Seems to me like, in the last paragraph of the first episode, there's a confusion between Christina Raynor, Barnes' state-mandated therapist, and Yori Nakajima, the old man who is the father of one of his victims.
After bringing it and discussing it in to the forum, formally putting this here. So to not be accused of Edit Warring, recently I edited this from this page:
- As Walker mourns for his friend, and contemplates his action, Sam and Bucky, at first, can do nothing but to watch as the man chosen as the new Captain America breaks down in front of their eyes. '''Some might even point out how they regret not helping him in the first place if they hadn't put their pride first.
- The fact that John says the line above indicates that he is still willing to give Sam and Bucky a chance to work with him but — in his, somewhat skewed view — they ruined it by venting their personal issues to him, and letting him be humiliated.'''"
Which is ultimately a poor representation of the scene for several reasons, most obviously that it's not what actually happened, and thus that saying "it was bad because Sam and Bucky surely felt bad about treating Walker like crap" is more to the tune of attempting to legitimize fan speculation (and thus better fit for the YMMV page) that relating what was in the actual series and is not really a reaction to the scene itself (and frankly, trying to frame it as "it's same and Bucky's fault for not treating him as good as they should have" is kind of iffy).
Thus, I reworded it to be more in line with what actually happened:
- As Walker mourns for his friend, and contemplates his action, Sam and Bucky can do nothing but to watch as the man chosen as the new Captain America breaking down in front of their eyes. Walker is reduced to a wailing, unstable wreck, bitterly raving about how it wasn't his fault and how everyone is against him, and none of Sam's attempts to get through to him keep him from violently rampaging at the thought of anyone trying to take away what he thinks is entitled to him.
However, after a few days original poster changed it back verbatim to the original with only a note of "you shouldn't have changed this," and as I really don't want to go back and forth I'm putting it up for discussion before changing it again.
Edited by KnownUnknown "The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain. Hide / Show Replies
I'm the one who put the original version back up, I just want to clear up a few things.
First of all, I am NOT the original poster nor am I the person who removed your edit, those were two different people entirely.
Secondly, the reason given for why your edit was removed was because you turned it from a tearjerker entry into a rant about John Walker.
Finally, when I said in my edit reason was that 'There was no reason to remove this', I meant that in the sense that you failed to justify removing that text in your edit by not giving your edit reason and due to the lack of context given for the edit, I felt that it's removal came across as trying to downplay the tearjerker elements of the scene.
So please state the reasons for your edits when you post them so that incidents like this can be avoided in the future.
"Secondly, the reason given for why your edit was removed was because you turned it from a tearjerker entry into a rant about John Walker."
This is the most interesting part here, I think. What is it about the original post that you felt was acceptable whereas my edit was not.
In this forum, we don't revert edits simply because there is no reason, and thus stating that there is no reason is, in itself, not an adequate reason for changing. Ergo, unless you had an actual reason for believing the original post was superior, reverting it back was pointless at best and unhelpful at worst.
So elaborate.
I've discussed the posts in the forum threat, and it was generally agreed there that the initial post was an unacceptable misrepresentation of what happened onscreen. Thus, if you believe that it was and deserved to remain as it was, please give reasoning. If you feel my post was too much of a rant, the option you should have taken was to edit it to be less of one but still more accurate, rather than reverting it to an inaccurate state.
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
I feel that another Tear Jerker in this show is how almost everyone's treatment of John Walker became severe ever since he murdered a Flag-Smasher (who, ironically, was a terrorist who committed many atrocities under his leader's orders) out of rage for what he and his gang did to his best friend. Although John Walker might have been arrogant and mean sometimes, the cruelty that he had to go through in order to become the next Captain America at the behest of the corrupt, yet cowardly government is so heartbreaking. What really didn't help is the fact that his PTSD, Bucky and Sam's attitudes towards him, and the Super Soldier Serum, all have a role in shaping the monster that he could have became had it not been for his will to redeem himself and the opportunity to save a group of politicians over his revenge towards the girl who murdered his best friend. Overall, I feel that this should be included in the Tear Jerker section of the show.