Avengers Movie *Spoilers*

[RDMacQ]

If the Avengers are apparently for the nuclear option, then why did they and Nick Fury try to get rid of the bomb instead of letting it hit New York?

[Death by Mime]

I mean, there is that scene where Iron Man derides the "Nuclear Deterrent" option, but- silly me- I'm just going by what IS in the movie.

Hahaha, there is that scene where Iron Man actually performs the nuclear deterrent option by throwing a nuke at Earth's enemies, and is not sad or conflicted about it afterwards.

If they didn't object to the nuclear option, then I don't think the characters would have tried to get rid of the nuke.

Yes, supporting nuclear deterrence, that means you must be fine with nuking a city that you are in. Holy Christ man.

[Death by Mime]

Did I say I was for them, or that the Avengers were for them? No. You said there was no difference between Phase 2 nukes and "regular" nukes, despite the fact that there are massive difference in the real world types of nukes. This is why SHIELD, or the Council, were for it. They were afraid that the nukes they had weren't enough to take on these otherworldly threats. Normal nukes may have done well against the Chitauri, but considering one asgardian, who's not even near the strongest of them, did a massive amount of damage to the Chitauri, it may not be enough to go against someone of Asgard's caliber.

I'm talking from the Avengers' perspective. I'm talking from tommyman's perspective, who said now that we know nukes work fine, Phase 2 is irrelevant and the Avengers can quit worrying.

But ok, from your perspective. The movie condemns Phase 2 as bad, all the heroes are against this, Nick Fury agrees with them at the end. Do you disagree with this? Why/why not?

[RDMacQ]

Hahaha, there is that scene where Iron Man actually performs the nuclear deterrent option by throwing a nuke at Earth's enemies, and is not sad or conflicted about it afterwards.

So, if Iron Man was for the nuclear deterrent, then why did he try to get rid of the bomb and didn't just let it hit the city?

Yes, supporting nuclear deterrence, that means you must be fine with nuking a city that you are in. Holy Christ man.

But if you redirect it away from civilians, that must mean you're FOR it?

I also like how you are trying that "Anyone who disagrees with me is crazy" routine. Because someone who gets basic facts about the movie wrong, takes events and situations wildly out of context, and just makes stuff up about it to complain about, is clearly the only sane man in the room.

[RDMacQ]

I'm talking from the Avengers' perspective. I'm talking from tommyman's perspective, who said now that we know nukes work fine, Phase 2 is irrelevant and the Avengers can quit worrying.

Did you miss the fact that SHIELD no longer has the cube? So they can't make cube powered weapons?

It... it was kind of an important part of the last part of the film.

You DID see the film, right? I know I keep asking this, but you've never really answered it. Given the amount of stuff you've gotten incredibly wrong, I feel the need to keep asking.

But ok, from your perspective. The movie condemns Phase 2 as bad, all the heroes are against this, Nick Fury agrees with them at the end. Do you disagree with this? Why/why not?

Again, not so much "agrees with them" as he is "can't make weapons any longer."

And AGAIN, the movie establishes- you remember that word, ESTABLISH?- that Nick Fury preferred the Avengers Initiative over Phase 2, and fought for the Avengers OVER Phase 2.

Again, THIS STUFF WAS IN THE MOVIE. It helps if you regard ALL of the movie rather than taking individual scenes and ignoring all the context, buildup and resolution that comes before and after.

It also helps if you've seen the movie which I still don't think you've done.

[Death by Mime]

So, if Iron Man was for the nuclear deterrent, then why did he try to get rid of the bomb and didn't just let it hit the city?



But if you redirect it away from civilians, that must mean you're FOR it?

I also like how you are trying that "Anyone who disagrees with me is crazy" routine. Because someone who gets basic facts about the movie wrong, takes events and situations wildly out of context, and just makes stuff up about it to complain about, is clearly the only sane man in the room.

I don't - I don't think you know what 'nuclear deterrent' actually is. Here's a hint: it's not threatening to blow yourselves up when the enemies invade.

[RDMacQ]

I don't - I don't think you know what 'nuclear deterrent' actually is. Here's a hint: it's not threatening to blow yourselves up when the enemies invade.

So, again, redirecting a nuclear weapon ONCE that they had no control of it's implementation, or the decision to fire it AUTOMATICALLY MEANS that the Avengers are OK with a nuclear deterrent?

