Indestructible Shield

[Bored Yesterday]

How much does Cap's status as a hero depend on the indestructibility of his shield? Is he more or less of a hero based on that? In the silver age, his shield started out as less than impervious. A letters column in an Avengers book, about issue 38, I think, says that Cap's shield was not impervious to large cannon or bombs. In issue 34, Cap has to coat his shield with a special substance to make it resist the power of the Living Laser. Then of course, in issue 35 it was destroyed by the Living Laser before inexplicably returning. In recent issues of Civil War, I've read negative commentary based on perceivable chips in Cap's shield that is supposed to be impervious to all harm. And we can all remember the destruction of his original kite-shaped shield by Mr. Hyde (I think), during the "UNder Siege" story.

So my question is -- does it matter whether Cap's shield is impervious, and if so, when did it become such a defining characteristic for the character? What does it mean to you?

[dlw66]

I think the indestructable shield is a metaphor for Cap's patriotism and spirit.

[Doctor Bong]

I think it's been firmly established within the MU Mythos that Steve was a hero at heart even before he received the experimental treatment which turned him into Captain America, let alone before he received his indestructible shield from FDR himself.

[BigDuke]

I don't think that the shield being indestructible is important at all to his status as a hero. His actions, attitude, and leadership make him the hero his is. I think the shield being indestructible is merely a convenience for the writers and to avoid the constant destruction of the shield problems.

[balok]

dlw66 said:

I think the indestructable shield is a metaphor for Cap's patriotism and spirit.

This is it in a nutshell. To give Cap inherent abilities distances him from the common man. To do the character justice he must be able to identify with us and we with him. Make him able to lift a tank or shrug off small arms fire and he loses that. At the same time, he has to have a way to stand up to the heavy hitters of the Marvel Universe. The shield is that bridge.

[Nutcase65]

Although, he can hold his own without it if he has to.

[Doctor Bong]

I just thought about something: is it me, or do I remember correctly that sometimes the circle at the center of Cap's shield (where the star is) has been colored black instead of blue...?

[Nutcase65]

back when he was 'The Captain' during the 'Cap no more' arc

The government got a court injunction that said not only was he not allowed to use the name or the outfit, but he could not even wear or use anything with the red, white and blue scheme.
Stark gave him a new shield but that was silver. Cap returned it to Stark after Iron Man screwed him over (Surprise surprise) during the armor wars that was ahppening at the same time.
So the Black Panther sent him a new shield in Volume 1 #342 'A Viper in Our Midst' This shield was black in the center then had white, red and a black ring at the outermost.

[Doctor Bong]

Thanks for the info, nutcase65, I didn't know all this...
But, actually, I meant his original shield... I meant I seem to recall it being sometimes depicted as being black at its center...

[Nutcase65]

sorry bout that,
Looking through it I think that may have just been due to inking/shading. I'm not sure though.

Here's a question. When cap first joins up with the Avengers it shows Giant Man OPENING UP Caps shield so Stark can update the components inside it.

What the?!?!?

[Nutcase65]

Then there are also several references to Caps Shield crumpling, becoming super heated and even at one point against the Living Lase it is completely atomized.

See, even in our good-old-days there were sometimes continuity issues.

[Alchemist-X]

balok said:

dlw66 said:

I think the indestructable shield is a metaphor for Cap's patriotism and spirit.

This is it in a nutshell. To give Cap inherent abilities distances him from the common man. To do the character justice he must be able to identify with us and we with him. Make him able to lift a tank or shrug off small arms fire and he loses that. At the same time, he has to have a way to stand up to the heavy hitters of the Marvel Universe. The shield is that bridge.

I agree, Caps shield is the bridge between him and superpowers. As for the indestructable thing, I was always under the impression that it was indestructable because Wolverine's claws couldn't cut through it (or one of the ones he had over the years, the timeframe escapes me at the momment)

Not to say that it hasn't been broken lots, lets not forget Secret Wars when it got smashed up and reassembled through Caps own force of will

[fiero84]

I think it expands his personna.
Batman has his bat-o-rang.
Green Arrow,Hawkeye well, self explainatory.

I think Cap's Shield has spawned it's own legend. As the adventures grew tougher, so seemed the capabilities of his shield. I think it enhances the Cap and while perhaps not important in the beginning, it now seems very pertinent.

Batman created more 'toys' as his adventures grew. Fans now seem to expect them.

