conflict, since we have Mr. Manhattan telling Oz to his face that his plan will fail - because that's not relevant. It doesn't matter if Rorschach's actions are justifiable or not, because all he is is a man who seeks out violence against those he feels are worth less than him in order to appease his own sense of cosmic insignificance. He's a horrible person who just so happens to be doing the right thing a lot of the time.
@LazarNaskov Is the "why" of someone's actions really that relevant though? Your actions and their effects are what will stay with the people around you, not your inner turmoil. I feel that if someone is doing the right thing, complaining that their motivation isn't pure enough is missing the point.
@@YoshiTheyosh123 Ehhh I don't like a lot of the consequences of consequentialism, so I would say that motivations are relevent. Plus, I'd argue that a lot of what Rorscharch does isn't the "right choice", as he's often violent and impulsive.
This is exactly what the MCU fucks up, Civil War is in the same boat. If your name isn’t in the title, you are not allowed to have any nuance or sympathy. The heroes are treated as just that, heroes. They can’t be wrong because that’s what bad guys are. You aren’t allowed to have a grounded argument through your speeches as the villain solely because you aren’t the hero.
The problem is that modern writers genuinely believe the good guys are the bad guys.
And the mass murderers are just misunderstood
@@georgechapman9688 damn both of you just read my mind.
It's what happens when you poll from a group of nepo babies that think rules are for thee
Modern writers are part of the bad guys.
Even in real life, haven't we saw all the articles on human rights violations by El Salvador when literally no one give a damn when the triads were killing the country with drugs and trafficking.
100%, though the Red Hood section is a little off. In the film, Batman basically says, "I WANT to kill Joker. I want to kill all of them," implying that Batman's rage and desire for justice would turn him into a monster if he broke the rule, because there would be literally nothing holding him back anymore. He wouldn't *stop* at Joker if he crossed the line, because the line isn't reasonable, it is unending rage.
Characters like these are sad reminder that our culture and in result our society is set by people with moral compass that is broken and divorced from reality.
That's not a fact. It depends on what you define as a moral compass.
@@michaelknox3715For the USA it is at least
True.
@@michaelknox3715 just because morality is subjective doesn't mean you can't hold people to standard. Him smashing a dude to death is bad, but so is being a terrorist who wants half the population to disappear again.
lol
I always spared Logan in Fable 3 because he well, wasn't wrong and had valuable experience, knowhow and knowledge for my future rule.
If Logan also had access to a literal magic money room like we do, none of the conflict would have happened 😅
I ended up doing just off of pure pragmatism. He's a good commander and a threat to the world is coming. He just can't be the guy in overall command.
@possiblepuzzles8137 or just became a landlord. Literally all he had to do.
It makes sense for the military or the government to choose Walker as Cap rather than Sam. Sam hasn’t served in years, he took Cap’s side when Cap went against the establishment. Walker is a career soldier who is dependable and also has a friend he can rely on.
Now, aside from having been a superhero, Sam doesn’t bring much to the table. And even the superhero bit had no transferable skills he can use to take Cap’s mantle. He just flew around, he didn’t really fight anyone hand to hand for the most part. In fact, Bucky would be a far better candidate but his past is very sketchy and that could actually be a really interesting plot . We could see Bucky trying to redeem himself to the public but instead we got this.
I always found it weird how they made such a big deal of John killing a terrorist when Cap and Bucky both fought in WWII and killed hundreds of nazis by themselves.
We literally see Steve and Bucky in mutiple battle fields killing people in the first avenger and Steve throws whole motor cycle at a group of soliders in age of ultron. 💀
…… because you missed the whole point of they show.
“Terrorism” is a definition when somebody rises up against the government and fails.
“Rightful Rebels” is the definition when they succeed.
Captain America was “terrorist”, as far as Nazi regime was concerned. It is a matter of perspective.
But he fought for what was RIGHT, and that made him the hero.
Same thing here. Those people were FIGHTING for their freedoms and rights. They were on the morally right side…. Used extreme methods, but were morally justified.
You missed the ENTIRE POINT of the show. System became corrupt, and real terrorists were the governments, not the rebels.
Walker was a nice dog for the governments and killed somewhat misguided rebels. THAT is why he is the “bad guy”.
Whereas Cap had every justification to rise up and invade foreign lands (disrespecting the autonomy of Nazi Germany) to exercise his brand of justice…. Because he was fighting for the morally right side.
Morality will always trump legality, and yes, battle for freedom is always messy.
If goverment makes unjust actions, yes, rebellion SHOULD morally brew.
As in V for Vendetta: “Governments should be afraid of their own people, not the other way around”
@@kingol4801 morally justified by bombing innocent people? are you high?
@@V3RAC1TY let's think about what happened to certain cities in Japan and Germany during ww2
@@quorryraphael9980 _____ of nanking. I can't even say the first word. Also the literal ww2 Germans were disgusted with how inhumane the Japanese were to prisoners.