And because they WON'T be talking about dismantling nuclear weapons in the sequel, that again AUTOMATICALLY MEANS they are OK with a nuclear deterrent? Because if they DON'T talk about it, it automatically means they support the opposite view?

[Death by Mime]

So, again, redirecting a nuclear weapon ONCE that they had no control of it's implementation, or the decision to fire it AUTOMATICALLY MEANS that the Avengers are OK with a nuclear deterrent?

And because they WON'T be talking about dismantling nuclear weapons in the sequel, that again AUTOMATICALLY MEANS they are OK with a nuclear deterrent? Because if they DON'T talk about it, it automatically means they support the opposite view?

Silence implies consent, yes. If I shoot off a nuke and you raise no objections, you exhibit no negative reactions, you take no actions against me, if you do not even grumble about me privately to your like-minded friends, what conclusion can be made other than you are okay with it?

[RDMacQ]

Silence implies consent, yes. If I shoot off a nuke and you raise no objections, you exhibit no negative reactions, you take no actions against me, if you do not even grumble about me privately to your like-minded friends, what conclusion can be made other than you are okay with it?

So because you never answered my question about whether or not you've seen the movie, that much mean you didn't and I'm right? I kind of thought so.

But, for the sake of @#$%'s and giggles lets take your argument seriously- or as seriously as it can be taken- you're operating under the assumption that because you can't absolutely be proven wrong, that automatically makes you right.

That's.. what the word? Ridiculous. Unreasonable. Just plain wrong. Take your pick.

If you're going to argue that the characters are OK with a nuclear deterrent, you got to come up with stronger evidence than "They ditched a nuclear weapon in a portal." "AND... and.... no one said NO about it!"

I mean, once again the characters involved never really had a say in whether or not it was fired. It's just one missile, and the topic of an entire nuclear arsenal and the characters thoughts on it is never really brought up at ALL in the movie aside from Tony ACTUALLY SAYING WHAT A BAD IDEA IT WAS, Nick Fury tried to stop the nuclear weapon from being launched, stated that he preferred the Avenges Initiative to Phase 2 and it was clearly stated that it was the World Council that wanted it and their decisions were routinely derided, and at that point the movie was wrapping up and having the characters sit around and talk about their thoughts on nuclear deterrence would have felt ridiculously out of place and would have just slowed the movie down, and it's an incredible leap in logic to assume that just because they DON'T talk about it, it AUTOMATICALLY MEANS consent. But, no, other than THAT there's no instance of the characters pointing out that the nuclear option is a bad idea.

But, no, you stick with that "I can't be absolutely wrong, so therefore I'm 100% right." It's a perfectly legitimate theory. In that's it's actually a massive logically fallacy that undermines you're entire point. But that's OK, you're credibility as a source- what with getting several facts about the movie blatantly wrong- should help cover all the other blatant flaws.

EDIT: Oh, there's also a difference between "silence" and "Just not taking time out of the action to talk about it." The story still has to be entertaining after all. Not everything has to be depicted. We don't see any character go the bathroom in this film. Doesn't mean that they oppose using the toilet at all or held it in during the entire film.

[Death by Mime]

So because you never answered my question about whether or not you've seen the movie, that much mean you didn't and I'm right? I kind of thought so.

But, for the sake of @#$%'s and giggles lets take your argument seriously- or as seriously as it can be taken- you're operating under the assumption that because you can't absolutely be proven wrong, that automatically makes you right.

That's.. what the word? Ridiculous. Unreasonable. Just plain wrong. Take your pick.

If you're going to argue that the characters are OK with a nuclear deterrent, you got to come up with stronger evidence than "They ditched a nuclear weapon in a portal." "AND... and.... no one said NO about it!"

I mean, once again the characters involved never really had a say in whether or not it was fired. It's just one missile, and the topic of an entire nuclear arsenal and the characters thoughts on it is never really brought up at ALL in the movie aside from Tony ACTUALLY SAYING WHAT A BAD IDEA IT WAS, Nick Fury tried to stop the nuclear weapon from being launched, stated that he preferred the Avenges Initiative to Phase 2 and it was clearly stated that it was the World Council that wanted it and their decisions were routinely derided, and at that point the movie was wrapping up and having the characters sit around and talk about their thoughts on nuclear deterrence would have felt ridiculously out of place and would have just slowed the movie down, and it's an incredible leap in logic to assume that just because they DON'T talk about it, it AUTOMATICALLY MEANS consent. But, no, other than THAT there's no instance of the characters pointing out that the nuclear option is a bad idea.