[The Night Phantom]

A lot of interesting discussion in this thread.

When I first started reading Marvel Universe titles, I was struck by Cap’s shield (not literally—ow) as a form of characterization. The shield, I felt, was not central to who he was, but it was an interesting personality quirk, in a sense. An additional detail that made the character all the more richer. Another example was Spider-Man’s webshooters—it wasn’t enough that Spidey had superpowers, but he additionally created a pair of special devices to enhance his ability to fight crime. (One of the reasons I bemoan the advent of the organic webshooters…)

Unlike Spider-Man’s webshooters, Cap’s shield wasn’t something he made. But it was a very special, very useful, fantastic, unique object; and I found it fascinating that, of all the people in the world, this was the person to whom the fates had entrusted its custody. And what great use he put it to, too. The shield was, in a way, his Excalibur.


Modified: Fixed a strange typo.

[Crimson Cowl]

Thread necromancy here.

There's a good question that remains unanswered. When did Cap's shield actually become viewed as being indestructible, even stronger than adamantium?

Not as early as you might suspect I believe.

In Avengers 183-4 when they fight the Absorbing Man he absorbs Cap's shield (I always thought that Creel was lucky he found a chip in the paintwork else he'd have just turned into dried paint...). Iron Man asks 'just what is your shield made of?' (following a refresher I see it was actually the Beast that asks this) and Cap says 'a top secret super strong alloy'. There's no indication of it actually having the semi-mythical quality we now ascribe to it. I don't believe it was actually indestructible at this point, just very strong. Yet by the time of Secret Wars it is an irrefutable sign of the Beyonder's omnipotence that his power (in Dr Doom's hands IIRC) can shatter Cap's shield.

I believe Cap's shield became indestructible somewhere in that gap, so between c.1979-85.

Can anyone narrow it down further? When was it first stated to be an alloy of adamantium and vibranium?

[Crimson Cowl]

Okay, following a brief investigation looking at a couple of things that stood out as likely sources here's where I've got to.

Myron MacLain first appears in Cap 303 back in '85 and mentions the use of vibranium in its composition and says that he subsequently invented adamantium which cannot equal the durability of Cap's shield.

In Cap 255 from '81 we see FDR give Cap the round shield and Steve asks the President if it's as bulletproof as his old shield. Roosevelt says that it is even more so and rather cryptically comments that it has very unusual properties and that he wishes the metallurgical accident could be reproduced.

The implication seems to be that it is truly extraordinary and this may be the first instance of the shield actually being indestructible which would make it something Roger Stern and John Byrne came up with. In 247 Cap comments on the greater impact absorption of the round shield over the triangular one, which might be an indication that Stern and Byrne were already working under the supposition that the round one was 'special'.

Anyway, that's the earliest that I've been able to spot. Can anyone trace this any earlier?

[Crimson Cowl]

Hmmm. I may have to revise my earlier assessment. I was trying to think of instances where Cap fought the Hulk and the shield's resistance might've been tested. Then I remembered that Nefaria, newly augmented to be considerably stronger than the Hulk or Thor had failed to crumple the shield in Avengers 165 which is back in '77. That'd be Jim Shooter. I still suspect that the Micheline written remark from 184 suggests that it hadn't yet become 'gospel' that the shield was 'indestructible but evidently the idea predates it.

Incidentally I got it off Wikipedia that Myron MacLain first appeared in Cap 303 but it occurs to me that he first appeared when Ultron initially got an adamantium body which'd be c. Avengers 68 (?). I think it may actually have been Ultron disguised as MacLain (PS: Nope, but there were some shenanigans), but still, that's got to be worth a look.

(PS: MacLain does indeed appear in Avengers 66, 67 and 68 but Cap isn't in those issues and his shield isn't mentioned).

[humanbelly]

May 14, 2012 9:12:46 GMT -5 Crimson Cowl said:

Hmmm. I may have to revise my earlier assessment. I was trying to think of instances where Cap fought the Hulk and the shield's resistance might've been tested. Then I remembered that Nefaria, newly augmented to be considerably stronger than the Hulk or Thor had failed to crumple the shield in Avengers 165 which is back in '77. That'd be Jim Shooter. I still suspect that the Micheline written remark from 184 suggests that it hadn't yet become 'gospel' that the shield was 'indestructible but evidently the idea predates it.

