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, RUclips 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 RUclips for this and my original game review channel with 3,000+ subscribers and 900+ videos is still lost forever.
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
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
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.
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.
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
@@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
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.
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
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.
Sam and Bucky were constantly assholes towards John, constantly working against him and were not willing to work together. Despite this John still blames himself. THAT WHY HES THE GOAT!
Never forget Walker had THREE medals of honor which is an absolutely incredible feat...which makes me think the writers didn't do much research on how amazing that makes him
Seriously. John even says that he's not trying to replace Steve and he just wants to do the best he can. And Sam and Bucky still treat him like jerks for no reason
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
@@cantmossadtheassad9952 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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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
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.
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 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
@@cantmossadtheassad9952 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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).
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)
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
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)
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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
Reupload? I'll take it. In the past few years, we've had: John Walker himself, from _Falcon and the Winter Solder,_ who reluctantly tried to be the new Captain America because the government wanted him to, but with PTSD and no supersoldier serum or enhanced powers, and got the mean-girl treatment from Sam Wilson, a man who's literal day-job is a military trauma counselor and mental health therapist. Ken, from _Barbie,_ who single-handedly created a Utopian gender-equal society in a single day, only to have the "protagonist" lie and manipulate everyone around her to destroy the perfect Kendom society and bring back oppression and male sexism to Barbieland. Homelander, from _The Boys_ (although he's a mild example and is still mostly evil,) who was abused and psychologically tortured as a child and still mostly avoids hurting people and really just needs a mother figure and a really good therapist. At this point though, the writers of The Boys are so morally horrible, any antagonist is going to effectively be the "good guy." The Dweller from _The Rings of Power,_ who is genuinely more "heroic" and sympathetic than fake Galadriel, who's a legitimate villain protagonist. Todd from _She Hulk: Attorney at Law,_ who they treat as an "incel" because he's physically unattractive and makes less money than the protagonist, therefore is "bad," while the protagonist goes around causing property damage in the city, nearly hurting normal men for supposed "toxic masculinity," and objectifying tall, physically attractive guys, while ironically also complaining about the same thing imaginary men supposedly "do to her" on a daily basis. Cuff, from the game _Forspoken,_ who was essentially nothing more than a soldier from a rival nation (the main "good" nation being a powerful oppressive empire of all-female rulers), who was imprisoned and tortured, yet treated like a truly evil villain for simply doing his job and defending his country. And a rare female example of Dar-Benn from _The Marvels,_ who had her entire homeworld destroyed by Captain Marvel and Captain Marvel didn't even care, so she's now trying to restore her own homeworld back to the way it was (even if it means ruining others in the process, which is the only "bad" thing she's doing.)
@@internetalias1613I mean, half and half in a way. When the show first started out, he tried to be better in at least some capacity (gotta keep that “superhero image” after all), but soon enough the terrible situations and years of abuse kinda caught up with him. At the very least, he was more nuanced in the comics. Although in the case of the barbie movie, it kinda wound up lopsided on both sides, so I agree that there wasn’t much of a point bein made there.
My understanding from many reviews is that Ken made a society in which everyone was happy, but it wasn't depicted as gender-equal. Not that it was before Ken took over or after the vote for leadership.
Another one similar to the last part is Mr. Grizz from Splatoon. Humanity had to leave the irradiated and flooded Earth on the Ark Polaris, which contained countless animals and plants to repopulate on another planet. There were some animals that they seemingly experimented on, which is not explained at all but that’s presumably how this bear became intelligent. Ark Polaris crashes back into Earth a few thousand years later and the bear is the only survivor. He’s literally the last mammal in existence. And to make things worse, the planet is now ruled by mutated sea creatures that would reject him and do who-knows-what to him if he revealed himself. This bear was literally alone in every way. So when he noticed the parallels between the new marine species and the humans, he thought he could bring mammals back. Granted, he went a little far with some less than ethical experiments, but he’s far from the cartoonishly evil fascist overlord the fandom makes him out to be. Hell, he even accepts that he messed up and that the world can’t be the way it was. But his John Walker effect comes from the fans less than the actual characters of the story; mainly because this is a Nintendo game and they don’t really react to his existence at all. Splatoon fans are very political, so naturally when they saw the sad lonely mammal who wanted to bring back mammals, they decided to paint him as some kind of fascist. The point of his story is to show that dwelling on the past will blind you to future possibilities, but you can’t have a nuanced discussion on anything once the grassphobes have made up their minds on how you’re supposed to feel about it.
Its weird because I feel like it wouldn't have been hard to make Walker actually in the wrong, like if he'd gone for the wrong guy and ended up murdering a random civilian in his rage, or gone after one of the bad guys' family members who didn't have powers. The intention behind what we got just seems...weird? Like the producers didn't actually understand the scene they were building. The way its setup, the audience can see *why* the bystanders would look at this and see 'guy in captain america's outfit beating an unarmed guy to death', but...WE know thats not how it is. It would make sense if the show put Walker in a sympathetic light while all this is happening, because him losing everything over this isn't far-fetched at all, but its like the producers thought we'd assume the perspective of the bystanders and forget everything else we know as the audience perspective?
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 RUclips) 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.
this is... wrong. Walker is not a straw man. The point of walker is to show that its not just good intentions that make you good. He IS an example of what not to do. he is never shown as intentionally evil, he just constantly tries to do the right thing the wrong way. he is a cop that kills a suspect not actually for the crime, but because the suspect was rude and 'probably deserved it'
Actually, he is not. The true examples of what not to do are sam and buck. Walker did everything he could with good intentions, good morals and good decisions. I don’t need to explain more, it was pretty clear in the video…you probably didn’t even finish to watch it if you came to that conclusion.
@@arielpabon4462 dont be insulted by a differing oppinion. You may agree with John Walker and the criminals get what they deserve. But personally the whole story is about replacing Captain America and Cap is supposed to represent everything America strives to be, even if we dont always live up to our own goals. Captain America was never about killing a defeated enemy because he was frustrated. You may agree with John Walker but the whole point of the show and being Captain America is about the responsibility of power at all times and while JW admittedly always had good intentions his methods were often irresponsible, selfish or vindictive. Maybe that's what you think America should be but I disagree and I think the show does too, thus, John Walker is not a "straw man"
@@blueclevername4900remember when in winter soldier and civil war captain America absolutely slaughters everyone on the ship and when he charged into the disease compound
@@Rounderyathecruel you mean when he killed a bunch of enemy combatants actively fighting? dont know what you mean about the disease compound I have not watched it in a while. killing active combatants is fine killing a defeated enemy is not fine with the compound are you talking about making a mistake? unintended consequenses? come on you know better than that. The point is not that Caps actions never have negative consequences. The point is that Cap is responsible about his actions and considerate in his intentions. Johny is emotional, egocentric and vindictive. Its clear to me that you believe that might is right and the 'enemy' deserves destruction. you're fair to think that. but the point of the show was not to make JW a stawman, if he was you would not see any value in JW as you clearly do. The point is that being captain america requires higher ideals and responsibility than JW had.
