Captain America 3: Civil War -- Hang onto your Underoos

[red snow]

Look, as long as HYDRA isn't revealed to be the instigator in the conflict between Tony and Steve in the third act of the film, a conflict which is resolved in a matter of seconds once the reveal is done, as a part of a larger scheme to distract the Avengers to do some shit which the Avengers try to prevent in the climax, we are fine. Unfortunately, there's a good chance that this does happen. ( Also trailer bets; I think the Cap punching Iron Man scene will definitely be present, along with a shot of the Avengers clashing in Manhattan, but Crossbones shooting Cap will be a bit too much imo )

 

No, of course not. It'll be Thanos :)  BUt you'll have to wait through 5 minutes of credits before you find that out. Probably with del toro's character having stolen a gem while they were busy fighting.

 

I really hope Cap's team will have a blind lawyer defending them when the dust settles.

[The King in Black]

 

No, of course not. It'll be Thanos :)  BUt you'll have to wait through 5 minutes of credits before you find that out. Probably with del toro's character having stolen a gem while they were busy fighting.

 

I really hope Cap's team will have a blind lawyer defending them when the dust settles.

This made me think : apart from sending a loser from Asgard on an invasion of Earth with an army which mysteriously dies when their mothership explodes (in perfect sync too !) what the hell has Thanos ever done ? Apart from appearing in mid-credits and post credits scenes that is.

 

Also something tells me the blind lawyer might be too busy with his Greek Ex, a pissed off incarcerated mob boss and his lovely wife, and the ninja dudes

[Jon AS]

This made me think : apart from sending a loser from Asgard on an invasion of Earth with an army which mysteriously dies when their mothership explodes (in perfect sync too !) what the hell has Thanos ever done ? Apart from appearing in mid-credits and post credits scenes that is.

 

He also sent a loser from Hala to acquire an Infinity Stone that had been lying around in some ancient ruins. Said loser then turned his back on him and inadvertently delivered the stone to Nova Corps.

[red snow]

 

 

Also something tells me the blind lawyer might be too busy with his Greek Ex, a pissed off incarcerated mob boss and his lovely wife, and the ninja dudes

 

Don't forget the vigilante who's solution is to kill all the criminals. I think it really depends on when Daredevil occurs. Marvel seem to run a fairly tight ship with continuity so given season 2 occurs after Civil War, I suspect it will reflect the changes imposed by that film. As season 1 didn't have any major cliffhangers they can easily say 12 months have passed, including the Civil War. Although you'd think that would mean it's harder to be a vigilante while the list of new costumed freaks suggests otherwise!

 

 

 

He also sent a loser from Hala to acquire an Infinity Stone that had been lying around in some ancient ruins. Said loser then turned his back on him and inadvertently delivered the stone to Nova Corps.

 

This goes back to my previous comments in MCU threads that Thanos has a hell of a lot of hype to live up to but virtually no groundwork to stand on. It's solely because of his special appearances that people think he's important. Like those weird celebs who seem to be famous for being famous.

[Bastard of Boston]

You can watch the D23 presentation here, without film footage of course.

 

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/KingPatel/news/?a=124062

 

RE: Widow...this is a spoiler for those who haven't read Civil War and plan to.

 

[spoiler]Tigra was a spy, reporting to Tony on Cap's side. I can see Widow performing a similar role in this movie, especially given her skill set and bond with Cap. I can't see her on Tony's side.[/spoiler]

[Balerion the one eared cat]

You can watch the D23 presentation here, without film footage of course.

 

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/KingPatel/news/?a=124062

 

RE: Widow...this is a spoiler for those who haven't read Civil War and plan to.

 

[spoiler]Tigra was a spy, reporting to Tony on Cap's side. I can see Widow performing a similar role in this movie, especially given her skill set and bond with Cap. I can't see her on Tony's side.[/spoiler]

 

