Trent Roman wrote:
Captain America is only a camp character if he's written that way. True, that tends to be the portrayal usually associated with the character, but one can look to the Ultimate line for an example of the perils that come with such naiveté and nationalist attachment. And while this film will, by all indications, take place mostly if not entirely in the WWII period, an Avengers movie can reduce or outright eliminate any camp factor with a more realistic, nuanced portrayal of a man experiencing the culture shock of seventy years' worth of social progress. (I'd love to see a scene such as this in an Avengers film: Cap challenges Fury about the ethics of some action saying it goes against his principles, or else questions whether the present [which would seem very loose and immoral from his perspective] is worth defending; Fury responds by telling him, in brief, about "Truth" and all the black men who were involuntarily experimented upon so that he could be created; the look on Steve Rogers' face as he is forced to confront the ugly side to his own idealistic existence).
I think that's a totally wrongheaded way to approach the character.
(which, technically, did not lead to his creation; it was an attempt to duplicate the process he had already underwent), while it led to Patriot, who's a cool character, was a bad addition to the Cap mythos, and it's not one you'll likely see brought into a film universe.
More significantly, Steve Rogers is not naive. That kind of approach to the character completely ignores his background; he grew up in a single-parent household in the Bronx in the 1930s. He knows the reality of World War II American society, from the grinding poverty to the many disadvantaged groups (the guy's a bleeding-heart New Dealer, in his standard portrayal); he's idealistic in spite
of all that, not because he's oblivious to it. He wants the future where a black man can be elected president.