Incidentally I got it off Wikipedia that Myron MacLain first appeared in Cap 303 but it occurs to me that he first appeared when Ultron initially got an adamantium body which'd be c. Avengers 68 (?). I think it may actually have been Ultron disguised as MacLain, but still, that's got to be worth a look.

Cap's poor shield early on seemed to suffer the same fate as Thor's hammer, where it could suddenly do just about anything necessary to get out of an unexpectedly tight plot corner. I seem to recall an early Avengers story where he used it's razor-sharp "cutting edge" to free someone (Rick?) that was tightly bound. Not too long after, a concerned reader asked why that "cutting edge" didn't decapitate folks when it hit them, then. And there was also the time Stark added some sort of electrical circuitry INSIDE the "indestructible" shield-- which of course would be completely impossible. A hasty later explanation was that it was a "substitute" shield, not the real one. That was 'way, 'way back, though-- so that notion of at least a high degree of indestructibility has been around for quite a long time.

Does anyone remember an explanation that the round shield was indeed created by accident during the second world war? That the alloy happened to be flash-cast during the event over a sphere or in a basin or something, and that using it as a shield was an afterthought? That it was then presented to Cap by FDR?

Hmm--- how did the leather straps get attached to it? Adhesive?

Anyhoo, Crimson C, let me also add that you've certainly contributed an enjoyable and interesting flurry of introductory posts, here, eh? Very happy to have you aboard-!

HB

[Crimson Cowl]

Anyhoo, Crimson C, let me also add that you've certainly contributed an enjoyable and interesting flurry of introductory posts, here, eh? Very happy to have you aboard-!

Thanks, although technically they're not introductory since, not that I'd expect anyone to remember, I used to post here very occasionally years ago. I fell out of the habit after one of the members died in truly horrific circumstances. I just didn't have the heart to visit, it was a profoundly depressing event. Anyway, I forgot my password and have changed email address so I had to re-register.

Cap's poor shield early on seemed to suffer the same fate as Thor's hammer, where it could suddenly do just about anything necessary to get out of an unexpectedly tight plot corner.

Yeah, that's fairly standard stuff in 60's comics. This was an age when the Sandman could be defeated with a vacuum cleaner!

I seem to recall an early Avengers story where he used it's razor-sharp "cutting edge" to free someone (Rick?) that was tightly bound. Not too long after, a concerned reader asked why that "cutting edge" didn't decapitate folks when it hit them, then.

You think that's bad? I was catching up on Cap in the 90's recently (not great reading by any means) and Cap's shield starts taking on some pretty miraculous properties. At one point he is able to slice off all the rotor blades of a helicopter just by chucking his shield at it. Even if there was a razor sharp edge (which obviously there isn't) the force required to do that rather than just bounce off (like the shield does with most things) beggars the imagination -maybe if Thor threw it! Of course the same is often true about things Wolverine is supposed to be able to slice through when he'd be more likely to dislocate his bones and even tear his own flesh.

And there was also the time Stark added some sort of electrical circuitry INSIDE the "indestructible" shield-- which of course would be completely impossible. A hasty later explanation was that it was a "substitute" shield, not the real one. That was 'way, 'way back, though-- so that notion of at least a high degree of indestructibility has been around for quite a long time.

Yeah I'm not aware of the shield being referred to as 'indestructible' or even any tougher than normal in Avengers 6, and I had a quick look in Tales of Suspense 59 and couldn't see anything there either. Are you sure that it says this somewhere back then? If so I'd be very interested to see the reference.

[humanbelly]

May 15, 2012 12:24:11 GMT -5 Crimson Cowl said:

Anyhoo, Crimson C, let me also add that you've certainly contributed an enjoyable and interesting flurry of introductory posts, here, eh? Very happy to have you aboard-!

Thanks, although technically they're not introductory since, not that I'd expect anyone to remember, I used to post here very occasionally years ago. I fell out of the habit after one of the members died in truly horrific circumstances. I just didn't have the heart to visit, it was a profoundly depressing event. Anyway, I forgot my password and have changed email address so I had to re-register.

Hey, yeah-- there you are in the membership history. How cool to have you back! It looks like you left. . . oh dear. . . about two weeks after I myself joined the board. It. . . it was the unbearable HB over-chattiness, wasn't it? Drove you away completely-- looking for a moment's peace??

You don't have to answer. You can simply respond w/ ellipses. . . (. . .)