I find everyone's take on this really interesting, because honestly, I can't see her not on Tony's side - or rather, the pro-registration side. To me, I think they tried to make it clear that "the mission" always has and always will be the most important think to Widow - she is loyal to her friends, but I think she's more loyal to the cause (look at the opening to Cap 2, where she has her own mission that comes before anything else). While I accept that her friendship with Steve is deep and genuine (one of my favourite things about Cap 2), I cannot see her as anti-registration - I mean, why would she be? She was employed by SHIELD and was a very loyal and successful agent, and as an "ordinary", albeit very talented, human (as far as I'm aware in MCU canon - I could be wrong, but I don't remember any mention of her being enhanced or modified in any way with SuperSoldier serum or whatever) I can't see her objecting to the idea that if all her friends, and enemies, have superpowers, they should be regulated in some way so they don't do more harm than good by going rogue, since she herself is (or was, I guess) a registered agent. Essentially, I can see her being more loyal to her "mission" and her principles than her relationships, even if that means betraying or at least standing against some of her closest friends... to me, anyway, that's what makes her interesting, and in fact, isn't that the very essence of the Civil War storyline? Pitting friends and team-mates against each other? I guess there could be a turnaround for her, like in the comic, when [spoiler] the pro-side starts recruiting the Thunderbolts and supervillains in some SuicideSquad-esque way. In that way she'd take Spidey's role, in which case, I'd accept her as a double agent. That would make sense to me, for her character - when the "good" guys start recruiting the people she's decided to dedicate her life to fighting, she decides she's had enough, even if she initially supports the concept. [/spoiler]

 

Then again, I find it surprising that they seem to be following the comic book storyline line of [spoiler] Tony as pro-registration and Steve against. (Don't know if this needs a spoiler tag but it's best to be safe). The films seem to have set Cap up as the perfect, idealistic soldier - doing his duty, being loyal to his superiors (most of the time, I guess 'til her realises they're corrupt), and standing up for equality and fairness - and if that is achieved by registering superheroes, then he'll stand by it. It made sense for comic!Steve, he was much more.. rogue, but the MCU Cap seems a lot more... I can't think of the word. Not submissive, but willing to follow orders. 

And conversely, obviously Tony in MCU is much less sensible and much more free-willed, doing whatever the hell he pleases, and not listening to any authority. I guess AoU must have shaken him, but for a complete and utter change of personality to occur? That would have to be pretty extreme... To me, it would have made sense to reverse their roles and have Tony leading the anti-registration team, and Cap the pro-registration. [/spoiler]

[The King in Black]

^ Don't try and make sense of Civil War. That storyline lost all steam when Tony's Side decided to follow the textbook on being evil, just so, you know, you have zero problem determining "Whose side are you on"

 

Speaking of which, who will be Tony's Mr. Fantastic in the MCU ? And Cap's Luke Cage ? And in the comics, why the hell did the MU begin to pretend as if Luke Cage had been as important as Cap all along in the first place ? What was the point of his whole 'Registration equals Slavery !' shit ? What was the deal with Bendis and Luke Cage anyway ?

[Bastard of Boston]

 

I find everyone's take on this really interesting, because honestly, I can't see her not on Tony's side - or rather, the pro-registration side. To me, I think they tried to make it clear that "the mission" always has and always will be the most important think to Widow - she is loyal to her friends, but I think she's more loyal to the cause (look at the opening to Cap 2, where she has her own mission that comes before anything else). While I accept that her friendship with Steve is deep and genuine (one of my favourite things about Cap 2), I cannot see her as anti-registration - I mean, why would she be? She was employed by SHIELD and was a very loyal and successful agent, and as an "ordinary", albeit very talented, human (as far as I'm aware in MCU canon - I could be wrong, but I don't remember any mention of her being enhanced or modified in any way with SuperSoldier serum or whatever) I can't see her objecting to the idea that if all her friends, and enemies, have superpowers, they should be regulated in some way so they don't do more harm than good by going rogue, since she herself is (or was, I guess) a registered agent. Essentially, I can see her being more loyal to her "mission" and her principles than her relationships, even if that means betraying or at least standing against some of her closest friends... to me, anyway, that's what makes her interesting, and in fact, isn't that the very essence of the Civil War storyline? Pitting friends and team-mates against each other? I guess there could be a turnaround for her, like in the comic, when [spoiler] the pro-side starts recruiting the Thunderbolts and supervillains in some SuicideSquad-esque way. In that way she'd take Spidey's role, in which case, I'd accept her as a double agent. That would make sense to me, for her character - when the "good" guys start recruiting the people she's decided to dedicate her life to fighting, she decides she's had enough, even if she initially supports the concept. [/spoiler]

 

Then again, I find it surprising that they seem to be following the comic book storyline line of [spoiler] Tony as pro-registration and Steve against. (Don't know if this needs a spoiler tag but it's best to be safe). The films seem to have set Cap up as the perfect, idealistic soldier - doing his duty, being loyal to his superiors (most of the time, I guess 'til her realises they're corrupt), and standing up for equality and fairness - and if that is achieved by registering superheroes, then he'll stand by it. It made sense for comic!Steve, he was much more.. rogue, but the MCU Cap seems a lot more... I can't think of the word. Not submissive, but willing to follow orders. 

