Marvel Cinematic Universe, Phase Three and BEYOOOOONND

[Lord Liaden]

You know, one of the comments about the prospects for this film I encounter repeatedly, both in talking to people and on social media, is that this plot looks interesting in no small part because neither Steve nor Tony is really unjustified in their position. Neither one is the "villain" here. I would still be happy to see that maintained as a generalization, but one of them being wrong on this particular occasion

[Bazza]

To address the recent discussion from Marvel's point of view, just so we are all on the same page and panel:

 

 

#1 Why Civil War Is A Captain America Movie and Not Avengers 2.5

 

From one of the producers:
 

Nate Moore: It was sort of a happy accident in starting to develop the script with Markus and McFeely and the Russo Brothers. We pitched out a million different ideas. Obviously there’s a deep bench of great Cap stories that we could pull from. But we also looked at the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole. Where have we been? What stories have we told? It felt like it was kind of the right time for Civil War to start to happen, because when you look at the events of Avengers, and Avengers 2, and Thor 2, and Cap 2, there are all these sort of almost world ending experiences. We felt like we had to tell the next step in that story, which is what happened? What is the world’s reaction?

 

And we always think it’s interesting to push Captain America up against the wall. Something we found in Cap 2, frankly, is we felt Cap was more interesting when he had something to push up against. In that case it was S.H.I.E.L.D. that turned out to be corrupt. In this case, it’s the world saying, “This is how The Avengers can be run.” Who better to push up against that kind of pressure than the guy essentially wearing an American flag?

 

So in trying to tell the best Captain America story, it turned out Civil War actually gave us sort of the impetus for putting him, once again, at odds with the world, which is where I think he’s most effective.

 

So yes there has been set up for this film. 

 

Joe Russo: It’s all storytelling metrics, and you have to really think hard about those metrics. I’ll say this, obviously it will be easier for the audience to get behind Cap because it’s his movie, it’s his point of view and he has the most screen time; however, Tony has the most emotional motivation in the film. The most human motivation. Cap’s is philosophical, we did that as a metric. It’s natural instinct for an audience member to want to get behind the person that has more screen time and somebody as likable and rootable as Cap so you have to work really hard to make sure that this is not a protagonist/antagonist movie. Hopefully by the time we’re done it’s a very complex film where you walk out of the film having a fight with your buddy or your boyfriend/girlfriend about who was right in the film.

 

It is Cap's film, because we are seeing this superhero civil war from Steve Rogers perspective. 

 

#2 This is arguably a second reason why this is a Cap film not a Avengers film:

 

Captain America: Civil War Is A ‘Love Story’ For Cap & Bucky

 

Joe Russo:

 

“What’s fascinating about the Cap-Bucky story as well is it’s a love story. These are two guys who grew up together, and so they have that same emotional connection to each other as brothers would, and even more so because Bucky was all Steve [Rogers] had growing up.”

 

Sebastian Stan (aka Bucky):

 

“I think it’s easy and generalising it to say that they’re lovers, when you’re forgetting that one has a lot of guilt because he swore to be the protector of the other, the father figure or older brother so to speak, and then left him behind. I have no qualms with it but I think people like to see it much more as a love story than it actually is. It’s brotherhood to me.”

[slikmar]

In the comics, the saddest part is that the mini-series Civil War were the worst written books of the whole thing. In his own books and even the spider-man ones, Tony wasn't an out and out idiot/villain. His position made a sort of sense. I actually always felt they should have approached it more like private detectives of the 40s-50s (not sure if is still the same today) who not only had to be licensed, but actually were expected to work with the DAs and Police to a certain extent. It is what made the Philip Marlowe and such books cool.

I am interested to see how this is handled. Cap's point was actually made when Tony was removed and psychotic Norman Osborn took over. Also, there were lots of things in the other books saying that the big three's (Richards, Stark and Pym) ideas were wrong. Peter asking Reed if his father would be proud after seeing 52 (the other dimensional prison). Nuclear Man, while working with Richards and Pym on the portals for 52 commenting how funny it was that he, a Chinese National, was being asked by representatives of the US government to help capture Captain America. Then repeating it a little louder in case they weren't paying attention.