@@TheBurningcage27 so your argument is that the civilians in those cities weren't innocent because their military and government perpetuated horrific war crimes
I remember star wars expanded universe/legends did this with general grevious(canon did him way dirty) where he's supposed to be at best a sympathetic villain but even though it was the sith that crashed his ship and mutilated him and not the jedi and republic like he believed there's still the fact that the republic and jedi sent boots on the ground to help the huk slavers enslave his people(the kaleesh) for the crime of fighting against the huk slavers who were invading their world and afterwards causing a famine on kalee, grevious is entirely justified in hating the republic and jedi and the fact that the CIS affiliated banking clans agreed to give relief aid to kalee in exchange for grevious leading the CIS droid army entirely justifies him fighting for the separatists
According to legends Grievous' civillian killcount is in the billions (info from ROTS novelization). Just want to add that since I think it adds to the comment, but I agree that it's pretty good justification for his hatred
Grievous was one of my favorite characters in the EU. Lucas's initial idea was that each film's primary antagonist would in some way mirror Vader: a being consumed by hatred (Maul), a fallen Jedi still convinced he was doing the right thing (Dooku), and a good man driven to do horrible things for revenge (Grievous). He just kinda forgot those things when he greenlit Clown Wars (no that isn't a typo).
@@AJadedLizard I generally liked clone wars 2008 but they did grevious way dirty and the show generally couldn't decide between being a kids show or something for young adults
@@assadsvengeance9952 I've not made it past the second episode; it's got too much concentrated stupid for me. I've seen bits and pieces and it's got some of the worst dialogue of anything I've ever seen, alongside a cartoonishly simplistic view of warfare and how militaries work. (Never forget Pong Krell's grand plan in what's considered The Best Story Ever involved him getting a couple squads of clones to Blue on Blue each other in the hopes Dooku would take him as his apprentice. That's just stupid).
@@AJadedLizard it gets better as the seasons go on, the first couple of seasons are more for kids and it becomes more mature over time, and as far as things go with pong krell that was far from the only thing he did since he was known for having some of the most atrocious amount of casualties among republic forces(he did so purposely in order to kill more clones and weaken the GAR as a whole) and in his arc he was planning to send the clones on a suicide charge against the enemy stronghold which would have either been a crushing defeat at worst or a phyrric victory at best for republic forces on umbara
There's one more cause for the sympathetic strawman that you didn't mention: The writers thinking is so unreasonable that the reasonable person is the villain in their mind.
My favorite part of this conversation is asking what Steve would have done in the exact same spot.
Yo, that is literally my favorite MCU related the video on youtube, thanks for reposting
another thing. when walker tells lamars family that the flag smasher he killed is the one that killed lamar, hes trying to give them some kind of solace in the fact that lamar was at least avenged and went down fighting. much better than saying "ope, this other terrorist killed him, we have no idea where she is and we're also still trying to be peaceful with them. Your son's killer will probably get away with it."
Walker is single-handedly my favorite character in all of phase 4. He is the right man to inherit the mantle/shield/title of Captain America, and he still is in my eyes.
Soldier Boy did the same shield stab technique and everyone laughed at it. When John Walker does it, MCU stans immediately hate him for this. It seems like this show knows a bit too much about the internet and John Walker became my favorite MCU character.
While I do agree that John Walker doesn't deserve the crap he gets, Soldier Boy isn't exactly a becon of heroics.
@@beastwarsFTW soldier boy did the thing to a person who gave him away to enemies.
Walker may not be Steve Rogers, but he's my Captain America.
There's an argument to be made that Batman doesn't kill because he understands that he isn't mentally stable and without those lines he runs the risk of becoming as dangerous as Joker.
As for 28 Weeks Later...yeah I don't disagree but the whole film is so stupid I can't care about that specifically. What bugs me more is why the infected don't attack each other? With zombies it makes sense that they don't try to eat each other because they're drawn to living flesh. The infected are suppose to be hyper crazed to the point they don't even keep themselves alive. So how do they know who is and isn't infected and why does that make any difference?
I can't figure out why they don't dehydrate in a matter of hours with all the blood they vomit up.
That's the "modern" interpretation of Batman they use in the Harley Queen show and other "modern" slop. Batman doesn't kill simply because he believes in humanity's ability to do good. For Batman, redemption is possible for everyone, and this is also seen in Owlman, who has zero faith in humanity (f that evil Alfred version, that's also modern slop)
@@nicolaspaquet-delisle2299 that is just absolutely incorrect
Because the virus would be sending signals off in some way to prevent that, otherwise the virus would kill itself off the first couple people that got infected.
Yeah I too was confused as to why the show was insistent on villainizing Walker. All he did was accept a job and wanted to help the best he could.
Edit: they should've made him into a dollar store Homelander now that I think about it. An arrogant prick who only accepted the role of Captain America for purely selfish gain. He's the one undermining Sam and Bucky's help, not the other way around. His mistakes are entirely on him. It was probably the easiest way to make him be the villain the show wants us to see him as and would make his redemption arc at the end be more impactful
True, if they wanted him to be hated, maybe not make him seem like such a nice guy. Make him an ego centric dickhead, or something.