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 think you fail to understand Walker's character arc. You're not actually supposed to hate him. You are supposed to feel sorry for him. He's not someone who isn't good enough to be captain america. Not on physical at first and morally he's not even close. THey made a point of this in the highschool scene. He's already crossed the line as a soldier. He is chosen because he follows orders and gets the job done. That isn't who Captain America is at all. That is why the narrative works. Walker has the strongest narrative in the show. To sit there and act like they hate him can't even be taken seriously. Walker's narrative was from a guy who shouldn't and couldn't be a hero to becoming a hero. When he lost everything. His career. HIs best friend. ALl he had was revenge. What did Walker do instead he gave up on being a soldier. He let his friends memory rest. He dropped revenge. He opted to be the hero. In his mind he throw away revenge and became a hero. That is important. It was he stopped being a soldier and became a hero. THey reinforce he isn't good enough to be captain america. Over and over again. It is an underlining theme to Walker's narrative. Because he isn't. He's willing to kill civilians to get mission done. He's trying to do the right thing. He fails repeatedly. You're unfairly painting scenes a certain way. When Sam is talking to Carli he nearly had to talked down and ready to surrender it was Walker who causes he to flee. Sam didn't fail Walker ruined the arrangement. Walker is actually a hero. A flawed character that has a story to be told. Like I said he has the strongest narrative arc in the show. He has a beginning. He has flaws they highlight. THey use those flaws in the story to great effect. He falls from grace everything a solider would hate. Then in the end he choices to be the hero. Against all the odds. Against everything he was before. He grows as a person and character to become a hero. That is more than I can about the other characters who are pretty paper thin. Walker is fleshed out. Maybe this because the rewrites and Walkers character didn't get him hard by them. So his character feels the most fleshed out and organic. The one that has a real story tell.
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.
For a couple of decades I noticed that protagonists are often written as smug and unlikeable, while normal reasonable people are written as "bad" for the sake of making them bad.
Just had that happen in a webcomic I dropped (and an older one that thankfully died, come to think of it). The protagonist is a little prick who automatically treats everyone that doesn't view him as a victim like they're trying to force him to be someone he's not (they aren't, and it's obvious) and the "bad" character for the story arc was the one person who calls him out on how shitty he is. Was wild watching other readers legitimately not realize that MC was a dick just because he's the focal character.
I think the easiest example of this is Joel. We had an entire game to make us like Joel but then the entirety of the sequel actually tells us that he's wrong and he's awful and deserved his brutal death. Heck even Ellie applies because the game wants us to feel horrible about her actions and disagree with her when most players didn't think she did enough. So when she spares Abby at the end and finds forgiveness, it feels terribly forced and contrived. Especially after Ellie crossed the country a second time to get revenge and then doesn't, and the game just sucks up to Abby the whole time.
I think the writers were trying to blame "the system" which is the correct thing to blame, i would argue Sam's solution and how they handled walker aligns with that, even though they did a terrible job.
I think the problem is this: Marvel doesnt trust their audiences. There's another reality where Walker isnt used as a Strawman and Sam still gets the shield, because IMO as he's portrayed in the rest of the MCU, Sam truly does deserve the shield and mantle of Captain America. We already see glimmers of it here: John helps Sam and Bucky out time and time again, shows hesitation with regards to who he'd become with the power of the serum and eventually finds his own place alongside them. But Marvel got paranoid that if John Walker was too self sacrificing (too similar to Steve) and Sam grew to respect him, people would stop seeing Sam as worthy of the shield. This is, but simply, bonkers. At worst it would show that there's more than one person carrying on Steve's legacy. What makes more sense is that they were worried a more sympathetic and accepted Walker would become a rallying beacon for all the special boys and girls who would never want Sam as captain america for... other reasons. So... they have to distance Sam and Bucky from John, make them see him as fundamentally unfit to bear the shield and treat him as such... but they still want John Walker to be a parallel Steve Rogers for that sweet sweet subext: "What if Steve cared about America a little more and stopping bullies a little less?" They tried to have their cake and eat it, and all it resulted in was Walker becoming a worse character... but likeable anyway and making Sam and Bucky looks like assholes.
in defense of fable 3, Imo the point was that even if what you're doing ultimately helps the people and will lead to victory and therefore a far better peace, there will always be someone to call you evil, and a populace that is already in fear of a looming threat is easily incited into arbitrarily deciding that there is only good and evil; What benefits them most is good, and what they dont like is evil. Thus, we we are put exactly in the place of logan, knowing that doing whats best will result in the people's outrage, but placating them will result in even more tragedy. Or maybe they just shittily wrote that part of the game, who knows
Unfortunately, you can legitimately cheese the game and just win while doing the entire "good" run of actions. So that ends up falling flat as a message.
Idk man. Batman is understandable. When you go up against the worst of humanity on a daily basis and in media we're ACTIVELY shown they can change through characters like Harley Quinn, Killer Croc, Catwoman or Poison Ivy. If he killed The Joker it WOULD send him down the same path as Injustice Superman. He killed The Joker and now, for the rest of his time as a crime fighter, he'll have a voice in the back of his head actively telling him "well you killed The Joker. How is Riddler any better? He uses people to lure Batman out, kills people just so he can play his game" "The Penguin is a crime boss, killing him could slow the crime of the whole city. Considering most people in Gotham are killed by petty muggers. Wouldnt he be worse than the Joker in terms of how many died because of him?" "Bane is hyper intelligent and strong" "Croc kills anyone hes told to or just anyone who gets too close" "Ivy cares more about plant life than human life" Outright if Batman killed Joker his intelligent mind would logically give reasons as to why he should go on to kill the rest. If he makes an exception for one he'll eventualy make an exception for them all.
No that's the slippery slope fallacy. Killing joker doesn't mean he has too or should kill the others. There are better reasons why batman doesn't kill the joker.
@FlameLord050 Yeah. But at the same time just because he doesn't have to doesn't mean he won't. If you begin there's no telling if you can stop. Batman is aware of this which is why he has his no kill rule, he believes in reform and if he kills one he'll find reasons to kill them all. You can SAY he won't but with the fact Batman goes up against people who literally put others lives in danger JUST to talk to him like The Riddler, I truly do believe that the worst of his rogues would eventually die. Sure it's not right away but EVENTUALLY Batman will break and make more and more exceptions to the rules. It's not about "only killing the Joker" it's about giving himself a reason to avoid killing them all. He has his no kill rule because of his own awareness that he wouldn't be able to stop himself if he used murder to stop ANYONE. That's my interpretation of it anyway and I think it's fitting for Batman AND his rogues. Sure, they may not be as bad as The Joker, but they're still psycho's who constantly break out of Arkham and murder innocent people. That being said, not sure why people care so much SPECIFICALLY about the Joker when logically a crime boss like The Penguin has probably been the cause of WAY more deaths. He's just not getting his hands dirty, he has others to do it for him.