It is just sad that some of the best character writing was during this period, but the main story issues were just so bad.

[Ragitsu]

Tony wasn't an out and out idiot/villain.

 

He was. Go back and re-read the entirety of the run.

 

--- --- ---

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Comicbook/CivilWar

 

 

 

Up to and including whether holding American citizens in a concentration camp without trial after intentionally setting mass-murdering supervillains on them was a bad thing.

 

 

 

For all the flaws of the Anti-Reg side, they didn't build a gulag in the Negative Zone, make a berserk clone of a dead friend, or try to arrest people who were doing absolutely nothing.

 

http://mancave.cbslocal.com/2013/05/03/iron-mans-dumbest-moments/

 

 

 

He goes into full megavillain mode. He hires teams of murderers to kill his friends. He clones a Norse god to copy his powers, which doesn’t make sense even in comics on so many levels it should have turned all the words in every issue into meaningless squiggles. He tried to prove that he could keep people’s secret identities secret by making Peter Parker publicly reveal his name at a globally televised press conference.

 

A man who’d spent forty-three years handing insane genocidal maniacs over to the Federally Appointed Rickety Shack Prison (No Escaping Please!) suddenly built a Negative Zone ultra-catraz for his best friends.

[Vondy]

He was. Go back and re-read the entirety of the run.

 

http://mancave.cbslocal.com/2013/05/03/iron-mans-dumbest-moments/

 

Well, personally, Robert Downy Jr.s portrayal of Iron Man is perfect for recreating that.

 

He's comes off as a brilliant yet douchey frat boy with a super-suit.

 

His a middle-aged man-boy in arrested development.

 

I've really tried to like him, but as polished and strong as the Iron Man movies were, I just don't.

 

He's just somebody I'd want to spend time with, or introduce to my family.

[Ragitsu]

Oh, and in case no one has seen this before ->

 

[Vondy]

I have reached my quota of positive votes for the day.

 

Okay. I have to stop being positive. Do I get negative votes?

[Lord Mhoram]

Apparently, in the Civil War comics, Tony Stark was the leader we were supposed to side with!

 

Just someone who doesn't understand culture. The main writier was Mark Millar - a hack to begin with, and British. He didn't understand about American attitudes about things like that. He saw iron man as the obvious choice, then made him more villains to make it more balanced. The biggest miscalculation in comics for a long time. And it colored the whole thing.

 

The fact that there really isn't secret IDs, and the recent history of the MCU means that kind of thing won't be happening.

 

Part of why I think the movie will work. My only worry - even if both sides are "right" if the fight comes to blows (which obviously it will) somebody will at least sort of "wrong". That really has to be handled delicately, but in general I trust the MCU creative people - especially the Cap team.

[Old Man]

He's just somebody I'd want to spend time with, or introduce to my family.

We don't watch Tony because he's an awesome person. Mother Teresa was an awesome person. Did anyone watch Mother Teresa? No, because she was boring. And because she made us feel bad about our selfish materialistic lives. There's a reason all the ratings go to Trumps, Kardashians, Bachelors, Lannisters, Sopranos, and Simon Cowell. Awful people. Monsters! But entertaining.

[Lord Mhoram]

We don't watch Tony because he's an awesome person. Mother Teresa was an awesome person. Did anyone watch Mother Teresa? No, because she was boring. And because she made us feel bad about our selfish materialistic lives. There's a reason all the ratings go to Trumps, Kardashians, Bachelors, Lannisters, Sopranos, and Simon Cowell. Awful people. Monsters! But entertaining.

 

Great Comparison. Iron Man is the Snookie of the MCU.

[Ragitsu]

Then there's the issue of there NOT BEING ENOUGH DAMN SUPERPOWERED BEINGS TO BEGIN WITH!

 

"Captain America: Civil Scuffle" is still a more apt title.

[Vondy]

We don't watch Tony because he's an awesome person. Mother Teresa was an awesome person. Did anyone watch Mother Teresa? No, because she was boring. And because she made us feel bad about our selfish materialistic lives. There's a reason all the ratings go to Trumps, Kardashians, Bachelors, Lannisters, Sopranos, and Simon Cowell. Awful people. Monsters! But entertaining.