Because that does kinda make him the villain of the story, he may not be an outright bad guy, but to the viewer he's taking captain America's role when he shouldn't and proceeds to taint that role by killing a surrendering enemy
I have to assume at least one of the writers there believed in walker or was setting him up for US agent because they did such a good job of characterizing him and making you like him, maybe they had plans to make him an antagonist but I’m sure they had his end goal of being a hero as US agent in mind
@@freshlyfishedbread5567I just didn’t see it that way, Karlie was so unbelievably unlikable and we literally just watched his best friend get murdered. These guys are super soldiers, it’s not like they wouldn’t be able to break him out and just kill more people if he arrested him, maybe you shouldn’t kill someone surrendering but he just watched his best friend die, ofc he’s not going to be thinking rationally
Except none of Homelander’s actions are his fault.
They were ENGINEERED into him. He is completely crazy, but any being would be after the extent and lengths humanity went to break him.
I am surprised he is not Brightburn or a feral child grown up, given the depths of cruelty and torturous coercion he experienced.
I didn’t realize this had gone down. Hopefully it stays up; it’s a pretty good one.
The worst part about all of this to me is how they’ll push Sam being Captain America down your throat, but they won’t give any time of day to an original black character like Battlestar. And yes, I understand Battlestar is basically a cap offshoot character, but so is Falcon, and so is Eli Badley Patriot and I LOVE Patriot
Once again, the Don is blamed for no justifiable reason. Man just can’t catch a break.
They did my boy dirty. He was just trying to get back out there after getting over his wife dying of cancer. And you know he took a minute to hype himself up and she just broke his hand and stole the bike he rebuilt from scratch to keep his mind occupied.
@@TheSolidSnakeOil He was trying to find a new mother to love his infirm daughter as much as he does (she has a degenerative bone disease). He thought he found that in Captain Marvel, but he was wrong (she broke his wrist and stole his bike and jacket).
This just passed my feed. This series actually killed the MCU for me.
I had been on the edge since infinity war.
That movie has one of the greatest mistakes cinema history in it.
Steve should have been snapped, not Bucky.
Broken Bucky, forced back into war and loosing his only stable connection to the world would have forced him to lean on the others. He could have taken up the shield, to atone. He would have to work with Tony. The man who never got to really confront his parents killer, never got that closure.
By time this show came around he would have been more stable. Then Bucky could have just been a catty B about walker and the shield (have Sam play referee not whiner) but at the end when Walker has his PTSD meltdown, Bucky could have actually had a moment of “oh shit” and stepped in to help. Because who would understand loosing your anchor like that like Bucky.
It could have been framed more as “you did it on camera, let us help” and not “killing is wrong, imma beat you to death”.
I didn’t even finish watching Loki and I don’t think I saw any MCU movie after this show.
Captain America literally shot and killed HUNDREDS of people during and after the war.
He also faced deep emotional turmoil and didn't always cope in a healthy manner. (Remember how he tried to get drunk to ease the pain of losing his best friend during the war?)
To believe he was a flawless pacifist who never killed even a fly is straight up delusional. 😂
Yeah I’m 99% sure Cap has the mentality of “I’m not a fan of killing, but I will not hesitate to put you down like a dog if I need to.”
Not perfect, but he was also raised in the 30’s so I wouldn’t be surprised.
In injustice it’s Wonder Woman that pushes him to go further n further I remember in the game she was just evil basically and in the movie pushed him until he killed that factory of joker supporters
She was not evil. She just embodied the beliefs of her father (literal divinity, being Zeus).
Morality is subject to time and place. WW in Injustice is the embodiment of what divinity represents, and just because people changed their beliefs and morals that does not mean that her (or Zeus’s perspective) are not valid.
That is just collectivist thinking, and it is wrong.
john walker actually deserves the shield compared to falcon
He doesn’t, no one deserves that shield right now.
That is incorrect. Only She Hulk deserves the shield.
And that is not ironic.
Falcon messed up in conclusion. Good spirit, but all those words were just sent to the void.
Bucky is too traumatized to be anything sensible.
Walker is uncharismatic buffoon.
Only She Hulk is worthy of the shield. (And Captain Marvel, because of her heroism).
There is objectively no pain which is remotely comparable to She Hulk’s. Daily oppression affects mental health far worse than some “boys play war” nonsense.
When you are invincible, war becomes a joke…. It is trivial at best and you are completely detached from any stakes… which is a virtue. You can focus on the actual things that are important then, instead of crying and sobbing.
Daily oppression is far worse, because being forced to coexist with others in an unwelcoming way would just any invincible being to their wit’s ends.
“Sticks and stones don’t hurt me, but words do” - Homelander.
She Hulk, Captain Marvel… any heavy-hitter in Marvel is instantly more justified than any of those street-level jokes.
