First Avenger Is Captain America like Batman when it comes to killing?

[Mercurius]

Iron Man's time-frame was also changed for the movie to work, Cap's however isn't.

You mean it like: "As the time-frame wasn't changed, let's just repeat the same old attitude towards it"?

Like, the rule is: keeping the time-frame, we keep the approach?

Well, then we'll get Captain America saying: "You had that coming, pal", when deliberately killing an enemy, roight? t:

That will be fun to watch, anyway. A comedy, that is.

 

[captainrogers]

You mean it like: "As the time-frame wasn't changed, let's just repeat the same old attitude towards it"?

Like, the rule is: keeping the time-frame, we keep the approach?

Well, then we'll get Captain America saying: "You had that coming, pal", when deliberately killing an enemy, roight? t:

That will be fun to watch, anyway. A comedy, that is.

*sigh* guess we're wrong.

 

[Majik1387]

You mean it like: "As the time-frame wasn't changed, let's just repeat the same old attitude towards it"?

Like, the rule is: keeping the time-frame, we keep the approach?

Well, then we'll get Captain America saying: "You had that coming, pal", when deliberately killing an enemy, roight? t:

That will be fun to watch, anyway. A comedy, that is.

If I want to watch a comedy involving WWII I'll watch Inglorious Basterds or The Producers.

Changing the timeframe in IM's origin pretty much just changed it from Vietnam to Afghanistan, but pretty much kept everything else the same.

They're not changing Cap's origin. It clearly takes place throughout WWII, one of the worst wars ever to be fought. No matter how much of a perfect specimen Cap is, WWII was kill or be killed when on the battlefront; To ignore that is just ridiculously naive and horrible wishful thinking for him to have the mindset he has currently without the events leading up to it.

You can debate your side all you want, but nothing you're saying or providing is anything more than just your blind preference.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Ok, now look, the whole thing is: we aren't discussing if Holy Lord Jesus Christ was poor in some medieval council of franciscans x dominicans.

Canon is a religious word and you preach with it your Captain truth.

I'm all for interpretation, a quite modern gulf of air into old ideas. We live other times.

Canon Iron Man has begun as war propaganda in Vietnam: quite different in the movie, where he's called to face the resposibilities of his warmongering.

And Iron Man is not the one, in the comics, with a ready speech about liberty and the value of human life.

So: it's cool when we get IM to put things in perspective with our new knowledge of politics, but about Cap we should get religious about the, what do ya call it...ah, canon?

"Vast majority" as an argument. That's the best one.

I can remember a good deal of things in which the appetite for destruction of the "vast majority" is just the explanation to the "vast majority" of the problems in this world.

Of course it's obvious that a killer Cap appeals much more to people: a murderer is as edgy as we like to imagine our angst-ridden times to be.

"He doesn't kill, what a wuss". But that's very much like Mike Judge's Idiocracy, isn't it?

Anyway: as I said before, I haven't created that Captain America that doesn't kill.

Many here have shown that that was the character back in the 80's. I myself have mentioned the story, in Byrne's run, in which Cap has to kill Baron Blood, and suffers a good deal from it.

Baron Blood is a ghoul, a vampire. He is ALREADY dead, he's a bloodsucking monster.

Nevertheless, Cap suffers with the act of exterminating him.

Get it? a man who suffers that much for having to dispatch an ALREADY dead enemy IS NOT the one who just acknowledges "alrighty: too bad, but I had to do it" when it comes to living beings.

But, on the other hand, let's take a look at your attitude:

I just said that both are choices, mine or yours, but that's not enough for you and your murderer Cap teamates, the "vast majority".

You want to state that the only Cap is that one that you, ah-ham, "enjoy".

That's pretty intolerant from your part.

But, hey, you appreciate the murderer one, what was I expecting?

You mean it like: "As the time-frame wasn't changed, let's just repeat the same old attitude towards it"?

Like, the rule is: keeping the time-frame, we keep the approach?

Well, then we'll get Captain America saying: "You had that coming, pal", when deliberately killing an enemy, roight? t:

That will be fun to watch, anyway. A comedy, that is.

Are you still even talking about Cap? It seems like you're just picture words and trying to twist them (albeit incorrectly) in your favor.

People complain all the time about something thats in the comics. This is in the comics. This is the Cap that exists. Your ridiculous notions won't change that.

And you do know he's using guns in the film anyway.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

What are you guys arguing about? Whether he has killed in the past or whether he kills now. While I didn't grow up reading the WWII Cap or the Cap that's been written the last few years where his WWII exploits have been written with much more detail, you have to face that he did kill out of necessity. There's no way to deny that. Now does he kill today? If he absolutely had to and had no other option, of course he would.