 

Well, seeing as you just lumped Tony in with Trump... the prosecution rests.

 

Though, honestly, I'm watching the Avengers despite Tony, not because of him.

[Bazza]

#TeamTony because there is no Team Thor/Team Asgard.

[Old Man]

"Captain America: Civil Scuffle" is still a more apt title.

 

Yes and no.  A melee that includes a literal god, a king, two supersoldiers, at least two war machines, and a Hulk isn't a scuffle.  At minimum it's a rumble, if not an affray or an outright battle.

[Bazza]

Except the god and Hulk are busy on their own road trip ( cf Thor: Ragnarok)

[Ragitsu]

Yes and no.  A melee that includes a literal god, a king, two supersoldiers, at least two war machines, and a Hulk isn't a scuffle.  At minimum it's a rumble, if not an affray or an outright battle.

 

While the more powerful individuals are just as strong as a squad/battalion/company/etc on their own, there is still a noticeable dearth of bodies that should be around. The Fantastic Four, the street supers from New York that aren't Spider-Man (such as Luke Cage, Daredevil, and Iron Fist), the X-Men, the mere presence of Stephen Strange, the Inhumans, the West Coast Avengers, and Alpha Flight are ones that come to my mind on the spur-of-the-moment.

 

To me, the scene in the trailer where both sides are running at each other looks underwhelming.

 

However, I do like the sound of "Civil Rumble" because it evokes imagery of a major pro-wrestling event .

 

P.S. I was under the impression that Thor is merely an advanced alien/extradimensional being here, not a *literal* god.

[Hermit]

I could not more strongly disagree with this. Not only is it a HUGE divergence from the source material, it is too neat-and-easy a resolution.

 

Film! Tony Stark does not need to be nearly as evil as original Tony Stark, but he should be depicted as in the wrong as Captain America's team systematically dismantles both his "army" and weak justifications they sell themselves.

I want a huge divergence from the source material, mostly on account the source material sucked!

[zslane]

Yeah, "civil war" here is being used euphemistically. And, really, mostly just as a shout-out to the comic-book event that inspired it. It doesn't have nearly the scope that the comic-book version did because, well, the MCU is much tinier than the 616 continuity (in terms of number of characters). Thus, I think, the term "Hero Rumble" is more apt, even though Disney/Marvel clearly had to use "Civil War" for obvious marketing reasons.

[Vondy]

Avengers: Copyright War.

[Vondy]

Yeah, "civil war" here is being used euphemistically. 

 

When I glanced at the CW comics (didn't read) I thought it was being used euthenistically. 

[Ragitsu]

Yeah, "civil war" here is being used euphemistically. And, really, mostly just as a shout-out to the comic-book event that inspired it. It doesn't have nearly the scope that the comic-book version did because, well, the MCU is much tinier than the 616 continuity (in terms of number of characters). Thus, I think, the term "Hero Rumble" is more apt, even though Disney/Marvel clearly had to use "Civil War" for obvious marketing reasons.

 

"Hero Rumble"...now that comes off sounding like a quick-and-easy tabletop game about small-scale superhero battles.

[zslane]

It was, but the sheer scope of the event lent an epic quality to it that the MCU version simply can't duplicate. In the comics the term was a euphemism, in the movies it is a joke.

[Pattern Ghost]

"Hero Rumble"...now that comes off sounding like a quick-and-easy tabletop game about small-scale superhero battles.

 

Facebook game these days.

[Vondy]

It was, but the sheer scope of the event lent an epic quality to it that the MCU version simply can't duplicate. In the comics the term was a euphemism, in the movies it is a joke.

You might take a second look at how I spelled that...

[Lord Liaden]

The number of heroes may be (relatively) small, but the implications of this conflict are a lot broader than that would indicate. Various MCU supers have been active all over the world, individually and in groups. Their actions have had major repercussions, not only in destruction and loss of life, but in political upheavals as well. And more of them seem to appear every few months.

 

I also want to remind you how dubious most of us were that you could fit half a dozen super heroes into a 2 1/2-hour movie... until Avengers hit the theaters. This CW film has twice that number. Let's not get spoiled here.