@@kingol4801lmao yea I don't think marvel is ever going to pick up Ms marvel or she hulk again. She hulk was terrible 😂 and well Ms marvel sucked ass too
When Bucky kills Iron Man’s family under the control of Hydra, the movie makes such a big deal over how reasonable Tony’s rage is against him. You watch the final fight in Civil War and think, “this is just amazing”, because the movie does a good job of establishing how both sides think they are right and justified in their actions.
This show tried to do the same thing by “humanizing” the flag smashers, and yet completely forgot that Walker’s big bad evil moment was literally what IRON MAN was “RIGHTFULLY” trying to do a few movies prior- against a very dangerous, very guilty, no-remorse man who has JUST killed the loved one.
……
Iron Man was right and Walker was wrong.
As Homelander said “popularity is king”. If you are popular, you can do whatever you want and it will be OK.
Go through enemies and massacre them like in video games… and you are still the HERO at the end.
Movie logic.
If you are not popular, well, time to fly under the bus. Bucky, Walker, whatever
It just makes sense.
Which is why I really like Homelander’s title of “greatest Superhero”….. because he is. He is the greatest. Not the right kind of greatest (think Zeus being the greatest god of Olympus), but greatest nonetheless.
If you have popularity, you are rightful. If you do not, you are wrong.
It is clear individual-driven perspective on justice and it works.
@@kingol4801
Wtf you on about?
Ooof, bad take from both of you. Ironman was not in the "right". Hell, the movie's name is Captian America: Civil War to remind you what side you should root for. Sure, from a layman, we can see why Ironman would want to kill his parents' assassin, but from a morally good perspective, we know that revenge killing is wrong. If Ironman was concerned about doing the right thing, he would have wanted Bucky to face some kind of justice, but he didn't. Through the whole movie, Ironman scapegoats, manipulates, and takes justice into his own hands.
@@isabellross6110
The op said "reasonable" that means we can reasonably somewhat understand how he felt at that moment and what motivated his actions right then and there which we can sympathise with.
Also the movie doesn't take anyone's side directly cause the stuff both sides do are wrong individually or questionable at least
(If you had taken Civil war comics Iron man then I would have agreed no questions asked
but this MCU one , as comics ones does more of a f up all the way)
Also Tony doesn't manipulate them , he poses a question and answers with a predetermined answer of his own
The predetermined answer part was wrong cause Tony tends to focus narrowly on one thing if it bothers him
Till he comes to an answers and prioritizes it as the only answer (which is a character flaw as it is same thing he did to create ultron in the first place , make vision and then this)
Also he doesn't scapegoat anyone as he is ready to take responsibility and ready to make the whole team take too
as government controlled heroes which isn't a very bright idea but it seemed to be the only way he thought he could take responsibility
So that doesn't work
He does try to talk "sense" into them giving his reasoning which are justified but the answer that he has for thay isn't , so he doesn't exactly manipulate them.
Also taking Justice in own hands is what he is against most of the movie by being government super heroes aided by them
For which he tries to stop Cap team to stop them
The only times he takes the things in his own hands were to aid cap going with Bucky and Zemo and tries to take Revenge when finds out about his parents death.
Tbf his crash out is totally understood , also his given conflict with himself regarding being gov supes and best friend's getting crippled doesn't help his mental state
I wouldn't say he's right to do it but that crashout is something very understandable
Not to mention Cap saying he understands Tony
Which being the entire plot Civil War , Tony thinking is Either cap doesn't understands his reasoning or if cap does then why he doesn't support Tony for it
But rn Cap saying something like "I understand how you feel" feels condescending to Tony
Cause either he doesn't feel the way Tony does regarding his parents death or if he does understands yet still has the nerve to try to calm him down/be totally okay with , seeming condescending to Tony leading to his 1v2 fight.
Now Cap is a soldier and knows that it isn't exactly Bucky' fault and does feel bad for their Death
But tells Tony what he would usually tell a fellow soldier if someone close to them dies/see someone close to them die
That "He understands what Tony is going through"
(to keep things logical and grounded to make smart/logical decisions in combat or other cases)
The problem is that Tony is his friend but not a fellow soldier with the mental health of a "Billionaire Alcohol addicted individual who just found out his parents were murdered and the person is right in front of him"
So well that isn't going to turn out well
Although would say Cap isn't exactly wrong but bad circumstances mixed with bad choices can lead to disasters
@lordrj4203 No, he wasn't manipulating the other side. That isn't what I was referring to when I mentioned it. He manipulated and blackmailed a kid with his secret identity. Pretty fucked up to do just to win the scapegoat fight. He wanted to hand over jurisdiction because he no longer wanted to take responsibility for his own failings. That is established in the first 30 minutes of the movie really.
