Samuel L. Jackson Thinks Nick Fury Should Have Been In Civil War – And He’s Wrong

Samuel L. Jackson has now been playing Nick Fury for 10 years and whilst he has had some bigger roles in certain movies like Avengers and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the majority of his time has been spent on smaller cameos. However, the actor has some juicy screen time lined up this year as he plays both a younger version of himself in Captain Marvel along with the current aged Nick Fury in Spider-Man: Far From Home. Both movies, (especially Captain Marvel) seem to be giving him plenty of screen time and I think Marvel fans are pretty happy about that.

Should Marvel have used Fury even more than they have done so far? I’ve heard that argument from some, and yet I don’t really agree with it. For me, you can simply have too much of a good thing and I like the way Marvel has faded him into the shadows at times and then brought him back when least expected.

RELATED: Samuel L. Jackson Talks About Why Superhero Movies Remain So Popular

Jackson himself certainly thinks that one movie could have done with an appearance from Nick Fury, that being Captain America: Civil War. Some fans have commented in the past that Fury’s absence was noted in this film and the veteran actor agreed when speaking on the Happy, Sad, Confused Podcast recently. Here is what Jackson said.

“There’s lots of stuff you can do with him. But has he been used wisely? Yeah, except for things like Civil War. It’s like, if all the Avengers are f**king fighting each other, where is their guardian? Where’s that dude who comes in and goes, ‘Alright, everybody go to your room. I’ll be in there to talk to you in a minute.’ Either he’s the guy that brought them together and he’s the glue, or he’s not. I felt a little- I felt a way about that.”

I get where Jackson is coming from here as a fan and an actor, but from a filmmaking point of view, he is dead wrong.

First, we have to ask ourselves what the purpose of Civil War was in the overall story of the MCU and why it was placed into the story where it was. Well, the answer is last year’s box office behemoth Avengers: Infinity War. If Civil War was just about putting these characters at loggerheads and then having them kiss and make up at the end, then Fury was essential. But that was not the point of Civil War in any way. Civil War served to untether the Avengers. Hulk is in space, Thor has gone off to look for clues, but the rest of the team remained one solid fighting unit. Civil War was the catalyst to split that team in two, the drama of that split was the foundation for which Infinity War was built on.

Tony is reluctant to call Cap and hesitates, Spider-Man gets caught up in events he’s frankly too young to deal with and Cap is on the run and therefore not ready for the threat of Thanos. Then we have the Romeo and Juliet situation between Vision and Wanda, Vision is team Stark and feels guilty for injuring Rhodey, Wanda is team Cap and yet wants to love a normal life instead of hiding out. We never once get to see the entire Avengers team united in Infinity War, Tony, Strange and Spidey are going cosmic with the Guardians and the rest of the team are scraping by and on the run from the moment Vision is attacked. Cap also does not have his signature shield for the battle that is to come.

No, I’m afraid having Nick Fury present to knit them all back together again would have been a bad move and the Russo’s and their writing team made the correct choice in Civil War. It might seem from the outside that Nick should have got himself involved, but Nick was still playing in the shadows at that point and the Sokovia accords business was extremely public.

It’s like when you get excited to watch 2 people start fighting as kids and a teacher or some other kid jumps into split it up. In real life it’s effective and the right thing to do, but this is the movies, we love a bit of drama. I am sure there are ways the story could have had the same result with Nick Fury present, but the truth is he really wasn’t needed in movie.

Civil War made Infinity War a better movie, and by that reason alone I say Jackson is wrong in his analysis. If you want to break something, don’t add the glue, Sam, don’t add the glue.

What do you think of Jackson’s opinion and do you share it or agree with my own? Square go down below in the comments section, me and you, no teachers allowed?

Don’t forget to share this post on your Facebook wall and with your Twitter followers! Just hit the buttons on the top of this page.

SOURCE: Happy, Sad, Confused Podcast

Night Terror Banner   GenreVerse Have you checked out LRM Online’s official podcast feed yet The Genreverse Podcast Network? This includes our premiere podcast The Daily CoGBreaking Geek Radio: The Podcast, GeekScholars Movie News, Nerd Flix & Chill, Marvel Multiverse Mondays, Anime-Versal Review Podcast, and our Star Wars dedicated podcast The Cantina. Check it out by listening below. It's also available on all your favorite podcast apps! Subscribe on: Apple PodcastsSpotify |  SoundCloud | Stitcher | Google Play

Read Previous

Stallone Regrets Killing Off Apollo Creed So Soon In The Rocky/Creed Franchise

Read Next

Bandersnatch Was Just The Beginning: Expect More Interactive Content From Netflix

This website is using Google Analytics. Please click here if you want to opt-out. Click here to opt-out.