Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4833682" data-attributes="member: 54707">Here we're gonna hav'ta completely disagree gentlemen. (I was the author of that blog post by the way.)And the man (Cap) was certainly an anachronism in my opinion. He never did really change.  It is extremely difficult for me to imagine any military man, even something as silly as a comic book ideal of a military man, who thinks every man leads himself.  I've never seen any important situation ever resolved by every man leading himself. What you get in a situation like that is chaos, not solutions and action. If that were true then Captain America could just go out and make any decisions about any matter he liked, regardless of orders or responsibilities, and then change a mission mid-stream. Which is fine for comic books, but wouldn't ever work anywhere else.  Everyman having strong opinions, and deciding issues for themselves, possibly that will work in certain mundane situations (maybe even quite a few), for a limited period of time. Every man eliding himself in a dangerous, lethal, or vital situation, well, that's anarchy not order. Dispersal of effort, not achievement. By the time somebody decides what to do it's already all over. If everyman is a chief in a fight then how come throughout history American armies aren't lead by the guy who wins the coin-toss? Maybe by the Officer of the Day? I'm all for independent thinkers, in and out of the military, but the man is just a Captain and always remained one for a reason. Cause he never really grew into becoming a real leader, just remained a sort of static and idealized ineffectual. As a prime example of this imagine a world, any world, with super-people running around it engaging in fights which tear down entire buildings, cause millions or dollars of collateral damage, and possibly kill dozens of not hundreds of bystanders.  Such a world would quickly demand action and control. To prevent such chaos and destruction.And for not only logical, but perfectly good and extremely moral reasons. The only reason that Stark failed is because the writers wimped out on him. Went back to a world vision which would never sustain itself. To an ideal no world would ever really tolerate if anybody were honest with themselves. You just don't let super-powered people (or any kind of people) run around fighting in civilian areas and causing untold havoc simply because they want to or feel the need to, anymore than you let SWAT teams run around shooting at anyone they choose to because they thought it a good idea, anymore than you let Special Forces roll into Manhattan and blow up half the Financial District because the Rhino needs a good spanking.  Only in comic books does that wash, and even there, if you stop to think about it for three seconds, you know its just plain silly and ridiculous. If you need to kill the Rhino you put a bullet in his eye socket, you don't send in Captain America to tear up the streets and get knocked through some buildings. And you don't fist fight with Hydra, you shoot them dead. Any Captain I knew who said, "send me in with a shield boys, I think after a half hour of fist-fighting and twenty million dollars of collateral damage I can win this thing," would be busted back to sentry duty, where he deserves to stay. Nothing heroic about endangering innocent civilians and knocking down property to prove you're better with a shield (of all things in the modern world, talk about anachronisms, he carries a shield but can't wear a real ballistic vest) and looks spiffier in a flag costume. Imagine you're sitting around somewhere one day and a super-powered guys busts in the side of your house or apartment, causes it to collapse in on itself, you're injured in the debris, and the best excuse offered later on is, "well, I didn't neat anybody getting hurt or anything damaged so I fist fought him." To which you'd naturally say, well, you're Captain America, why didn't you just shoot him and prevent all of this damage and potential injury and death from happening in the first place?" And then the reply is, "Do you kiss your mom with that mouth son? I don't go around killing!" No, you just allow it to happen over and over again through the one (in)action that would really stop things like that from happening in the first place. That's a Captain for America? Any age of America? Think that would have flown in the forties either? "Well, I didn't shoot the Nazis or the Red Skull cause I'm not that kinda hero. But I take an awful good picture for Stars and Stripes, don't you think? That's the way we used to do it too. We'd clobberknocker the Nazis til they had enough and learned who's the boss. I don't cotton to Nazis or super-villains, I give em a real good shot to the mouth. That shuts em up good and proper so that they never endanger anyone else again." Hooray, case closed.  My grandfather would have laughed out loud at such silliness and drivel. I laughed just writing it. If Stark didn't come out sweet smelling in the comic book world it's not cause he wasn't dead to rights. It's cause the writers didn't have to guts to just come out and say what anyone in any world would. You ain't running around untamed on my streets hero just to prove you can take a daily dose of rectal inversion and some sustained head trauma (how come super-heroes so rarely end up punch drunk by the way, I'm just wondering) and so everyone else's insurance rates can sky-rocket. And you ain't killing no kids in your showdowns just because you don't have the guts to put a bullet in the back of Joker's skull. (I like Batman, he's my favorite comic character, but when it comes to actually solving problems and preventing death, he's as juvenile and backwards as any of them. He could have saved countless innocents at any time he choose, if he had the courage, which he doesn't and so he lets innocent after innocent be murdered to assuage his own lack of guts.) Think he'd kill Joker to prevent him from shooting his own parents? Yeah, could be, maybe so? But he lacks the courage to do the same to save the parents or child of someone he doesn't know? Call that heroic? I never would. The innocent child I save who I don't really know derives my efforts as much as my own. I don't know what you really call comic books heroes who lack the fortitude to treat the stranger in the same way and as valuable as their own, but I have to wonder if it's really courage that drives them. The military though would have the guts. The cops would have the guts. Neither the government nor the people would long have the patience for that kinda thing. Only comic book writers would think it really cool and sophisticated and heroic that Spiderman saved the Green Goblin from his own tragic near-death when he blew up the local elementary school. Cause comic book writers wouldn't have to go to court about it, or face any parents of dead children. Stark had it right. You don't save the village by destroying it, or allowing others to do that for ya.Just cause they wrap themselves in a flag costume and call themselves a hero (which they ain't by action, they just have the comic book title, which is a lot like having the NWA title in actual meaning and effect). Not by my measure.Course I still read comic books about super-heroes. They're very entertaining sometimes, but they sure aren't filled with characters worth actually emulating. And when they do experiemtn with tryign to produce a real leader, like Stark, they quickly emasculate him befor ehe grows up.</blockquote>

Verification