Steve Rogers and Nick Fury in "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER"

I've noticed that a lot of people use that "it's just a story" excuse to avoid talking about something that others would find troubling about movies they like. I've done it.

 

I've noticed that a lot of people use that "it's just a story" excuse to avoid talking about something that others would find troubling about movies they like.

Why not? Fury was Steve's boss at the time.

 

Clearly Fury himself felt otherwise with regards to how to deal with Steve's attitude.

 

It really bothers you when people defy hierarchies, doesn't it?

 

​

 

Look dude, it's fun to talk about movies and discus odd things, sure. But often, you really get a bit to fanatic over it. Especially when people don't agree with you. In the end, they're just movies. There are more important things to get angry over.

Just an edit..... We're not avoiding anything. We just don't care THAT much.

 

Not people in general--the Captain America / Steve Rogers character. LJones has a rather large bug up the lower region about this character, who well within his rights to demand answers, since its not only his life on the line, but his right to know he's not being manipulated / used by Fury / SHIELD. He's no random employee by any stretch of the imagination, and has the clout to walk into the office of anyone--especially if that anyone has hidden agendas / missions.

 

Steve might have acted arrogantly, but I'd be more concerned if he acted out of character (i.e., ignored a problem that needed addressing). Also, it was established in The Avengers that Fury keeps a lot of secrets, even from close associates, and Steve defended him at first. By the time of TWS, he was probably tired of putting up with all of it, so he burst in and demanded an explanation. He didn't act that way in his meeting with Pierce because he had no similar experience with him. I have no problem with Cap's behavior; it was consistent with what we know of him. (Also, it's a Captain America movie; if the title had been Nick Fury: The Winter Soldier events would have likely unfolded differently.)

 

Wow. I never realized that so many people are upset over the idea that Steve Rogers had no business treating Nick Fury - his boss - like some damn minion or that he had to know everything that Fury knew.

Has this to do with race? Is the idea of a white Steve Rogers being automatically subservient to a black Nick Fury upsetting - especially since they are in a professional setting? Or is this something else? Because Steve is CAPTAIN AMERICA, it's okay for him to get away with behavior that other people would get their asses fired over? After all, Steve wasn't just helping SHIELD on his own. He was an employee of SHIELD at the time of "The Winter Soldier". But fandom's unwillingness to consider Steve's behavior in that movie troublesome really makes me wonder sometimes.

What problem? That Fury kept secrets? Fury was the Director of SHIELD . . . and a spymaster. He was not obliged to tell his employees everything that was going on. If Steve had used his brains, he would have realized this. And if he didn't like this situation, he should have resigned from the agency.

Coulson had this same conflict with Daisy Johnson in Season Two of "AGENTS OF SHIELD". And Coulson made it clear that as the Director, he was not obliged to tell Daisy everything, even when she demanded that he did.

 

Yes.

 

Bullshit.

 

Reaching much.

He's not the first main character of a story to basically ignore his boss, it's a common theme in alot of heroes.

 

Are you serious? The scene would play the same if David Hasselhoff was in the role. Telling off the boss is a time honored trope.

It's because the movies called "Captain America: The Winter Soldier". He's the lead character. He's also fictional, so getting fired isn't an option, unless it's in the script.

 

You would be the one singular person in the movie going public to think so.

 

Do we have a facepalm emijo here??

Seriously buddy, let it go. It's not real life. It's a movie. A superhero movie. Why do you insist we all threat it as if it's a real life news item?

 

So, now we arrive at the true drive behind this thread:

Fitting that you provided the only answer to your own quote above:

Johnson is expendable. Rogers is not, hence the reason Fury's first thought after finding Rogers in the ice was to beg him to join/lead the Avengers and eventually be THE asset of SHIELD. So, despite the real reason you hate Steve Rogers, he is not some random employee who bows like some badge or computer jockey.

 

I'm quite confused now...I mean, Steve mouths off at Fury and Fury chooses not to do anything about this, and this is an issue with Steve? If Fury lets it go, then why is it a problem?

All too similar to another thread I'm in where someone's fuming over Kira's attitude, nevermind that Sisko rarely seemed to have any problems with it.

Perhaps bosses should be allowed to deal with unconventional employees in the ways that will yield the best results...

 

It's called being a flawed imperfect yet still endearingly human character.

Marvel's built on this stuff.

 

Out of everything in that movie Captain Rogers promotion made the most real world sense to me. That war through the Vietnam War were full of "bake and shakes", "90 day wonders" and other junior leaders who were no more experienced than the soldiers that they led. And in his case the SSR looked more like the OSS than the 1st Infantry Division at the training phase before they deployed to Italy.

 

Trolololololol.

No. Anybody would have the right to react to Fury almost getting innocent people killed the way Steve did. Steve just has the clout to do so without negative consequences.

1. We do not know that with 100% certainty.

2. Steve is the kind of guy who is willing to get fired if he's standing up for what's right.

You have problems with understanding how context changes things.

The problem is not that Fury keeps secrets. The problem is that, from Steve's point of view, Fury's particular way of organizing his secrets needlessly endangered Steve, his team, and the hostages.

We the audience later figure out, of course, that Fury restricted knowledge of Natasha's mission to Natasha herself because leaking it to the rest of the Strike Team would have meant leaking it to Hydra.

Ultimately, Fury is not angry at Steve for mouthing off to him -- because he knows full well that if Steve had known about Fury's suspicion there was a conspiracy within SHIELD that Natasha's mission had to be hidden from, Steve would have agreed.

However much the idea of people not always being obedient to hierarchies bothers you, Fury obviously values Cap's willingness to defy his bosses when the available evidence shows that his bosses are wrong. It was precisely Steve's willingness to rebel against hierarchies that saved the world from Hydra.

I'm not sure what makes you think yelling at Fury is incompatible with resigning from SHIELD.

And yet it remains precisely Daisy's willingness to rebel against unjust authority that has made her a valuable member of the SHIELD team.