@@hnaw1360 I'm not saying that he won't I am just explaining that the argument of of he does x he will then do y isn't a valid argument. If in killing the joker we know with 100% certainty the he would then start murdering others it would be valid but we don't know it so it's not. It has the same reasoning as why you shouldn't imprison people who are likely to commit a crime but have not yet done it. An example of why batman shouldn't kill would be that it is not his place to as a vigilante, or that he believes that the joker could be redeemed. Not that batman might go do more bad things.
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’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.
I understand the military and public denouncing Walker because he killed someone in public in a foreign country, what I don’t understand is the story treating that course of action justified and not as just walker getting screwed over due to geopolitics
I think Red-hood is meant to be a sympathetic strawman, it's not something that happened by mistake. One of Batman's traits is that he is uncompromising and won't ever kill anyone, including the Joker, because it's the ultimate line that distinguishes him from villains, he also believes in redemption even for the most vile of criminals. You don't necessarily have to agree with this but the self-restraint and courage it takes to be so uncompromising while also fighting an uphill battle like that is what makes Batman so compelling. Red-hood is meant to show that this isn't necessarily the right way of thinking for heroes but he's also shown committing atrocities and becoming very similar to the criminals he despises, it's not as cut and dry as the other cases you mentioned. A very similar case applies in Injustice, I think your issue with understanding the morality of heroes is that the massive power behind heroes also has them bear the burden of being perfect in their judgement, they do not compromise because they shouldn't have to, the moment they decide to be heroes is the moment they have to be able to forgive anything in a certain sense, because if it goes down to subjectiveness then the line is going to get very blurry, as shown by Injustice Superman going forward in the comics.
this made me just passively not care about that captain america show to downright hating like jesus christ, if i was a MCU writer that greenlighted this project id be living with shame for the rest of my life
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.
now hang on a sec, you can say what you want about fable as a game but your brother isnt a sympathetic straw man, your supposed to understand what he did,the question your supposed to ask is if you agree with him or not
They're literally just sweet-talking you into their views. Yeah everyone has legitimate gripes with modern life and society. Cults, extremists, etc they all draw you in with reasonable discourse. But if you dig into the lore they were bad people for what they did to the locals.
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."
Whole John Walker thing I understand, but I can't agree with you on Red Hood and Injustice Superman. I'm strong supporter of "no killing" rule. I'm simply thinking that if you were to kill someone like Joker there will inevitably be a lot of uncertainty in morals of the character, such as "At what exact point someone deserves to die? What's the exact bodycount of killer to be deceased? How does it number compare to one human life and other things, such as valuables?" and "If there is the number, does motives matter? Does it matter who was a victim of such killing? If for example, Red Hood kills a number of such criminals, does he deserve to die too?". And also I just think it's not a good path to step on in a long term, if a man was not true to himself ones - he will find an excuse to step over his lines howerer much he pleases. Zero percent of chance is infinitely better than really small chance. Good video overall, keep it up!
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
Honestly, we put so much blame on the writers. But I believe a lot of these issues can be solved in the editing room. Different music choices, beats, and even shots would portray everything we need to know about this entire struggle he has without anyone having to utter a word. It would have been beautiful.
Here's my thing with Batman. It's that HE would be more and more willing to kill. That's what he fears for himself. I understood both him and Red Hood. He feared if he took that step, he would reach a point where killing meant as little to him as it did to the Joker. The man literally watched his parents murdered in front of him (and yes I know the Robins pretty much have a similar story), so it is understandable that to kill, for him, is to remove that and create a disconnect and loss of value of life. That being said, I do know they don't always write Batman or Superman the best in this regard, but if we follow the line of reasoning that everyone seems to have regard Batman's conviction not to take a life (of course also dependent on the version), then how do we view real life conscientious objectors, who do not wish to take a life? Do we view them as wrong? Do we view them as cowards (which many of times is how they were/may still be treated)? That's my only (partial) objection. Everything else I do understand and have no objections. Even in regards to my partial objection, I don't fully disagree personally wither, it's just that people all over the internet don't seem to understand Batman's side in this. At least they do understand one of them though.
The issue is they made Walker the villain when he was actually just the pawn of the true villains. The government actually wanted a white blonde war hero so badly they overlooked falcon and even the previous captain Americas wishes. The movie decided instead of emphasizing the racism to try and say “look he’s not fit out to be a hero” which is not only the incorrect way of telling the story but they did a really bad job at doing so. If they simply made him a straw man conclusively unworthy of being a hero (siding with terrorists, obstructing actual Justice, etc) then while weak writing would make sense.
The point was "Captain America" is supposed to stand for values reflecting the United States government which has this little thing called "Due Process". Walker bypassed all of that to "execute" a murderer, which makes the killing unjustified, which makes Walker a murderer. That's why "Heroes don't kill". In out world, it's a question of morals; In their world, it's a question of legality.
Remember when Captain America killed countless people? I do. Just because they player ominous music and blood on the shield you just took that as he’s evil instead of using your brain
The problem is that writers nowadays want us to believe that doing something widely considered bad will always be bad, no matter the context or the reasoning behind it, and that heroes should always do "good things", or rather unharmful things despite not knowing if these things will be effective or not. In fiction these unharmful choices always result in the best outcome because it is what the writer wants us to believe, but in reality a lot of situations cannot be solved by doing only "good things". If you notice how many villains are killed by things that are completely out of the heroe's control after they refused to kill said villain, you will see what I mean. We are asked to believe that things will automatically resolve themselves if we do the "good choices".
Jason lie was so good, people still misunderstand that he never cared about justice or the moral high ground over killing the Joker, it always was about Batman choosing his morals over him.
@@illseeyaonthedarksideofthemoon if I was making a DC cinematic universe. Under the Red Hood would be the 2nd Batman movie in the universe. So it would go Batman 1, Superman 1, Batman 2, Superman 2, and then a World's Finest movie bringing them together.
@@DavidMartinez-ce3lp I personally would prefer movies independent from each other, like The Joker and The Batman are to the DCEU, I feel like DC works better when there isn't a desire to build a franchise and is just a single vision.
@illseeyaonthedarksideofthemoon I think you can do that and have them be interconnected. DC did it for a little with their animated movies. We've never seen them do it with their love action movies. They've literally always been independent with the only exception being the failed Snyderverse. I wanna see it done right.