Agreed.

 

[wobbly]

Since when did we start calling WW2 veterans who killed the enemy on it's many battlefields 'murderers'?

Murder is the unjustified killing of an individual for undesirable selfish motives (money, revenge, sick pleasure, etc)

For soldiers on the battlefields of WW2 it was kill or be killed, for both allied and axis troops.

And this not asking a comic book, or the movie it's based on, to be too realistic, it's simply acknowledging the historical facts of the period Captain America was created in. It's not like we are saying Cap just killed for the sake of it and took pleasure in it, it's having him do what had to be done at that time.

 

[Surfer]

The only problem with that notion is that Cap (if you're going 616) is no where near that fast. He's described as "peak human" so he's extremely fast and quick, but even the quickest person in the world wouldn't be able to jump around a battlefield dodging bullets.

However, I personally don't mind if they power Cap up a bit more then he is in 616.

Just to be fair, we really do not know what the peak of human performance is, only what the peak of human performance is so far. However, records are always being broken by Athletes and while most times it's only by 10ths of a second who is to say where the limit is. Also, as I mentioned in another thread that went onto this same topic (it is a comic book), so they can take some liberties with suggesting that the peak of human performance is much higher then what we have already achieved. Similar to the way that many have said that man only uses 10% of their brain function. Imagine the possibilities if an average human uses only 10%, an athlete 20% and maybe an olympic athlete uses 30% of their bodies capabilites and then you have Cap at 100%. Well then he would be able to run rings around even the greatest of Athletes. This is more or less how I see the peak of human performance, and I think it coincides with Marvel's plans for the super soldier serum as well. The reason I say this is when Tim Roth took the serum in The Incredible Hulk he seemed to be quicker then any athlete I have ever witnessed and many have stated that he was not suppose to be on par with Captain America, which leads me to believe that Cap is going to be very quick indeed.

Just my thoughts of course.

Surfer

 

[Shivsguy616]

Just to be fair, we really do not know what the peak of human performance is, only what the peak of human performance is so far. However, records are always being broken by Athletes and while most times it's only by 10ths of a second who is to say where the limit is. Also, as I mentioned in another thread that went onto this same topic (it is a comic book), so they can take some liberties with suggesting that the peak of human performance is much higher then what we have already achieved. Similar to the way that many have said that man only uses 10% of their brain function. Imagine the possibilities if an average human uses only 10%, an athlete 20% and maybe an olympic athlete uses 30% of their bodies capabilites and then you have Cap at 100%. Well then he would be able to run rings around even the greatest of Athletes. This is more or less how I see the peak of human performance, and I think it coincides with Marvel's plans for the super soldier serum as well. The reason I say this is when Tim Roth took the serum in The Incredible Hulk he seemed to be quicker then any athlete I have ever witnessed and many have stated that he was not suppose to be on par with Captain America, which leads me to believe that Cap is going to be very quick indeed.

Just my thoughts of course.

Surfer

Except of course for the fact that the idea that humans only use 10% of thier brain function is an idiotic misconception. And equally, postulating that olympic atheletes are at 30% of human physical potential has no basis in fact, evidence, or even simple logic.

In 1896, Spiridon Louis won the Olympic marathon with a time of 2:58:50. In 2008, Samuel Kamau Wanjiru won the Olympic marathon with a time of 2:06:32. So, in 112 years, with all the medical, fitness, clothing, hydration, training etc. advances, there has been a 52 minute improvement. And for the most part, this had been a very slowly creeping progression, with the improvements becoming lesser and lesser each year.

Now, if we are to assume that the Olympians who run the marathon are at just 30% of peak physical fitness, then you are in effect saying that you believe a perfect human could run a marathon in about 0:37:57. Or in other words, run for 42km non stop at a speed of almost 67kmph. Now, it doesn't take a great leap of faith to realise that this will never be naturally humanly possible. But to put it into perspective; record-setting sprinters Michael Johnson and Donovan Bailey hit top speeds of 43kmph, but only for seconds.

Below, too, I have posted a link to a mathematical model for the theoretical fastest humanly possible 100m sprint time. It is estimated to be about 9.2 seconds and is likely not to be achieved for hundereds of years. Usain Bolt already runs a sub 9.6 100m. If this was 30% of peak human capability, then Cap would be running the 100 meters in 2.9 seconds... or at 124kmph. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/08/the_math_of_the_fastest_human.php

 

[Shivsguy616]

Since when did we start calling WW2 veterans who killed the enemy on it's many battlefields 'murderers'?