But, no, you stick with that "I can't be absolutely wrong, so therefore I'm 100% right." It's a perfectly legitimate theory. In that's it's actually a massive logically fallacy that undermines you're entire point. But that's OK, you're credibility as a source- what with getting several facts about the movie blatantly wrong- should help cover all the other blatant flaws.

Of course I saw the movie, I've been grumbling about you with my like-minded friends. I am not a movie character, you cannot watch me on a big screen and see all the vital moments in my life.

This is what I mean, they follow the introduction of the nuke with the movie wrapping up. They didn't have to do that, they could've switched the acts around so that the Council nearly nuking a city sparks a major conflict with the Avengers. Conflict! Whee! Exciting! But the nuke is treated as part of the resolution, and everyone just quietly accepts it. The entire structure of the movie doesn't even give the Avengers a chance to treat the nuke as something problematic. A major part of this movie deals with Phase 2, an obvious analogy for nuclear proliferation. Why then, when an actual nuke comes into play, does the movie fail to give it the attention it deserves?

Maybe it is overstating things to describe the Avengers as 'ok' with nukes? Maybe it's more accurate to say that they will voice a nominal condemnation when the matter comes to their attention, but are in fact largely apathetic and will fail to do anything about it or be bothered by it or even really remember it.

[RDMacQ]

Of course I saw the movie, I've been grumbling about you with my like-minded friends. I am not a movie character, you cannot watch me on a big screen and see all the vital moments in my life.

Nope. Sorry. You remained silent. That meant you conceded to my point. You didn't see the movie.

AND since you can't prove me absolutely wrong in my claim that you never saw the movie, that must therefore mean I'm right.

This is what I mean, they follow the introduction of the nuke with the movie wrapping up. They didn't have to do that, they could've switched the acts around so that the Council nearly nuking a city sparks a major conflict with the Avengers. Conflict! Whee! Exciting! But the nuke is treated as part of the resolution, and everyone just quietly accepts it. The entire structure of the movie doesn't even give the Avengers a chance to treat the nuke as something problematic. A major part of this movie deals with Phase 2, an obvious analogy for nuclear proliferation. Why then, when an actual nuke comes into play, does the movie fail to give it the attention it deserves?

The movie not doing what you thought they should do in no way reflects on their beliefs on a subject, one way or another.

I really cannot believe that I have to clarify that with someone.

Maybe it is overstating things to describe the Avengers as 'ok' with nukes?

No, it's a gross overstatement. Wildly inaccurate even. I'd even say deliberately provocative. .

Maybe it's more accurate to say that they will voice a nominal condemnation when the matter comes to their attention, but are in fact largely apathetic and will fail to do anything about it or be bothered by it or even really remember it.

Which in no way makes the movie for- or even against- Nuclear Deterrence.

All it was was a plot element. If you stopped trying to sort out conspiracies to have something to bitch about, maybe you'd recognize that.

[Death by Mime]

Nope. Sorry. You remained silent. That meant you conceded to my point. You didn't see the movie.

AND since you can't prove me absolutely wrong in my claim that you never saw the movie, that must therefore mean I'm right.



The movie not doing what you thought they should do in no way reflects on their beliefs on a subject, one way or another.

I really cannot believe that I have to clarify that with someone.



No, it's a gross overstatement. Wildly inaccurate even. I'd even say deliberately provocative. .



Which in no way makes the movie for- or even against- Nuclear Deterrence.

All it was was a plot element. If you stopped trying to sort out conspiracies to have something to bitch about, maybe you'd recognize that.

Actions do not reflect beliefs? Seriously? This is a movie where the first part consists of the heroes going 'nukes are bad, mmm'kay?' And then in the finale they end up using a nuke to save the day and everyone's hunky dory with it. Talk about mixed messages.

In that huge wall of text you didn't read, I suggested that the point of the movie is that morality ultimately is unimportant in superheroes. As long as you condemn bad things overtly, that's enough. You don't even have to follow your own advice. Blowing up aliens with a nuke is cool as heck, let's collectively forget our previous misgivings with nukes. Nick Fury hacks into millions of cellphones and computers to find Loki, this is like that scene from The Dark Knight x 1000. He does this right in front of Captain America, and no one raises a fuss. No one cares. Not even the audience. TDK was just overdramatic, trying to force a moral lesson onto an otherwise amoral comic book world. What it should've focused on was the fight scenes.

