View original postObligatory 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? )

View original postBut 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.

View original postSo, 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.

View original postThis 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.

View original postThere 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.

View original postAnyway, 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.