I never got the impression we were supposed to disagree with Jason Todd. The film presents the case of Batman’s moral rule and the unintended consequences of that rule (i.e. Jason’s death and others), and the film lets the audience determine which they agree with
Well the resone people think it was unintentionall is because the main character constantly are mean to him and talk down to him, if the show treats this as bad than yeah it was intentionall, but the show treated it like the sam and bucky did nothing wrong
Hope this is a troll or sarcasm because, holy shit, that's a take. The writers were so "smart" they made a show with such warped morals, that they framed Karli's death as something tragic and then have the MC venerating her afterwards. The idea of borders, governments, resources in the narrative being totally nonsensical, you'd think a 9 year old wrote them. And lastly, the shittiest thing they did was the character assassination of both Falcon and Bucky in their own show, they go against so much of their own established history that they are straight up just different characters.
One of the biggest issues I have with how Marvel handled the snap was how, instead of just treating it as people were traumatized with loved ones disintegrating. They went with this idea that the world became so empty that borders stopped being a thing. But if the population at the time of the snap, which would be roughly 7.5 billion, half of that would be over a little over 3 billion. The last time we had that population was around 1960 and we definitely have had borders with less people. The entire reason for the world crisis post Thanos, makes absolutely no sense.
8:30 walker and the terrorist are on the same playing field, they're both super soldiers. Except walker has a shield... so yes. within context of the fight. that terrorist was unarmed. and deserved to be brought in. not murdered. at the end of the day, the terrorist surrendered. At that point walker killing him is murder.
Shield or no shield, they’re a walking weapon. Walker’s only crime was literally breaking the Geneva Convention. I’m not saying what he did was wrong tho. They just killed his friend who was basically a defenseless child in that fight by comparison being the only unenhanced person there.
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.
I would like to add another Sympathetic Strawman that alot of people probably wouldn't even consider. Adam from Hazbin Hotel. He was the first man and father of the human race. When he was created him and Lilith were supposed to rule equals , but he was more demanding and chased her away. However his second wife Eve did stay with him until death so one could argue he did learn from his faults, but it was too late. After Lucifer was literally told to not mess with Earth and its inhabitants he, Lilith, and Eve brought free will to the world which lead to sin. And heaven then had them punished by imprisoning Lilith and Lucifer to hell. Once a year Adam leads an army of angels into hell to enact an extwrmination onto sinners because heaven feared a rebellion. Now here is the thing it was implied in the show Eve was the only one who ate the fruit. Adam lived to be 900 until he died in the bible. That is 900 years of trying invent farming, naming all of the animals, and watching his children do the most inhumane things to one another. Cain and Able was his first kids and Cain killed Able out of jealousness. Adam is egostistical, but that because he was the person who sired the human race, invent agruculture and fariming, and named the animals. His ego is a result of his hard work to humamity which christians tend to overlook. He is protrayed as a misogynist because he made some sex jokes and talk about how hot his ex wife was, yet Angel Dust a d sinner makes sex jokes he's not calle out on, plus Angel Dust actively sexually harrased Husk, yet Adam never SH or SA someone. He is actually bvery respectful to his bosses who are women, all exterminators under his charge are women, his second in command is a woman, and it was Lilith who committed the adultry not Adam. So how is Adam is a misogynist yet the other characters who had done the same if not worst things are consiered such. Speaking of which, the exterminations. After Lucifer and Lilith was banished to hell Lilith used her voice to encourage sinners to do what they want turning hell into an active war zone full of rapists, murderers, slavers and etc. One of the main allies of the heroes is a slave owner amd a canable. Charlie, who is the protagonists and primcess of hell, sees ger citizens do these horrific things to one another and does nothing. She would literally turn a blind eye to their deeds. There is a literal town called Cannible Town. Yes it is what it sounds like. Charlie and her family either let or encourage these horrendous things yet when the exterminations happened Charlie is against that. Charlie starts the hotel to redeem sinners, yet here is the thing. Charlie is only redeeming them for they can escape extermination not because she actaully believe their good people. Remind you hell doesn't punish sinners so people are running around free doing whatever they want to one another and we are supposed to feel bad when they get exterminated. Adam has watched his children hurt each other for 900 years because of his ex wife, had to die despite being promised immortality, and realizes his ex wife enabels the evil behaviour that sinners do in hell. And he is the bad guy for killing those who already evil? You might say he is.an anti hero, but not a full blown villain.
Shit bro. Even Lucifer when he appeared in the show agreed on that notion that his people fuckin suck. Sure he might have took Adams first girl and broke a rule from heaven, but he believe that giving people freewill would bring out something sweet and awesome and wonder to the world and humanity. This making heaven proud and see his point is great for everyone. Then bro saw the unintended consequences of his actions and with sin being created and monstrous actions humans have inflicted on each other. Completely regret his actions of what he done to humanity as how he portrayed in the show.
@@ARuiz-eu3hk Yeah when you read into Lucifer and Adam catch a lot of flak when Adam was basically clueless of what was going on at first. Lucifer was given free will then thought it was wrong for humans to not have it. When it came for Lilith and Adam to have sex both of them wanted to be on top basically and Lilith got mad and left.
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.
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, RUclips 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 RUclips 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 🗿
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?
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
"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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
"OMG, Walker killed a known terrorist" - Marvel
Me: "2:45, do you think Steve is shooting bean bags here?"
clearly a marshmellow gun
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
If they wanted to make a political statement with that show, they sure did. Just maybe not the one they wanted.
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
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.
Sam and Bucky were constantly assholes towards John, constantly working against him and were not willing to work together. Despite this John still blames himself. THAT WHY HES THE GOAT!
And not to mention that Sam of all people supports the TERRORISTS yes Sam the “next Captain America” supports terrorists wtf Sam
Never forget Walker had THREE medals of honor which is an absolutely incredible feat...which makes me think the writers didn't do much research on how amazing that makes him
@@AlmightySmorg Like I said. GOATED!
Seriously. John even says that he's not trying to replace Steve and he just wants to do the best he can. And Sam and Bucky still treat him like jerks for no reason
And it’s all Sam’s fault he even lost the shield
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?
@@cantmossadtheassad9952 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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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
@@cantmossadtheassad9952 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Yo, that is literally my favorite MCU related the video on youtube, thanks for reposting
I didn’t realize this had gone down. Hopefully it stays up; it’s a pretty good one.
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).
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)
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
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.
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
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.
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.”
I'm afraid there gonna give him the Ironwoods from RWBY Treatment next time we see him
lets just hope that don't happen
My favorite part of this conversation is asking what Steve would have done in the exact same spot.
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.
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.