Sure, vigilantes are taking justice into their own hands 100% of the time, but in comics and movies, the population accepts this because they are usually not out here killing people, the thing I mean when Ironman is in the wrong. Notice how Cap still fights Ironman despite Ironman's motivation. It is because, as human, we know that justice would mean holding the people responsible, not killing someone who isn't. Time and time again, through Age of Ultron and Civil War, we are shown that Ironman has a character flaw that makes less of a hero than Cap. That because Cap is the example. That is why Johnny is vilified. Reasonable or not, we know that what he did was wrong.
I love the X-Men, but the comparison to opressed minorities was always deeply flawed for me. Many Mutants are legitimately immensely powerful.
Dude I aways though the same like ok I can see a parallel with racism but other than that I think it's a big stretch to compare the struggles of most minorities with X-Men because unlike the X-Men universe a gay guy can't level a damm city or change the magnetic poles of the planet.
It wasn't even a comparison at first, it was just outcasts in general when they were first created. The X-Men were created in order to help fight off evil mutants who thought themselves superior to humanity (Magneto starting out as one of them before later writers gave him his backstory of being a survivor of the... special showers in germany).
I'm not 100% familiar with X-Men canon so maybe they already did this but I've always thought the idea of mutants being oppressed minorities would have worked better if only some mutants had powers like the X-Men and Magneto and the majority were like Break. No actual super powers and very obviously not human.
The oppressed minority angle was kind of added on after the fact when Claremont started writing the book. His run was good, but it caused some inconsistencies since the stories clearly wasn't intended to be that. The Magneto = Malcom X thing kinda falls apart when canonically he's committed acts of terror that would make Bin Laden blush.
@@azamonra many mutants in the comics do have really shit/obviously inhumane powers that functionally useless without a lot of training at best, and permanently debilitating and life altering at worst
I haven't played that far into Fable 3, but is there no one in that game that in relation to the "tyrannical" choices to side with Logan and prepare for the Darkness suggests that we repeal the laws once the threat has been dealt with? Like, yeah, we can't damn well have the 8-12 year olds _fighting_ the wars, but with training and some supervision, they'll be capable of at least _making the weapons_ for the adults to use. Let's defeat the Darkness and _THEN_ we'll ban child labour.
They did this in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. It was depicted as a sad moment, but a VERY necessary decision to take "every able-bodied man and strong lad able to bear arms" to prepare for the encroaching army of Orcs numbering in the tens of thousands. Helms Deep was manned by a few hundred soldiers, for reference. It was shown to be a sad scene where we see 70-80 year old men clad in armour and 12-14 year old children carrying axes around while their mothers begged for the soldiers not to take their children, but this was the people of Rohan pushed to the very peak of their desperation as they faced the end of their lives. Every man, woman and child sheltered in Helms Deep was one night away from complete slaughter, they had no other choice than to take everything they had
Weirdly Logan is not the tyrannical side..Everything you find out about him is consider a middle road. In fact the person telling you the choices basically says in a sense "Or you can get more money by being worse the Logan."
He aint no saint,but he aint the evil path either.
@@Carzeyday What I mean is that you're given two options, right? Good and bad? Paragon/Renegade like in Mass Effect?
@@TOONYBOY Fable 3 is one of the few games a middle road is possible.
You are given the choice to lower taxs, keep them as logan did or go even higher to the point people actually become poor.
There is no middle road all the time but some of these are choices Logan would not amuse.
@@Carzeyday Huh. That sounds like something that should be mentioned in this video, because that doesn't sound like the Sympathetic Strawman trope. The whole reason that trope is erroneous in the first place is because it attempts to make a reasonable person look bad, but accomplishes the opposite, whereas it sounds like Fable is going out of its way to highlight that Logan isn't the pure evil tyrant we assume he is
@@TOONYBOY It is quite clear the game is saying ":It is easy to judge em, now try being better." Since you are given good karma for sparing him at the trail even If the people boo you.
I think another note about the Walker killing the unarmed terrorist thing that gets forgotten, is that this terrorizer was a super soldier. Being unarmed means nothing as their body is now a weapon. Anyone else (minus Bucky) wouldn’t likely be able to do what Walker did without the serum
What i got from watching the series is that John, Sam and Bucky were all at fault for different reasons. Sam and Bucky were simply pissed by the fact that this stranger was chosen to replace their dear friend;
John's fault was that he was simply not ready to fill the shoes of Cap, he let his emotions get in the way and wasn't able to think straight under stress, wich is ridiculous since he wasn't a recruit, but an experienced soldier with a lot of combat experience.
They should have presented Walker as a cold blooded professional who never questions orders and only cares about accomplishing the mission, no natter the cost.
I finished this show, and immediately cancelled Disney+. It was that bad.
The real kicker was after the final fight. The terrorist lady gets shot and dies, while Hill also gets shot, but is alive.
Who does sam pick up and carry out? The dead terrorist murderer, seemingly to use as an object lesson in his little political rant. He doesn't even ask if Hill is Ok as far as I remember, just leaves her there.
Absolute stupidity.