And conversely, obviously Tony in MCU is much less sensible and much more free-willed, doing whatever the hell he pleases, and not listening to any authority. I guess AoU must have shaken him, but for a complete and utter change of personality to occur? That would have to be pretty extreme... To me, it would have made sense to reverse their roles and have Tony leading the anti-registration team, and Cap the pro-registration. [/spoiler]

Natasha's whole arc has been her evolution [i]away[/i] from her prior M.O. as "mission at all costs" agent. Between the Russo bros establishing the bond with Cap in Winter Soldier and Whedon establishing a romantic bond with against-type Banner in Avengers 2, I don't see any reason why Civil War will stop her character trajectory. Stark is clearly the antagonist in this film. 

[red snow]

^ Don't try and make sense of Civil War. That storyline lost all steam when Tony's Side decided to follow the textbook on being evil, just so, you know, you have zero problem determining "Whose side are you on"

 

Speaking of which, who will be Tony's Mr. Fantastic in the MCU ? And Cap's Luke Cage ? And in the comics, why the hell did the MU begin to pretend as if Luke Cage had been as important as Cap all along in the first place ? What was the point of his whole 'Registration equals Slavery !' shit ? What was the deal with Bendis and Luke Cage anyway ?

 

Luke Cage could be Cap's Luke Cage but it'll probably be Falcon.

They could have Banner as Tony's Mr Fantastic if he's even in the film.

 

I also agree that the comic never really made much sense about why Iron Man and Cap were on the sides they were and why it wasn't the other way around. I think it boiled down to "Millar wanted to surprise people".

[Hayyoth]

 

Luke Cage could be Cap's Luke Cage but it'll probably be Falcon.

They could have Banner as Tony's Mr Fantastic if he's even in the film.

 

I also agree that the comic never really made much sense about why Iron Man and Cap were on the sides they were and why it wasn't the other way around. I think it boiled down to "Millar wanted to surprise people".

Maybe in the comic but the movies have set it up extremely well. Cap has gone from an idealistic young patriot keen to fight the Nazis to an increasingly disillusioned veteran who still believes in his country but wary of the people running it. It's by far the best thing Marvel have done with any of their characters and they've set it up beautifully for the Civil War movie. I totally get why they've made this Cap's story, and quite right too IMO.

[Winterfell is Burning]

It made sense for the characters to be on the side they were in the comics- once registration was inevitable, it made sense for Tony, being the egomaniac control freak he is, decide that HE was the only one that could run it and be the main commander of all superheroes, plus this being a good time to implement some new ideas that he and Reed and (the Skrull) Pym had.

 

As for Cap, his problem was having to hunt and imprison superheroes that didn't want to work with the government, not the registration itself. Plus he was forced into being an outlaw by Maria Hill attacking him BEFORE the SHRA actually went into effect.

.

[polishgenius]

The problem with Civil War and Secret Invasion was that the entire combination was ripped off wholesale from the Confession storyline in Astro City.

[Knight of Ashes]

Maybe in the comic but the movies have set it up extremely well. Cap has gone from an idealistic young patriot keen to fight the Nazis to an increasingly disillusioned veteran who still believes in his country but wary of the people running it. It's by far the best thing Marvel have done with any of their characters and they've set it up beautifully for the Civil War movie. I totally get why they've made this Cap's story, and quite right too IMO.

In the comic, Cap also has a history of being disillusioned by people running the government too, so much so that he dropped being Cap for a while and became Nomad (way back when he found out who the leader of the Secret Empire was), and that Mark Gruenwald storyline where the US government decided that they own the Captain America identity and therefore him, so again, he dropped being CA, rather than being under their control.

[red snow]

Maybe in the comic but the movies have set it up extremely well. Cap has gone from an idealistic young patriot keen to fight the Nazis to an increasingly disillusioned veteran who still believes in his country but wary of the people running it. It's by far the best thing Marvel have done with any of their characters and they've set it up beautifully for the Civil War movie. I totally get why they've made this Cap's story, and quite right too IMO.