Walker may not be Steve Rogers, but he's my Captain America.
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.
john walker actually deserves the shield compared to falcon
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.
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 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
Reupload? I'll take it.
In the past few years, we've had:
John Walker himself, from _Falcon and the Winter Solder,_ who reluctantly tried to be the new Captain America because the government wanted him to, but with PTSD and no supersoldier serum or enhanced powers, and got the mean-girl treatment from Sam Wilson, a man who's literal day-job is a military trauma counselor and mental health therapist.
Ken, from _Barbie,_ who single-handedly created a Utopian gender-equal society in a single day, only to have the "protagonist" lie and manipulate everyone around her to destroy the perfect Kendom society and bring back oppression and male sexism to Barbieland.
Homelander, from _The Boys_ (although he's a mild example and is still mostly evil,) who was abused and psychologically tortured as a child and still mostly avoids hurting people and really just needs a mother figure and a really good therapist. At this point though, the writers of The Boys are so morally horrible, any antagonist is going to effectively be the "good guy."
The Dweller from _The Rings of Power,_ who is genuinely more "heroic" and sympathetic than fake Galadriel, who's a legitimate villain protagonist.
Todd from _She Hulk: Attorney at Law,_ who they treat as an "incel" because he's physically unattractive and makes less money than the protagonist, therefore is "bad," while the protagonist goes around causing property damage in the city, nearly hurting normal men for supposed "toxic masculinity," and objectifying tall, physically attractive guys, while ironically also complaining about the same thing imaginary men supposedly "do to her" on a daily basis.
Cuff, from the game _Forspoken,_ who was essentially nothing more than a soldier from a rival nation (the main "good" nation being a powerful oppressive empire of all-female rulers), who was imprisoned and tortured, yet treated like a truly evil villain for simply doing his job and defending his country.
And a rare female example of Dar-Benn from _The Marvels,_ who had her entire homeworld destroyed by Captain Marvel and Captain Marvel didn't even care, so she's now trying to restore her own homeworld back to the way it was (even if it means ruining others in the process, which is the only "bad" thing she's doing.)
Ken didn’t create a gender equal society what are you talking about
@@caesarspeaksyeah this guy is just making stuff up, claiming homelander avoids hurting people? Lol
@@internetalias1613I mean, half and half in a way. When the show first started out, he tried to be better in at least some capacity (gotta keep that “superhero image” after all), but soon enough the terrible situations and years of abuse kinda caught up with him. At the very least, he was more nuanced in the comics.
Although in the case of the barbie movie, it kinda wound up lopsided on both sides, so I agree that there wasn’t much of a point bein made there.
My understanding from many reviews is that Ken made a society in which everyone was happy, but it wasn't depicted as gender-equal. Not that it was before Ken took over or after the vote for leadership.
Another one similar to the last part is Mr. Grizz from Splatoon. Humanity had to leave the irradiated and flooded Earth on the Ark Polaris, which contained countless animals and plants to repopulate on another planet. There were some animals that they seemingly experimented on, which is not explained at all but that’s presumably how this bear became intelligent. Ark Polaris crashes back into Earth a few thousand years later and the bear is the only survivor. He’s literally the last mammal in existence. And to make things worse, the planet is now ruled by mutated sea creatures that would reject him and do who-knows-what to him if he revealed himself. This bear was literally alone in every way. So when he noticed the parallels between the new marine species and the humans, he thought he could bring mammals back. Granted, he went a little far with some less than ethical experiments, but he’s far from the cartoonishly evil fascist overlord the fandom makes him out to be. Hell, he even accepts that he messed up and that the world can’t be the way it was. But his John Walker effect comes from the fans less than the actual characters of the story; mainly because this is a Nintendo game and they don’t really react to his existence at all. Splatoon fans are very political, so naturally when they saw the sad lonely mammal who wanted to bring back mammals, they decided to paint him as some kind of fascist. The point of his story is to show that dwelling on the past will blind you to future possibilities, but you can’t have a nuanced discussion on anything once the grassphobes have made up their minds on how you’re supposed to feel about it.
Its weird because I feel like it wouldn't have been hard to make Walker actually in the wrong, like if he'd gone for the wrong guy and ended up murdering a random civilian in his rage, or gone after one of the bad guys' family members who didn't have powers. The intention behind what we got just seems...weird? Like the producers didn't actually understand the scene they were building. The way its setup, the audience can see *why* the bystanders would look at this and see 'guy in captain america's outfit beating an unarmed guy to death', but...WE know thats not how it is.
It would make sense if the show put Walker in a sympathetic light while all this is happening, because him losing everything over this isn't far-fetched at all, but its like the producers thought we'd assume the perspective of the bystanders and forget everything else we know as the audience perspective?
I'm lowkey glad this got re-uploaded because I always seen it and meant to watch it but never did till now
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 RUclips) 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.
this is... wrong.
Walker is not a straw man.
The point of walker is to show that its not just good intentions that make you good.
He IS an example of what not to do.
he is never shown as intentionally evil, he just constantly tries to do the right thing the wrong way.
he is a cop that kills a suspect not actually for the crime, but because the suspect was rude and 'probably deserved it'
My thoughts exactly! Though it is true that poor writing does not present this well, or a believable alternative
Actually, he is not. The true examples of what not to do are sam and buck. Walker did everything he could with good intentions, good morals and good decisions. I don’t need to explain more, it was pretty clear in the video…you probably didn’t even finish to watch it if you came to that conclusion.
@@arielpabon4462 dont be insulted by a differing oppinion.
You may agree with John Walker and the criminals get what they deserve.
But personally the whole story is about replacing Captain America and Cap is supposed to represent everything America strives to be, even if we dont always live up to our own goals. Captain America was never about killing a defeated enemy because he was frustrated.
You may agree with John Walker but the whole point of the show and being Captain America is about the responsibility of power at all times and while JW admittedly always had good intentions his methods were often irresponsible, selfish or vindictive.
Maybe that's what you think America should be but I disagree and I think the show does too, thus, John Walker is not a "straw man"
@@blueclevername4900remember when in winter soldier and civil war captain America absolutely slaughters everyone on the ship and when he charged into the disease compound
@@Rounderyathecruel you mean when he killed a bunch of enemy combatants actively fighting?
dont know what you mean about the disease compound I have not watched it in a while.
killing active combatants is fine
killing a defeated enemy is not fine
with the compound are you talking about making a mistake? unintended consequenses?
come on you know better than that.
The point is not that Caps actions never have negative consequences. The point is that Cap is responsible about his actions and considerate in his intentions.
Johny is emotional, egocentric and vindictive.
Its clear to me that you believe that might is right and the 'enemy' deserves destruction.
you're fair to think that.
but the point of the show was not to make JW a stawman, if he was you would not see any value in JW as you clearly do.