That's Sharon Carter, not Maria Hill.
i was wondering why this video wasnt showing as being watched, glad you were able to get this back out it was a great video
Another excellent example of the John Walker Effect aka Sympathetic Strawman, are the Kens in the Barbie Movie. The filmmakers and writers want you to see the Kens as the Antagonists in this situation, as men who want to opress because they discovered the Patriarchy.
But that's not how they come across because in Barbie society, the Kens are the oppressed party. They are homeless slaves to the Barbies, only existing for the sake of the Barbies. They have no agency or autonomy, no power whatsoever. So when Ryan Gosling's Ken encounters the real world, he is awestruck by the equality and opportunities he sees here (the movie fails to paint the real world as a "Toxic Patriarchy.").
Ken Gosling returns to the Barbie world to liberate the other Kens and promote Equality. They even devise a Democracy in Barbie Land, which would benefit everyone.
But instead the Barbies take that all away, and reinstate the systemic Sexism, even excluding the Kens from having any democratic power.
The media coverage surrounding this movie tries to delegitimize the John Walker Effect, but that didn't stop Ryan Gosling for being awarded.
I disagree ever so slightly, because in the Barbie world they paint the real world as the cartoonish patriarchy that, sadly, many feminists see the world as, despite that objectively not being the case. Ken doesn't really bring "equality" as he still makes it so that the barbie's serve the Kens as opposed the Ken's serving the Barbies. I see it more as a warning that just because your the oppressed doesn't mean you can't eventually become the oppressor. But yeah the barbie movie makes me sympathize for the Kens way more than the barbies, especially at the end when everything goes back to how it use to and presumably the Kens are still homeless. Like, if THATS what the movie is trying to say is the ideal world when women run things, then I think you just spawned even more misogynistic men.
@@DANBAN119 I get what you're saying. The general point is that the people behind the film (and the media that praises and defends the film) is trying to push this idea that the Kens are the antagonists, and turned the Kens into a strawman fallacy in order to sell the film's message. And articles were raised blaming fans for sympathizing with the Kens. There were even people telling women to dump their male partners if they sympathize with Ken.
@@DANBAN119 If you breakdown the Kens and the Barbies into how LA itself is you see the problem. The Ken are clearly the homeless that roam the beach areas that they CLAIM doesn't exist. Where the Barbies are in the Hills, living in villas and have dynamic job freedom. That's where the problem lies they legit made the homeless out as the oppressor
@@DANBAN119 The movie is not making serious commentary on how a matriarchy would work. Outside of their hobbies the Barbies are supposed to be a caricature of men, while the Kens are supposed to be a caricature of women (atleast in their position before Ken finds out about patriarchy and after he gives up on it)
@@taqresu5865 Wow, didn't even know that bit about media hating on people sympathizing with the Kens.
Wanda: You break the rules, and is held a hero. I break them, and I'm the villain. That doesn't seem fair.
MCU Shills: YASS KWEEN!!
John Walker: (Breaths)
MCU shills: (Bully, attack and cancel the actual actor on Twitter).
Whoa,is this true?What the hell did people do to Wyatt
I really like Walker because it showed what would realistically would happen If you actually tried to fill the position of captain America’s with anyone else. Walker sees that himself and trying to do so ruins his life
I love how writers just expect us to go along with whatever message they have in mind, ignoring the fact that readers also have what is called rationality and common sense
Yep, instead of building Sam to be the next Captain, the series somehow made John walker a more compelling character than Sam or Bucky instead.
I don't know how they fuck things up this hard, but I'm glad at least we have another good character in the universe, just hope some competent writer know how to use him in the future.
Can't agree with the Red Hood example. It raises an interesting point, but you're forgetting that Batman isn't a government agent. He's a vigilante. There are lines he doesn't cross because he lacks the authority and rather critically needs the police to trust him. You're also slightly missing Bruce's issue. Sure, it's just deleting (censored for TH-cam) the Joker now, but the same logic of just offing the rest of the Rogues Gallery makes just as much sense. They get out, cause chaos, and Batman catches them. Rinse and repeat. The Joker is just the one Jason has a grudge against. The question is why no one in the GCPD just offed the Joker or why Jason didn't do it himself. If it was that important, Jason's wasted a lot of time and lives going on a deleting spree to get at the Joker instead of just going straight for him. It would be just as simple to set up a general breakout at Arkham and take Joker out in the chaos. Or just break in and delete him. It makes Jason here interesting, but his point is pretty weak.
To be fair, Jason is... not alright in the head at the best of times.
Exactly. The only reason Batman has the trust of the Police is that he isnt Judge, Jury and executioner.
Counterpoint: Jason has the perfect setup for the Insanity plea so he’ll face no real consequences just as easily as Joker does
@@arnowisp6244 Sorry this argument doesn't work considering Gotham is so messed up that a billionaire had to start fighting crime for anything to actually get done.
Batman doesn't need the police, the police need Batman.
And besides Batman has the entire criminal underworld wanting him dead, why would he fear the police department.