 

I still think they dropped the ball by resetting Cap and Stark's hostility that had built throughout Avengers 2. If it had ended with Tony still beleiving he knows best  and Cap (in much the same way) thinking he knew best in that Tony doesn't, we'd have a better set up. Of course they can reignite it again but it just feels like that's time wasted.

 

I hope you're right in that this very much remains Cap's film and isn't more of an Avengers 3 or worse Iron Man 4 film.

[CyanidePie]

Yeah I didn't understand the point of having Tony and Steve bro out at the end of Age of James Spader. There were ZERO consequences for Stark's decisions and behavior in that movie and it was irritating as shit. Now you have to spend the beginning of Civil War setting up another rift between them, when you should have just had the one that was set up in both of the Avengers movies grow larger.

The more I think about Age of James Spader the more I hate that movie. Perfect example of having too much shit going on and also not enough. Not to mention Ultron being one of Marvel's worst villains to date.

[Knight of Ashes]

 
I still think they dropped the ball by resetting Cap and Stark's hostility that had built throughout Avengers 2. If it had ended with Tony still beleiving he knows best  and Cap (in much the same way) thinking he knew best in that Tony doesn't, we'd have a better set up. Of course they can reignite it again but it just feels like that's time wasted.
 
.

Well, it may make things more, uh, poignant (?), dramatic (?), if we have two friends who have a major falling out rather than two guys who bickered all the time; though, I admit, I may be too influenced by old comics I red in someone's attic when I was a kid that caused one of my primary memories of Cap and Iron Man to be the latter telling the former "I feel good avengering with you again, we make a good team", than with what's going on nowadays.

[red snow]

Yeah I didn't understand the point of having Tony and Steve bro out at the end of Age of James Spader. There were ZERO consequences for Stark's decisions and behavior in that movie and it was irritating as shit. Now you have to spend the beginning of Civil War setting up another rift between them, when you should have just had the one that was set up in both of the Avengers movies grow larger.

The more I think about Age of James Spader the more I hate that movie. Perfect example of having too much shit going on and also not enough. Not to mention Ultron being one of Marvel's worst villains to date.

 

It's definitely the Marvel film that has sat the least well with me over time. Like you say, it just seemed like wasted time and Stark did deserve some blowback for his behaviour. It just seems strange when the MCU makes such a big deal about their plans when they seem to have elements that don't line up. I suspect it really boils down to RDJR not being a big part of Civil War until relatively late on. It may have been the initial Civil War plan didn't have him as the main antagonist. I say antagonist but it would be nice if the film could do a solid job of showing both sides have valid reasons and dubious actions.

[Winterfell is Burning]

 

It's definitely the Marvel film that has sat the least well with me over time. Like you say, it just seemed like wasted time and Stark did deserve some blowback for his behaviour. It just seems strange when the MCU makes such a big deal about their plans when they seem to have elements that don't line up. I suspect it really boils down to RDJR not being a big part of Civil War until relatively late on. It may have been the initial Civil War plan didn't have him as the main antagonist. I say antagonist but it would be nice if the film could do a solid job of showing both sides have valid reasons and dubious actions.

 

Yeah, that's it, originally he was only supposed to have a small role.

 

Mind you, it still doesn't make that much sense. I think a much better fit would be the remaining Avengers getting together and announcing that Tony was expelled from the team, even if Civil War wasn't on the horizon.

[red snow]

 

Yeah, that's it, originally he was only supposed to have a small role.

 

Mind you, it still doesn't make that much sense. I think a much better fit would be the remaining Avengers getting together and announcing that Tony was expelled from the team, even if Civil War wasn't on the horizon.

 

You could almost argue that Tony is the danger (he made Ulton possible) and therefore he should be the one the government puts sanctions on. Him and any other super clever folks who can build weapons of mass destruction. In that sense Banner, Hulk and probably Dr Strange are far more dangerous than Cap and Hawkeye and even Thor (who I like because I get the impression he has no idea how his tech works). Spidey would also work as an in between there too. He's currently too young but the comics have shown he's just as capable of making hi-tech weaponry and being super clever.

 

I also think that the iron man suits need to be revisited. Clearly the automated ones are more dangerous than human operated ones. Surely the government would demand that tech if he was working for them? Unless this becomes part of the deal he makes?

[AverageGuy]

Him and any other super clever folks who can build weapons of mass destruction...Spidey would also work as an in between there too. He's currently too young but the comics have shown he's just as capable of making hi-tech weaponry and being super clever.

The problem always comes down to godless science.