Murder is the unjustified killing of an individual for undesirable selfish motives (money, revenge, sick pleasure, etc)

For soldiers on the battlefields of WW2 it was kill or be killed, for both allied and axis troops.

And this not asking a comic book, or the movie it's based on, to be too realistic, it's simply acknowledging the historical facts of the period Captain America was created in. It's not like we are saying Cap just killed for the sake of it and took pleasure in it, it's having him do what had to be done at that time.

Or to be more accurate, murder is defined as unlawful killing of a human. Most killings in war are not unlawful. Some are, but those are humanitarian issues. We are talking about soldiers killing soldiers when necessary. That is perfectly lawful.

 

[Rage]

The thing to remember is that Canon is forever changing. Just because it ended up in the comics...doesn't mean that it is still part of that comics history... WE ALL KNOW THIS. Cap has been around in Marvel since the mid 60s. If everything that happened in all those comics was taken at face value (like who the president was in a certain comic0 than Cap would have been revived for almost 50 years. We all know that comic books have thier own rule of thumb about elapsed time. Cap has been revived for around a decade (as of the Brubaker run)

The same can be said about the historical facts of the stories. Depending on the writer/editor/artist... things change drastically from issue to issue... now think decade to decade. While some story arcs or events do continue throughout... some are just brushed under the carpet to suit whatever the writer needs.

in the 80s and early 90s... Cap was depicted as morally against killing (during war time or not) With attitudes changing over the years (particularly after 911) we now see a more realistic view of WWII than we saw in previous incarnations of Cap. So a lot of people here who may have only read Cap recently, or enjoy this run particularly... see Cap as a soldier who does what a soldier must.

I grew up with a Cap who was against killing and found it below him. He didn't need to kill to disable hoards of enemies... he was that good. The Cap I grew up with didn't kill and the writers/editors of the time decided to not have Cap carry a sidearm in their flashbacks and not kill. They made the conscious decision to disregard the "canon" continuity that Timely created to retcon/re-tell the stories to fit thier current incarnation of Cap.

So... while Cap has again been changed/retconned... he was at one time a guy who didn't kill during the war and didn't carry a side arm.

What some people seem to get stuck on is that the guy is a soldier during war... and that alone makes them think that we would kill. But the guy is "more than human" and is capable of doing amazing things. NOBODY could just wade into hoards of armed people with nothing more than a shield and come out unscathed.... its impossible. So if you can accept that, can you not accept that he may have a problem with killing (even if he's at war?

While I accept that the current Cap stories show him killing enemy soldiers and carrying a sidearm... that is not the Cap that was published during almost 2 decades prior to 911... and to some of us, its not the Cap that we grew up on. Just like someone's Grandpa would see the Cap & Bucky I grew up on as sissies for not killing Nazis. Its all a matter of perspective... and like I said before, the publishers constantly change that perspective, so it is understandable that we all have different interpretations of how Cap would act.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

The thing to remember is that Canon is forever changing. Just because it ended up in the comics...doesn't mean that it is still part of that comics history... WE ALL KNOW THIS. Cap has been around in Marvel since the mid 60s. If everything that happened in all those comics was taken at face value (like who the president was in a certain comic0 than Cap would have been revived for almost 50 years. We all know that comic books have thier own rule of thumb about elapsed time. Cap has been revived for around a decade (as of the Brubaker run)

The same can be said about the historical facts of the stories. Depending on the writer/editor/artist... things change drastically from issue to issue... now think decade to decade. While some story arcs or events do continue throughout... some are just brushed under the carpet to suit whatever the writer needs.

in the 80s and early 90s... Cap was depicted as morally against killing (during war time or not) With attitudes changing over the years (particularly after 911) we now see a more realistic view of WWII than we saw in previous incarnations of Cap. So a lot of people here who may have only read Cap recently, or enjoy this run particularly... see Cap as a soldier who does what a soldier must.

I grew up with a Cap who was against killing and found it below him. He didn't need to kill to disable hoards of enemies... he was that good. The Cap I grew up with didn't kill and the writers/editors of the time decided to not have Cap carry a sidearm in their flashbacks and not kill. They made the conscious decision to disregard the "canon" continuity that Timely created to retcon/re-tell the stories to fit thier current incarnation of Cap.

So... while Cap has again been changed/retconned... he was at one time a guy who didn't kill during the war and didn't carry a side arm.

What some people seem to get stuck on is that the guy is a soldier during war... and that alone makes them think that we would kill. But the guy is "more than human" and is capable of doing amazing things. NOBODY could just wade into hoards of armed people with nothing more than a shield and come out unscathed.... its impossible. So if you can accept that, can you not accept that he may have a problem with killing (even if he's at war?