You think that's bad? I was catching up on Cap in the 90's recently (not great reading by any means) and Cap's shield starts taking on some pretty miraculous properties. At one point he is able to slice off all the rotor blades of a helicopter just by chucking his shield at it. Even if there was a razor sharp edge (which obviously there isn't) the force required to do that rather than just bounce off (like the shield does with most things) beggars the imagination -maybe if Thor threw it! Of course the same is often true about things Wolverine is supposed to be able to slice through when he'd be more likely to dislocate his bones and even tear his own flesh.

Yep, it's the whole Physics of Superheroes aspect. Sort of how big, giant creatures simply can't move as quickly (proportionately) as small creatures-- otherwise they'd catually tear themselves to pieces. A writer or artist sees ONE photo of a piece of sawgrass driven through a tree trunk during a hurricane, and suddenly any substance can pierce any infinitely harder surface if it's just thrown with enough force & speed. . .

And there was also the time Stark added some sort of electrical circuitry INSIDE the "indestructible" shield-- which of course would be completely impossible. A hasty later explanation was that it was a "substitute" shield, not the real one. That was 'way, 'way back, though-- so that notion of at least a high degree of indestructibility has been around for quite a long time.

Yeah I'm not aware of the shield being referred to as 'indestructible' or even any tougher than normal in Avengers 6, and I had a quick look in Tales of Suspense 59 and couldn't see anything there either. Are you sure that it says this somewhere back then? If so I'd be very interested to see the reference.

Y'know, I definitely could not say that that discussion was contemporaneous with that time period. I suppose it really could have been a reference in a discussion down the road a good ways, and was simply referring to Avengers #6. It does seem like it was a letters page, though-- and that it was very much this same "indestructible or not?" kind of discussion. Although it may have been more in a huntin'-for-a-NoPrize vein. . .

HB

[Marvel Boy]

May 15, 2012 9:34:03 GMT -5 humanbelly said:

Does anyone remember an explanation that the round shield was indeed created by accident during the second world war? That the alloy happened to be flash-cast during the event over a sphere or in a basin or something, and that using it as a shield was an afterthought? That it was then presented to Cap by FDR?


HB

I recall an explanation, I think from the Official Handbook, that McLain was working on developing a new alloy, he may have started off with some vibranium. But he feel asleep one night and an unknown substance was added to the mix by unknown forces. When McLain awoke, he realized what had occurred and smelted the alloy into the shape of a shield.

It was impervious, indestructible. He never disocvered what the extra element was; his further attempts to re-create this metal resulted in adamantium.

That's my fuzzy memory recall of it. I always thought his shield was neither vibranium nor adamantium, but a mixture of both.

But regarding the original question, it doesn't matter to me if his shield is indestructible or not. It's a powerful symbol, one of the most unique in all comics.

[sharkar]

May 15, 2012 12:24:11 GMT -5 Crimson Cowl said:

Thanks, although technically they're not introductory since, not that I'd expect anyone to remember, I used to post here very occasionally years ago.

Yeah, you seemed to enjoy posting here a few years back (I recall your Vision vis-a-vis Byrne posts in particular). Welcome back, CC...and welcome to Marvel Boy, a genuine newcomer!

May 15, 2012 12:24:11 GMT -5 Crimson Cowl said:

I fell out of the habit after one of the members died in truly horrific circumstances. I just didn't have the heart to visit, it was a profoundly depressing event.

Are you referring to the guy who posted on these boards as his "grieving friend" and sent us the sad news, and then even posted as his "widow"? If you are, then please know that turned out to be...well, I guess he saw it as a sociological/journalistic experiment --something to do with showing Marvel how emotionally manipulative it is to kill off characters and then revive them.

[dlw66]

Yes, and if that idiot still lurks around here, I hope he knows that after all of this time he's still not welcome.

Truly, that episode represented all that is wrong with the Internet, anonymous posting, etc. Makes my blood boil to even think about that inane manipulation of the fine folks who made up this community at that time.

Doug

[spiderwasp]

And I hope that he sees that his inexcusable actions still have repercussions to this day. Sorry to see that you were driven off by that CC, but welcome back. Believe me, that "Prank" was not well received and is, in no way, typical for the type of behavior you find here.

[Crimson Cowl]

Yeah, humanbelly kindly clued me in on what had really happened in a PM after I initially mentioned it. To say that I was flabbergasted that someone could be that stupid would be an understatement. The additional info about the nature of the 'sociological experiment' is most welcome (even if I am only picking it up several more years down the line). Thanks.