[RDMacQ]

Actions do not reflect beliefs? Seriously? This is a movie where the first part consists of the heroes going 'nukes are bad, mmm'kay?' And then in the finale they end up using a nuke to save the day and everyone's hunky dory with it. Talk about mixed messages.

Kind of like stating that silence implies consent, then arguing that just because you were silent about a subject it doesn't mean the accusation has any merit?

Funny how that works out.

In that huge wall of text you didn't read, I suggested that the point of the movie is that morality ultimately is unimportant in superheroes.

Yeah.

Cause a movie where they try to stop a nuclear bomb from going off in a civilian population is all about "unimportant morals."

As long as you condemn bad things overtly, that's enough. You don't even have to follow your own advice. Blowing up aliens with a nuke is cool as heck, let's collectively forget our previous misgivings with nukes.

Yeah.

I like how you are trying to imply that the heroes planned on blowing up the aliens with a nuclear missile, where it was shown in the movie you never saw- since silence implies consent, and you were silent about my question- that they tried to stop it and it was only when it was too late that they tried to get rid of it.

But there I go again, going by what ACTUALLY went on in the movie rather than what I WANTED to go on there.

Nick Fury hacks into millions of cellphones and computers to find Loki, this is like that scene from The Dark Knight x 1000. He does this right in front of Captain America, and no one raises a fuss.

You really don't get that whole "silence implies consent" thing is a ridiculous notion, right? That guys just NOT coming out and saying something- and RUINING the flow of the movie- is in no way a support of right wing values?

No one cares.

Nor should they. That's not the point of the movie.

Not even the audience.

Don't see why they should. It was a single moment. A lot of people didn't go in looking to be upset.

That of course assumes that you actually DID see the movie, which as I stated before since you can't prove me absolutely wrong that you DID see it it automatically makes me right.

TDK was just overdramatic, trying to force a moral lesson onto an otherwise amoral comic book world.

So, TDK sucked because it tried to make a moral message, and Avengers sucked because it DIDN'T try to make a moral message?

You do realize that this basically shows that you are making stuff up to complain about, right?

What it should've focused on was the fight scenes.

It DID! You're the only one who's seeing arguments for the nuclear deterrent and for the invasion of privacy. The reason it didn't focus on those elements was BECAUSE it was focusing on the big fight scenes, RATHER than making a message.

Maybe you should do that when you eventually do get around to seeing the movie.

[Death by Mime]

It is truly amazing how you are completely unable to pick up on sarcasm. Your mind just processes everything 100% literally, it's bizarre. Absolutely, yes, you have my consent (I am verbalizing it, stating it outright) to continue your antics. And I don't know why you're getting so upset when you agreed with me. In fact, you went further:

Which in no way makes the movie for- or even against- Nuclear Deterrence.

All it was was a plot element. If you stopped trying to sort out conspiracies to have something to bitch about, maybe you'd recognize that.

Imagine this: a movie where nuclear deterrence is a major plot point. All of the main characters come out speaking strongly against it, denouncing WMDs. And yet, this movie is not for nuclear deterrence, it is not against it, it has absolutely zero opinions on the matter of right or wrong. It is merely using it as a plot element. When all the heroes denounce it, that is not an exhibition of moral conviction, because if it was they might have stronger feelings about being forced to use a nuke at the ending. Instead, all their speeches are just words strung together to sound pretty.

I mean, I disagree with you in that I think the movie is in fact very strongly against nuclear deterrence, it's simply that the characters are apathetic about it. It agrees that nukes are bad, and then shrugs and says there's not much point in doing anything about them. In that sense it's only speaking the truth, and I can respect that.

[Death by Mime]

That guys just NOT coming out and saying something- and RUINING the flow of the movie- is in no way a support of right wing values?

The question is not why they didn't speak up, it's why did that scene exist to begin with? What was the purpose in showing SHIELD can hack the world if it's going to be casually brushed off? And of course it wouldn't ruin the movie, a building theme in the earlier half was the shadiness of SHIELD, hence why Iron Man started hacking the place. Seeing that SHIELD casually violates everyone's privacy is arguably as bad as them building better WMDs, and could have tied in to their antagonism with SHIELD. Instead that scene exists to go unnoticed, to show that no one cares.