Obligatory disclaimer, I DGAF about the picture books. As far as I am concerned, a superhero has to be a person, otherwise they are nothing. Spider-Man is Peter Parker. I find the moral theme of the movies kind of weak, but everyone knows, Great Power, Great Responsibility, etc. As I understand it, it was the moral core behind all the Spider gimmicks that made that particular comic book character stand out among the hundreds or thousands that were being cranked out to occupy kids' minds when there was no internet, only a single digit number of TV channels and the so-called "Greatest Generation" was abdicating responsible parenting. I remember hearing about when Superman died in the comic books, and seeing a poster outside a comic book shop with four different guys with a similar color scheme and appearance and logos, presumably fighting to be his replacement (I am pretty sure Shaquille O'Neal played the winner in a movie). And that was probably bullshit, because when it came time to make more movies & TV shows, it was still Clark Kent. I know there was a thing when Batman was crippled and Dick had to be Batman and yet, when they made movies, we still have Bruce Wayne. Even when the last one in the trilogy tried to suggest someone else was taking his place, the implication was that he'd be Robin, not Batposter (rather appropriately, when you think about the respective symbolism of the animals). I know there's exceptions. Green Lantern is established to be a job, so there can be lots of them. But even there, I am given to understand that they killed Hal and eventually, despite publishing lots of comics with the name, but featuring someone else with the ring, they made the movie about Hal and brought him back to life in comics. I know the Doctor Whose Name is Not Who has some sort of reincarnation deal, and maybe they are the same person? or not? (British TV is, IMO, an acquired taste, best kept in small doses, so I will happily restrict myself to Yes, Minister, Coupling and The Hollow Crown. Also, from what I know of The Doctor, shouldn't it be called Doctor When? )

But I don't see how those exceptions really apply to Captain America. Yes, maybe his shield is the equivalent of Hal's ring, but from what I recall of the MCU lore (it's been quite a while since the last one, so my memory might be shaky), the shield was lost with Steve, and yet, they kept trying to make Captains America using the drugs. But I think even if you neutralized the drugs in Steve's system and took away his shield, he could still be the focus of a Captain America movie, even if people said things like "he's not Captain America anymore" using "Captain America" as a catchall term for the powers and gear.

So, no. As far as I am concerned, Sam Wilson is not Captain America. Bucky would not be Captain America, if the powers that be at Marvel/Disney decided to give the shield to him. John Walker was not Captain America, but he came closer to being a reasonable facsimile than either of Steve's buddies in the awful TV show named after them. And, yet, Walker has been shuffled off to the Thunderbolts, which looks A. like a desperate attempt at a Marvel Suicide Squad and yet, B. rather better than any further iterations of the prior MCU films.

And this is and is not a Captain America movie, as my Subject line implies. It is, because branding and copyrights and ownership, so the producers can call it that, and it's also Captain America in the way that The Force Awakens is Star Wars. Like, literally. The Force Awakens was basically a plotless monster dressed up in the skin of Star Wars, But Bigger. This is trying to do the same thing with Captain America: Winter Soldier (2).

We start out with Captain America on a mission with his sidekick for the rest of the movie, basically doing normal special ops stuff, dropping in on terrorists who have seized a place, to liberate it from the terrorists, while the US military folks accompanying him are more about recovering a thing we don't need to know about yet, but they are going to spend a lot of the movie fighting because of it. And then there will be an assassination attempt on a character played by a guy who was in Star Wars and has also played the President of the US in a film where Air Force One is attacked, and as a result of that attempt, our protagonist will have to go on the run. He will team up with a minority guy with robot wings calling himself Falcon, and with a tiny red-haired chick who was born in another country, was part of the Widow program and trusted by the assassination target, and they will explore an off the grid facility and find a secret lair of a villain from a prior film who will reveal in a confrontation with Our Hero, that he has a whole big infiltration program going on, which the Good Guys have to stop. And the villain of the film is mind-controlled.

So that is how it's a Captain America movie.