Plus the public would be on Batman's side since all the weekly death marathons the villains keep trying would be over since he would kill them all.
Loomar went over this in the pinned comment of the original, so I’ll paraphrase it here: Red Hood is not the sympathetic strawman in that example, the example was brought up because Batman could not come up with a compelling argument to counter Red Hood’s ideology.
I've watched this video three times in total now. Twice on the original, and one more to support the reupload. It's just that good.
I'm lowkey glad this got re-uploaded because I always seen it and meant to watch it but never did till now
That show made Sam so unlikable. When he was introduced in Winter Soldier, he was helping people getting over PTSD and was ready to help people in need. The show just changed the character for the worst.
Its honestly bullshit that John walker was treated like a psychopath, while steve was treated like Jesus. Steve is not jesus, he even said it himself in the first film "I dont want to kill anyone, I just want to do what's right". If he had to kill someone, he will kill someone. John walker although in thst specific moment didn't necessarily need to keep bashing his sheild in the terrorist's head, he's kill was justified. That terrorist could have escaped and killed many more if john hadnt done such a thing.
I think Chloe from Miraculous Ladybug is something similar. She had many sympathetic and interesting points but the major writer decided to damn her to evil writing.
That whole show is damned by terrible writing. Hell, Adrien has more qualities to be the main character as he has a motivation for being a hero beyond being altruistic since it lets him act in a way he never got to because of his father. He has the secret connection to the main villain, his villainous side was much more terrifying in comparison, and many other points in his favor.
What really makes me not like Marinette is the fact she is a severe stalker who likes to sniff Adrien's clothes. The fact that another character does exactly what she does and is called a creep but the show acts like it's fine when she does it is bonkers. Oh and the annoying "I'm just a normal girl" but she is in a very successful bakery while designing clothes for actual models and is one of the most popular people around shows that isn't true.
Sorry about the rant, this show is a lot like RWBY where the potential was there but the actual writers did a bad job to the point I only watch it to understand what happens in the fanfics (which a vast majority of are much better written)
Thats much different from this case. Chloe is written as evil and comes off as evil. They give her redemptions but go back to making her evil. If the bad writing made her come off as good unintentionally then this would be similar
@@omnipresentl1316No no you've got a point
@@omnipresentl1316I stopped watching after season 2? I think. Saw it going downhill from there.
idk if i forgot or repressed the fact i watched this show but man, what a roller coaster to be reminded of how horrible the writers were in this
Honestly would love a movie about Walker trying to be the next Cap and people giving him shit for it and realize they need him more than ever.
Reminds me of the kill monger effect witch is “oh no the villain has a point have them blow up a building”
This isn’t a critique on the show solely (it has a lot of problems), but one critique I have with the whole MCU structure right now with the mantle of captain America is that they very quickly gave it to falcon.
On its own, it would have been fine, but when they introduced Walker, throughout the show I found him very engaging.
He was shown to surprisingly a humble man (saying things like he can’t replace Rogers etc) and displays very positive attributes. Like when after the killing incident, he asks falcon and Bucky if they’re ok, and overall tries to be friendly towards them. And even though he wasn’t a Boy Scout like Rogers, overall, he had more positives than negatives. However, he is a product of the US government. As in the position he is in, is part of the US, and obeys their order.
If he was kept as Captain for a bit longer, it would have been a nice mirror to Rogers. Someone who by comparison, is more normal and less perfect, and at least for the most part, will listen to his superiors.
Falcon as of right now seems to be playing a very similar role to Rogers, as seen at the end of the show and trailers from his movies. As of right now, the only difference i see with him is a jetpack and no powers. Walker was without a doubt, the most interesting part of the show.
And this is based on another comment somewhere here, it would have been a nice contrast if he was a mirror of Bucky and mental health, where he neglects it after his friends death, slowly leading to him crumbling. But Bucky on the other hand has a friend and therapist (a better one than the one in the show, I hope) and thus is able to further improve himself.
John Walker is more of a Captain America than Falcon ever will
I think it would have worked if the flag smashers hadnt killed anyone in their attacks. If they only destroyed infrastructure and had only fought sam and walker in defence, to escape, never trying to kill anyone. Walker killing that guy would have been a bad call, due to the dude not actually hurting anyone
I’d love to see a side by side breakdown between walking killing the guy after his friend died and Steve killing the hydra guy after he thought Bucky died. It’s the same scene but steve is the hero and Walker is the bad guy.
I think the issue is the writers think the flag smashers are sympathetic whereas Hydra is not. The flag smashers are in reality just as bad as hydra except they are weaker and less organized.
Part of me feels like Steve Rogers would’ve liked John Walker (as the show is written) on some level. I think he would’ve not agreed with his arrogance (perhaps an overcorrection for John’s feeling of inadequacy in the role) but would’ve sympathized with how complicated it has become to serve the nation, as Steve found out in Winter Soldier. I think he would’ve seen that John’s heart is in the right place but would’ve needed some time to fully grow into it.