While I accept that the current Cap stories show him killing enemy soldiers and carrying a sidearm... that is not the Cap that was published during almost 2 decades prior to 911... and to some of us, its not the Cap that we grew up on. Just like someone's Grandpa would see the Cap & Bucky I grew up on as sissies for not killing Nazis. Its all a matter of perspective... and like I said before, the publishers constantly change that perspective, so it is understandable that we all have different interpretations of how Cap would act.

I really don't remember a WWII series or mini series in which Cap was against killing.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Neither can I. In fact he's killed in every WW2 story.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Yeah so this notion that Cap didn't or refused to kill in World War II is untrue. People always complain when their character doesn't follow the comics and yet when they do, they complain anyway.

 

[Rage]

Neither can I. In fact he's killed in every WW2 story.

He's killed in EVERY WW2 story? That is a pretty broad statement. So if I go through some of the old Cap comics that I still have kicking around and find one that has flashbacks to WWII and he doesn't kill someone in that issue... will you eat your words?

 

[Majik1387]

He said in every WWII story he killed, not every WWII issue he killed.

 

[Rage]

That's correct. But a story can be a single issue, a mini series, an entire arc... its a pretty subjective word don't you think?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

He's killed in EVERY WW2 story? That is a pretty broad statement. So if I go through some of the old Cap comics that I still have kicking around and find one that has flashbacks to WWII and he doesn't kill someone in that issue... will you eat your words?

I did say World War II series before.

 

[Majik1387]

Only to those who over-reach because they don't have a real point.

 

[Rage]

I did say World War II series before.

I was quoting ChickenScratch Parker. And I can 100% not disagree about Cap killing in WWII because in every version of his origin... we see him accidentally kill the Nazi spy/assassin because he's not used to his speed, strength and reflexes.

 

[Rage]

Only to those who over-reach because they don't have a real point.

I don't think I'm over-reaching at all. Its a valid point. What do you consider a story? Would a Graphic Novel or mini-series be a story?

I've read a ton of Cap Comics in my day (including a run of 12 years straight in the 80s and early 90s) and other than the old Timely Comics (which I really didn't read) I can only remember 3 people that Cap killed. (until I started reading the recent Brubaker run) The Nazi Assassin, Baron Blood and that Terrorist Al-Tariq (who Cap killed with a punch) That being said, he obviously didn't go around gunning down too many German's in WWII in the Marvel comics during that time (or I'm sure I would remember it)

I doubt that you've read as many Cap comics as me (its possible...but I doubt it) I was reading Cap comics before you were even born. So if all you have to go on are comics from the last 15 years... we've read vastly different story arcs about Captain America because I quit reading Cap in about 1995-96 and didn't start up again until Captain America Vol. 4 Issue #1 and then only read that till Cassaday left the book. And started back up again during the Winter Soldier story arc. So my understanding of Cap since 911 is limited. But to think that I don't know anything about the character is absurd.

 

[Shivsguy616]

I don't think I'm over-reaching at all. Its a valid point. What do you consider a story? Would a Graphic Novel or mini-series be a story?

What's with the confusion? Comics start with a title page, the page with the credits on it. This tells you the story title and which part you are reading.

 

[ChickenScratch]

He's killed in EVERY WW2 story? That is a pretty broad statement. So if I go through some of the old Cap comics that I still have kicking around and find one that has flashbacks to WWII and he doesn't kill someone in that issue... will you eat your words?

You are splitting hairs to try to prove your point, which you have not. You know exactly what I meant, he's killed in every WW2 story, be it graphic novel, or a more condensed story, or whatever length the arc may be. He's killed in WW2, many times and to dispute that because you can dig up some issue where he's just parachuting it proves nothing because it's apart of a larger arc in which he does kill.

And how does one eat words by the way?

 

[Rage]

No... I'm just pointing out that your use of the english language was a little vague. If you were saying that in every incarnation of Cap, he's killed in WWII... that I would understand... but the word "story" leads to a very specific point in time (like an issue or miniseries... something with a set beginning and ending)

 

[Rage]

What's with the confusion? Comics start with a title page, the page with the credits on it. This tells you the story title and which part you are reading.

That makes sense to me. So an issue or miniseries or Graphic Novel would be a story... not all of Cap's adventures during WWII. That could be considered a backstory... but a "story" is a more specific term.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Oh, you are just splitting hairs because you don't like to be wrong. You seem to be the only one who did not understand my point, my use of English is fine, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one on this forum who's made the NYTimes bestseller list or works for a major magazine. I'm sure a few of us work in publishing though.