The point is that being captain america requires higher ideals and responsibility than JW had.
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 think you fail to understand Walker's character arc. You're not actually supposed to hate him. You are supposed to feel sorry for him. He's not someone who isn't good enough to be captain america. Not on physical at first and morally he's not even close. THey made a point of this in the highschool scene. He's already crossed the line as a soldier. He is chosen because he follows orders and gets the job done. That isn't who Captain America is at all. That is why the narrative works.
Walker has the strongest narrative in the show. To sit there and act like they hate him can't even be taken seriously. Walker's narrative was from a guy who shouldn't and couldn't be a hero to becoming a hero. When he lost everything. His career. HIs best friend. ALl he had was revenge. What did Walker do instead he gave up on being a soldier. He let his friends memory rest. He dropped revenge. He opted to be the hero. In his mind he throw away revenge and became a hero. That is important. It was he stopped being a soldier and became a hero.
THey reinforce he isn't good enough to be captain america. Over and over again. It is an underlining theme to Walker's narrative. Because he isn't. He's willing to kill civilians to get mission done. He's trying to do the right thing. He fails repeatedly. You're unfairly painting scenes a certain way. When Sam is talking to Carli he nearly had to talked down and ready to surrender it was Walker who causes he to flee. Sam didn't fail Walker ruined the arrangement.
Walker is actually a hero. A flawed character that has a story to be told. Like I said he has the strongest narrative arc in the show. He has a beginning. He has flaws they highlight. THey use those flaws in the story to great effect. He falls from grace everything a solider would hate. Then in the end he choices to be the hero. Against all the odds. Against everything he was before. He grows as a person and character to become a hero.
That is more than I can about the other characters who are pretty paper thin. Walker is fleshed out. Maybe this because the rewrites and Walkers character didn't get him hard by them. So his character feels the most fleshed out and organic. The one that has a real story tell.
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.
For a couple of decades I noticed that protagonists are often written as smug and unlikeable, while normal reasonable people are written as "bad" for the sake of making them bad.
That's what happens when smug and unlikeable people write protagonists.
Just had that happen in a webcomic I dropped (and an older one that thankfully died, come to think of it). The protagonist is a little prick who automatically treats everyone that doesn't view him as a victim like they're trying to force him to be someone he's not (they aren't, and it's obvious) and the "bad" character for the story arc was the one person who calls him out on how shitty he is. Was wild watching other readers legitimately not realize that MC was a dick just because he's the focal character.
I think the easiest example of this is Joel. We had an entire game to make us like Joel but then the entirety of the sequel actually tells us that he's wrong and he's awful and deserved his brutal death. Heck even Ellie applies because the game wants us to feel horrible about her actions and disagree with her when most players didn't think she did enough. So when she spares Abby at the end and finds forgiveness, it feels terribly forced and contrived. Especially after Ellie crossed the country a second time to get revenge and then doesn't, and the game just sucks up to Abby the whole time.
I think the writers were trying to blame "the system" which is the correct thing to blame, i would argue Sam's solution and how they handled walker aligns with that, even though they did a terrible job.
I think the problem is this: Marvel doesnt trust their audiences.
There's another reality where Walker isnt used as a Strawman and Sam still gets the shield, because IMO as he's portrayed in the rest of the MCU, Sam truly does deserve the shield and mantle of Captain America.
We already see glimmers of it here: John helps Sam and Bucky out time and time again, shows hesitation with regards to who he'd become with the power of the serum and eventually finds his own place alongside them.
But Marvel got paranoid that if John Walker was too self sacrificing (too similar to Steve) and Sam grew to respect him, people would stop seeing Sam as worthy of the shield.
This is, but simply, bonkers. At worst it would show that there's more than one person carrying on Steve's legacy. What makes more sense is that they were worried a more sympathetic and accepted Walker would become a rallying beacon for all the special boys and girls who would never want Sam as captain america for... other reasons.
So... they have to distance Sam and Bucky from John, make them see him as fundamentally unfit to bear the shield and treat him as such... but they still want John Walker to be a parallel Steve Rogers for that sweet sweet subext: "What if Steve cared about America a little more and stopping bullies a little less?"
They tried to have their cake and eat it, and all it resulted in was Walker becoming a worse character... but likeable anyway and making Sam and Bucky looks like assholes.
in defense of fable 3, Imo the point was that even if what you're doing ultimately helps the people and will lead to victory and therefore a far better peace, there will always be someone to call you evil, and a populace that is already in fear of a looming threat is easily incited into arbitrarily deciding that there is only good and evil; What benefits them most is good, and what they dont like is evil. Thus, we we are put exactly in the place of logan, knowing that doing whats best will result in the people's outrage, but placating them will result in even more tragedy. Or maybe they just shittily wrote that part of the game, who knows
Unfortunately, you can legitimately cheese the game and just win while doing the entire "good" run of actions. So that ends up falling flat as a message.
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
Idk man. Batman is understandable.
When you go up against the worst of humanity on a daily basis and in media we're ACTIVELY shown they can change through characters like Harley Quinn, Killer Croc, Catwoman or Poison Ivy. If he killed The Joker it WOULD send him down the same path as Injustice Superman.
He killed The Joker and now, for the rest of his time as a crime fighter, he'll have a voice in the back of his head actively telling him "well you killed The Joker. How is Riddler any better? He uses people to lure Batman out, kills people just so he can play his game"
"The Penguin is a crime boss, killing him could slow the crime of the whole city. Considering most people in Gotham are killed by petty muggers. Wouldnt he be worse than the Joker in terms of how many died because of him?"
"Bane is hyper intelligent and strong"
"Croc kills anyone hes told to or just anyone who gets too close"
"Ivy cares more about plant life than human life"
Outright if Batman killed Joker his intelligent mind would logically give reasons as to why he should go on to kill the rest. If he makes an exception for one he'll eventualy make an exception for them all.
No that's the slippery slope fallacy. Killing joker doesn't mean he has too or should kill the others. There are better reasons why batman doesn't kill the joker.
@FlameLord050 Yeah. But at the same time just because he doesn't have to doesn't mean he won't.
If you begin there's no telling if you can stop. Batman is aware of this which is why he has his no kill rule, he believes in reform and if he kills one he'll find reasons to kill them all. You can SAY he won't but with the fact Batman goes up against people who literally put others lives in danger JUST to talk to him like The Riddler, I truly do believe that the worst of his rogues would eventually die. Sure it's not right away but EVENTUALLY Batman will break and make more and more exceptions to the rules.
It's not about "only killing the Joker" it's about giving himself a reason to avoid killing them all. He has his no kill rule because of his own awareness that he wouldn't be able to stop himself if he used murder to stop ANYONE.