While this clearly *does* fit for Jason Todd, I think one of the parts of that storyline that makes it so compelling is that it highlights Batman's hypocrisy and instability. I don't actually think that we're supposed to root explicitly for Batman *or* Red Hood in Under the Red Hood, I think it's supposed to be an acknowledgement of how both of them are extremely flawed in their ideologies and actions.
Jason claims that he ONLY wants Batman to kill Joker because he's the root cause of evil, yet he spends the previous few weeks filling the morgues of gotham with street-level thugs and bodyguards to set up this plan in the first place.
Likewise, Batman's failures are laid bare in front of him throughout the entire storyline. It shows that he's not an objectively good force who does what needs to be done for the sake of the people. His rigidness in his ideology is shown to have extreme consequences that prolong the suffering of the people of Gotham, and Bruce believing that he can't change how he acts for even a moment or else he'll... instantly become a serial killer who will never stop killing any criminals no matter how big or small their crimes are highlights just how insane he actually is.
In the end, no one's going to argue that Jason wasn't objectively right. However, the number of people that he kills to get to that point - to prove that he was right - also makes him wrong. If you have to kill 60 or more people to prove to someone else that one and only one person needs to die in order for all the killing to stop, you're basically blackmailing them into becoming a murderer to stop your own murder spree.
The fact that Jason doesn't kill Joker at the first opportunity highlights his own insanity as well. He *needed* Bruce to be the one to do it, because that was the only way in his mind to satiate his own sense of betrayal. He was right about what he said concerning Joker, but he didn't do what he did because Joker's a murderer. He did it because Joker murdered him and he's upset that Bruce didn't kill him as revenge. Jason was objectively correct but ideologically wrong.
Sorry for writing a full-on essay on a video mostly about John Walker, I just had more things to say about Red Hood.
Fable 3 logan was always a sympethic villian. He knew what was coming and knew that albion didnt need a hero but villian. A villian willing to do whatever it took.
28 weeks later was so stupid. I thought the beginning was made to set up how terrible the situation was, the father was a coward, sure, but the mother indirectly killed everyone else because she had to bring the child inside.
Paul Atreides from Dune is another one. The modern movies did not understand the point of his character. They even rewrote some other characters to make him look worse.
Yeah I think people forget that Paul is ment to be a best case scenario to show even if the best person gains this power its can still lead to death and destruction
@@Cameron39829 In book 1 Paul can give up, but it will result in the deaths of his mother, his sister, himself and the entire Fremen population.
In book 2, Paul can literally see every future and chooses the best one, and it comes at a great cost.
@Lampoluke that's what I'm saying tho, Paul is a good person it's why he eventually leaves and exiles himself but he still brought death and destruction and he himself realizes this
I think this sympathetic strawman idea applies perfectly to Jason in Stranger Things season 4. SPOILERS: He's portrayed as the villain for having an easily understandable reaction to his girlfriend's death, nobody tells him the truth about the supernatural things happening in Hawkins (even though Lucas told Max about it in season 2 for almost no reason), he comes to the only rational conclusion he can after his best friend dies in a supernatural way (with Eddie the presumed murderer being the only person nearby who could have possibly killed him), then he uses violence (after Lucas attacks him first) as a last resort after trying to persuade Lucas not to kill Max (that's his understanding of the situation in that scene). Then Jason gets cut in half and he's never mentioned again.
I understand why a lot of people would find his character annoying or have an automatic rejection to his worldview, but it baffles me that so many people think he deserved his (extremely brutal) death.
It's worth noting that while Sam and Bucky are actively antagonising Walker, the protagonists are basically nowhere near Jason throughout the season, so he comes to these conclusions based solely on the limited data he's presented, whereas every other time someone has needed to know about the upside down, they've been told the full story and given all the context.
Definitely agree with your Stranger Things statement. While I definitely didn’t enjoy his character, what he got was so undeserving. Now I know Lucas most likely wasn’t in his right mind either but how he couldn’t just try and get out his sentences and explain. Or even just go along with Jason (as we know that just listening to the music doesn’t instantly pull Max out of Vecnas realm, at the very least they could’ve PROLONGED her bones from snapping.
Obviously thinking about it too deep now, but it just one of those things with writing in newer shows/movies that makes me scratch my head
I always really appreciate people who share the other side of the coin.... it is extremely difficult to try and comprehend what kind of choices and sacrifices these certain people have to make...if we ourselves are not in those situations...whose to say which is the right or wrong choice...i figure its impossible to truly know whats black and white at that moment...
All of us are capable of things we thought we would never feel or do when in danger...
John Walker is possibly one of my favorite MCU characters of all time, and I’m not joking. John himself is exactly how I imagine a modern Captain America would be, his character was enjoyable for me to watch on screen, and to learn he’s being portrayed by Kurt Russel’s son Wyatt Russel was even more amazing, because I remember him from a movie called Overlord, I highly recommend watching that movie. Can’t wait to see this dude in Thunderbolts.