What it does not have is any of the character stuff that made Steve a hero. Captain America 1 had him trying to help, and stand up for what's right, being given the power to do so, ostensibly because the people in charge see good qualities in him, but he has to push against the authorities to do the right thing and rescue people, where they just want to use him as a showpiece. But he also proves himself by demonstrating respect for rightful authority and submitting himself to the greater good, even to the point of giving his life to save others. Then in Captain America 2, he has to push back against people trying to use power irresponsibly or for bad ends, and expose the subversion of the evolution of the very thing he worked so hard to become a part of, even if it means bringing down a whole institution that has been really important to the mission. In the third movie, Civil War, he basically had to stand up for a friend and for what he saw as right, even when everyone in charge, including many of his own friends, said it was wrong, and, once more, breaking an institution, an organization that had become important to him.

These movies have had a consistent theme and character arc all about defining Captain America and his ethics and morals and demonstrating that there is no extreme he won't go to, in order to do what he sees as right and defend what is important to him. All of this, in turn, supports what we see of him in other movies. It explains his willingness to get in the face of Tony Stark, a highly-armed genius and challenge whether or not he'd be willing to put his life on the line. It explains why he will stand between Asgardian gods and their targets. And ultimately, why the Avengers all coalesce around his leadership, despite being in the bottom half of the group in power, knowledge or worldly experience. It pays off in his return to the Avengers when Thanos attacks, his standing against Thanos wielding the gauntlet, his assertion of the fundamental divide between the heroes and the allegedly altruistic villain ( "We don't sacrifice people" ) and it justifies his climactic moment in the final movie featuring Steve Rogers, where he wields Thor's hammer, which had previously been established as a test of heroic worth. That scene is just a "yeah, right, whatever you say writers, Rey is definitely a Skywalker" moment, if you don't have all the Captain America movies showing WHY Steve is worthy and why Mjolnir flies to his hand when it's needed.

This, for the record, is why I say John Walker came closest to qualifying as Steve Rogers Lite. In the abominable show "Falcon and the Winter Soldier" when so much is being made about The Shield and the role of Captain America and his own questions about his fitness and worthiness, when all the world is doubting him, he gives up the shield to try to save people. Then later, Sam assaults and injures him, in a non-combat situation, and takes the shield away. The former is at least aspiring to what Captain America should be. The latter is A. bullshit, Sam would never do that, because Sam is still a hero, regardless of whether or not a certain title applies, and B. absolutely unworthy of Captain America, if Captain America is a role of which Steve Rogers was simply one player.

This movie has zero moral dimension, and very little character that I can see. Aside from the shield, and plot plagiarism, there is nothing here to make this anywhere congruent with a Captain America movie. The moral issue is that Sam thinks his friend is being set up for a crime he did not commit, and so he goes off on his own to try to prove it. Other people oppose him for absolutely no good reason or even personal gain. Seriously. The motive of the ultimate Guy Behind It All, makes no sense when applied to their actions in the movie. It's just Sam following the trails, or getting pushed, from one combat scene to another, with occasional infodumps related strictly to the minimum of plot explanations, not actually filling in continuity or worldbuilding.

There is no explanation of the relationship between Sam and his own Falcon. It's not super clear whether or not New Falcon is part of the military or just allowed to do military stuff as a courtesy to Captain African-American. We don't know what his skills are. He goes into combat, but he also is the guy who does tech stuff for Sam. It seems like a case of "whatever the plot needs" for his resume. We don't know what Sam's status is, relative to the government, just that he has a place, IDK if it's his home or his office, with a big star decorating it, and New Falcon has stuff there too. If it's his office, it's an office in what? DoD? SHIELD? SABER? Defunct Avengers HQ? No clue. There is not much in the way of continuity from the former Captain America movies, either. Aside from Sam and a brief cameo, there's no one from any of them in this. What we do have a bunch of, are references to The Incredible Hulk, since Harrison Ford is now (barely) playing the late William Hurt's role as the general who is the main antagonist from that movie. That movie and the personal fallout for General Ross are referenced a lot, as they attempt to bring us up to speed on what was happening to him since then. Funny how CA:Civil War, generally considered one of the MCU's best, didn't feel the need, despite his being a major plot mover of that film, to go into his backstory, beyond referencing his decorations and a heart attack in the past.

Anyway, the movie seems to be more interested in the tricks Sam's gear can do, than any exploration of his character, or what it means that he is supposedly Captain America (even the awful show did that. It did it horribly, and came to absurd conclusions, but at least it TRIED to do character stuff), or his relationships to any other characters. It's all just hollow, dumb stuff, and as I say in the subject line, more of a sequel to the forgotten second MCU film than any movie featuring Sam or "his" shield.