That's my interpretation of it anyway and I think it's fitting for Batman AND his rogues. Sure, they may not be as bad as The Joker, but they're still psycho's who constantly break out of Arkham and murder innocent people.
That being said, not sure why people care so much SPECIFICALLY about the Joker when logically a crime boss like The Penguin has probably been the cause of WAY more deaths. He's just not getting his hands dirty, he has others to do it for him.
@@hnaw1360 I'm not saying that he won't I am just explaining that the argument of of he does x he will then do y isn't a valid argument. If in killing the joker we know with 100% certainty the he would then start murdering others it would be valid but we don't know it so it's not.
It has the same reasoning as why you shouldn't imprison people who are likely to commit a crime but have not yet done it.
An example of why batman shouldn't kill would be that it is not his place to as a vigilante, or that he believes that the joker could be redeemed. Not that batman might go do more bad things.
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'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’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.
John Walker is more of a Captain America than Falcon ever will
I understand the military and public denouncing Walker because he killed someone in public in a foreign country, what I don’t understand is the story treating that course of action justified and not as just walker getting screwed over due to geopolitics
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
I think Red-hood is meant to be a sympathetic strawman, it's not something that happened by mistake.
One of Batman's traits is that he is uncompromising and won't ever kill anyone, including the Joker, because it's the ultimate line that distinguishes him from villains, he also believes in redemption even for the most vile of criminals.
You don't necessarily have to agree with this but the self-restraint and courage it takes to be so uncompromising while also fighting an uphill battle like that is what makes Batman so compelling. Red-hood is meant to show that this isn't necessarily the right way of thinking for heroes but he's also shown committing atrocities and becoming very similar to the criminals he despises, it's not as cut and dry as the other cases you mentioned.
A very similar case applies in Injustice, I think your issue with understanding the morality of heroes is that the massive power behind heroes also has them bear the burden of being perfect in their judgement, they do not compromise because they shouldn't have to, the moment they decide to be heroes is the moment they have to be able to forgive anything in a certain sense, because if it goes down to subjectiveness then the line is going to get very blurry, as shown by Injustice Superman going forward in the comics.
this made me just passively not care about that captain america show to downright hating
like jesus christ, if i was a MCU writer that greenlighted this project id be living with shame for the rest of my life
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.
The Dora Milage sounds more like an evil assassin group made by a terrorist organization
now hang on a sec, you can say what you want about fable as a game but your brother isnt a sympathetic straw man, your supposed to understand what he did,the question your supposed to ask is if you agree with him or not
Honestly, the longer time goes on, the more Jospeh Seed and Eden’s Gate from far cry 5 seems less villainous
how is a cult leader not a bad guy
No, All the means is that your views have become more wicked as time has gone on.
They're literally just sweet-talking you into their views. Yeah everyone has legitimate gripes with modern life and society. Cults, extremists, etc they all draw you in with reasonable discourse.
But if you dig into the lore they were bad people for what they did to the locals.
he was literally right about what he was preaching
Considering that he was being truthful about an impending apocalypse and not just using it to manipulate people I would agree
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."
Whole John Walker thing I understand, but I can't agree with you on Red Hood and Injustice Superman. I'm strong supporter of "no killing" rule. I'm simply thinking that if you were to kill someone like Joker there will inevitably be a lot of uncertainty in morals of the character, such as "At what exact point someone deserves to die? What's the exact bodycount of killer to be deceased? How does it number compare to one human life and other things, such as valuables?" and "If there is the number, does motives matter? Does it matter who was a victim of such killing? If for example, Red Hood kills a number of such criminals, does he deserve to die too?". And also I just think it's not a good path to step on in a long term, if a man was not true to himself ones - he will find an excuse to step over his lines howerer much he pleases. Zero percent of chance is infinitely better than really small chance. Good video overall, keep it up!
I legitimately never viewed John Walker as an antagonist. He was a hero legitimately the whole time he just had ptsd.
Sam gives up the shield then “hates” on the guy who gets the shield lmaoo
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
Thanks for reposting this, I loved this video and am glad to watch it again.
Honestly, we put so much blame on the writers. But I believe a lot of these issues can be solved in the editing room.
Different music choices, beats, and even shots would portray everything we need to know about this entire struggle he has without anyone having to utter a word. It would have been beautiful.
Here's my thing with Batman. It's that HE would be more and more willing to kill. That's what he fears for himself. I understood both him and Red Hood. He feared if he took that step, he would reach a point where killing meant as little to him as it did to the Joker. The man literally watched his parents murdered in front of him (and yes I know the Robins pretty much have a similar story), so it is understandable that to kill, for him, is to remove that and create a disconnect and loss of value of life.
That being said, I do know they don't always write Batman or Superman the best in this regard, but if we follow the line of reasoning that everyone seems to have regard Batman's conviction not to take a life (of course also dependent on the version), then how do we view real life conscientious objectors, who do not wish to take a life? Do we view them as wrong? Do we view them as cowards (which many of times is how they were/may still be treated)?
That's my only (partial) objection. Everything else I do understand and have no objections. Even in regards to my partial objection, I don't fully disagree personally wither, it's just that people all over the internet don't seem to understand Batman's side in this. At least they do understand one of them though.
The issue is they made Walker the villain when he was actually just the pawn of the true villains. The government actually wanted a white blonde war hero so badly they overlooked falcon and even the previous captain Americas wishes.
The movie decided instead of emphasizing the racism to try and say “look he’s not fit out to be a hero” which is not only the incorrect way of telling the story but they did a really bad job at doing so. If they simply made him a straw man conclusively unworthy of being a hero (siding with terrorists, obstructing actual Justice, etc) then while weak writing would make sense.
The point was "Captain America" is supposed to stand for values reflecting the United States government which has this little thing called "Due Process".
Walker bypassed all of that to "execute" a murderer, which makes the killing unjustified, which makes Walker a murderer.
That's why "Heroes don't kill".
In out world, it's a question of morals;
In their world, it's a question of legality.
Remember when Captain America killed countless people? I do. Just because they player ominous music and blood on the shield you just took that as he’s evil instead of using your brain
Soliders kill it happens (and the No-Kill rule is more of DC thing. Marvel has Hero kill a ton aside from Spiderman mostly.)
The problem is that writers nowadays want us to believe that doing something widely considered bad will always be bad, no matter the context or the reasoning behind it, and that heroes should always do "good things", or rather unharmful things despite not knowing if these things will be effective or not. In fiction these unharmful choices always result in the best outcome because it is what the writer wants us to believe, but in reality a lot of situations cannot be solved by doing only "good things". If you notice how many villains are killed by things that are completely out of the heroe's control after they refused to kill said villain, you will see what I mean. We are asked to believe that things will automatically resolve themselves if we do the "good choices".
