• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Captain America: Civil War - pre-release discussion, news, rumors, etc

Exactly what are these dire consequences? That a bunch of bored nerds are overanalyzing a fictional system which was inherently illogical before AoU ever was filmed? Joss Whedon didn't invent the 'worthy' argument. This discussion has been around for years, and the idea that Vision is worthy is no more of a problem than any other person who isn't Thor being worthy.

The consequences are that you create a controversy that is never going to end. And I didn't say they were dire, you did. The point I was making was that, for the MCU at least, it was opening a big can of worms that we really didn't need opened. And it was done on a whim. Mr. Whedon should have done better.
 
I don't remember the movie real clearly, so this might not work entirely. But I had assumed that Vision was able to lift Mjolnir at that point because he was a new, completely innocent lifeform, who had not done anything to make him "unworthy".
It was lame all around.

The only person amongst the Avengers who's worthy of lifting Mjolnir is Steve Rogers. He's more "worthy" than Thor himself, a drunken, battle-happy berserker. He's hardly a paladin of virtues. But hell, if "by being worthy" means to have Thor's attributes rather than those of someone who's noble, then Tony Stark should have been able to lift it, no problem, as he's every bit as much a drunk and all-too-happy to fight sort of guy, at least when he has his armor on. But nope. It was the Vision, who neither shares any of Thor's attributes, nor has in any way, shape, or form proven himself to be anything even approaching Steve's heroism.

Hell, if the movie Vision is worthy, then Thor shouldn't even be able to lift Mjolnir.
 
The consequences are that you create a controversy that is never going to end. And I didn't say they were dire, you did. The point I was making was that, for the MCU at least, it was opening a big can of worms that we really didn't need opened. And it was done on a whim. Mr. Whedon should have done better.

He didn't create anything. The controversy has existed for years. I saw people making fun of it on television before the first Avengers movie even came out.
 
Will be going to see the movie tonight :D

Will someone be creating a discussion/rating thread?
You can make one. Just put Spoilers in the title. I envy you though, mate.

Funny video that does exaggerate the damages in the end, I must concede.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
He didn't create anything. The controversy has existed for years. I saw people making fun of it on television before the first Avengers movie even came out.

Right. There's nothing remotely new about comics fans arguing over the logical minutiae and consequences of ideas that Stan Lee tossed out in an afternoon. That's how No-Prizes were born. There's nothing wrong with giving fans something to debate and analyze. The problem is that society today has lost sight of the idea that debate can be friendly. We're trapped in this dysfunctional mentality that all arguments must be bitter, personal, and hostile. But arguments over unimportant things like what makes someone worthy to wield Mjolnir can be fun, because there's nothing at stake. It's not "controversy," it's just engaging with ideas.
 
Will be going to see the movie tonight :D

Will someone be creating a discussion/rating thread?
I was about to post the same thing because the film opens in much of Europe and Asia this week. I was going to see it today but now I have to wait until tomorrow.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top