Jason lie was so good, people still misunderstand that he never cared about justice or the moral high ground over killing the Joker, it always was about Batman choosing his morals over him.
Such a good story. Can't believe WB never made a live action movie about Under the Red Hood. What a waste. They're such fools
@@DavidMartinez-ce3lp With the way they handled the DCEU, I'd rather have them as far as possible from this story...
@@illseeyaonthedarksideofthemoon if I was making a DC cinematic universe. Under the Red Hood would be the 2nd Batman movie in the universe. So it would go Batman 1, Superman 1, Batman 2, Superman 2, and then a World's Finest movie bringing them together.
@@DavidMartinez-ce3lp I personally would prefer movies independent from each other, like The Joker and The Batman are to the DCEU, I feel like DC works better when there isn't a desire to build a franchise and is just a single vision.
@illseeyaonthedarksideofthemoon I think you can do that and have them be interconnected. DC did it for a little with their animated movies. We've never seen them do it with their love action movies. They've literally always been independent with the only exception being the failed Snyderverse. I wanna see it done right.
I never got the impression we were supposed to disagree with Jason Todd. The film presents the case of Batman’s moral rule and the unintended consequences of that rule (i.e. Jason’s death and others), and the film lets the audience determine which they agree with
John Walker is an example of the writers being so smart that the audience basically thinks there's no way they made him this complex intentionally
Well the resone people think it was unintentionall is because the main character constantly are mean to him and talk down to him, if the show treats this as bad than yeah it was intentionall, but the show treated it like the sam and bucky did nothing wrong
Hope this is a troll or sarcasm because, holy shit, that's a take.
The writers were so "smart" they made a show with such warped morals, that they framed Karli's death as something tragic and then have the MC venerating her afterwards. The idea of borders, governments, resources in the narrative being totally nonsensical, you'd think a 9 year old wrote them. And lastly, the shittiest thing they did was the character assassination of both Falcon and Bucky in their own show, they go against so much of their own established history that they are straight up just different characters.
One of the biggest issues I have with how Marvel handled the snap was how, instead of just treating it as people were traumatized with loved ones disintegrating. They went with this idea that the world became so empty that borders stopped being a thing. But if the population at the time of the snap, which would be roughly 7.5 billion, half of that would be over a little over 3 billion. The last time we had that population was around 1960 and we definitely have had borders with less people. The entire reason for the world crisis post Thanos, makes absolutely no sense.
8:30 walker and the terrorist are on the same playing field, they're both super soldiers. Except walker has a shield... so yes. within context of the fight. that terrorist was unarmed. and deserved to be brought in. not murdered. at the end of the day, the terrorist surrendered. At that point walker killing him is murder.
Shield or no shield, they’re a walking weapon. Walker’s only crime was literally breaking the Geneva Convention. I’m not saying what he did was wrong tho. They just killed his friend who was basically a defenseless child in that fight by comparison being the only unenhanced person there.
@@enlight_8360 that’s revenge, not justice. In the context of walker being a representative of the US government. Yes. He was in the wrong.
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.
I would like to add another Sympathetic Strawman that alot of people probably wouldn't even consider. Adam from Hazbin Hotel. He was the first man and father of the human race. When he was created him and Lilith were supposed to rule equals , but he was more demanding and chased her away. However his second wife Eve did stay with him until death so one could argue he did learn from his faults, but it was too late. After Lucifer was literally told to not mess with Earth and its inhabitants he, Lilith, and Eve brought free will to the world which lead to sin. And heaven then had them punished by imprisoning Lilith and Lucifer to hell. Once a year Adam leads an army of angels into hell to enact an extwrmination onto sinners because heaven feared a rebellion. Now here is the thing it was implied in the show Eve was the only one who ate the fruit. Adam lived to be 900 until he died in the bible. That is 900 years of trying invent farming, naming all of the animals, and watching his children do the most inhumane things to one another. Cain and Able was his first kids and Cain killed Able out of jealousness. Adam is egostistical, but that because he was the person who sired the human race, invent agruculture and fariming, and named the animals. His ego is a result of his hard work to humamity which christians tend to overlook. He is protrayed as a misogynist because he made some sex jokes and talk about how hot his ex wife was, yet Angel Dust a d sinner makes sex jokes he's not calle out on, plus Angel Dust actively sexually harrased Husk, yet Adam never SH or SA someone. He is actually bvery respectful to his bosses who are women, all exterminators under his charge are women, his second in command is a woman, and it was Lilith who committed the adultry not Adam. So how is Adam is a misogynist yet the other characters who had done the same if not worst things are consiered such. Speaking of which, the exterminations. After Lucifer and Lilith was banished to hell Lilith used her voice to encourage sinners to do what they want turning hell into an active war zone full of rapists, murderers, slavers and etc. One of the main allies of the heroes is a slave owner amd a canable. Charlie, who is the protagonists and primcess of hell, sees ger citizens do these horrific things to one another and does nothing. She would literally turn a blind eye to their deeds. There is a literal town called Cannible Town. Yes it is what it sounds like. Charlie and her family either let or encourage these horrendous things yet when the exterminations happened Charlie is against that. Charlie starts the hotel to redeem sinners, yet here is the thing. Charlie is only redeeming them for they can escape extermination not because she actaully believe their good people. Remind you hell doesn't punish sinners so people are running around free doing whatever they want to one another and we are supposed to feel bad when they get exterminated. Adam has watched his children hurt each other for 900 years because of his ex wife, had to die despite being promised immortality, and realizes his ex wife enabels the evil behaviour that sinners do in hell. And he is the bad guy for killing those who already evil? You might say he is.an anti hero, but not a full blown villain.
Shit bro. Even Lucifer when he appeared in the show agreed on that notion that his people fuckin suck. Sure he might have took Adams first girl and broke a rule from heaven, but he believe that giving people freewill would bring out something sweet and awesome and wonder to the world and humanity. This making heaven proud and see his point is great for everyone. Then bro saw the unintended consequences of his actions and with sin being created and monstrous actions humans have inflicted on each other. Completely regret his actions of what he done to humanity as how he portrayed in the show.
When you put it that way. How is he the Villain Again? Sounds like an Anti hero. @@ARuiz-eu3hk
@@ARuiz-eu3hk Yeah when you read into Lucifer and Adam catch a lot of flak when Adam was basically clueless of what was going on at first. Lucifer was given free will then thought it was wrong for humans to not have it. When it came for Lilith and Adam to have sex both of them wanted to be on top basically and Lilith got mad and left.
Sorry don't see your point. Adam was a asshole to the core.
@@michaelknox3715 he wasn't an asshole to Lute or Sera or any other angels. Only to the literal Anti christ and the sinners in hell
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.