Civil War Cap 3 or Avengers 2.5?

[Protar]

Its a different situation entirely. GOTG was separate. It wasn't really advertised as part of the MCU, it was marketed differently. It was seen as its own thing (and it had a brilliant marketing plan). Sure, there is tie in potential, but it was at the same time, separate. Plus it is kinda a different genre all together.

Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Doctor Strange...they are all kind of the same as Ant-Man...B-list heroes that Marvel plans to fill Phase 4 and beyond with (due to the actors of Phase 1-3 being over it).

Beyond that, I am not saying it makes sense. I am not saying because audiences do not respond to Ant-Man, they will not respond to Doctor Strange. I am saying that studio logic would make one hesitant to take a shot on a B-lister after one bombs. In the end, the show business is still a business and using something like Ant-Man as a model can provide guidance on anticipated success of someone like Black Panther. As such, a studio may use such models to determine how best to invest moving forward.

If Marvel followed that logic we wouldn't even have an MCU. They would have given up after the Hulk.

Even if Ant-man bombs they're not going to cancel half of their phase 3 slate. Ant-man is going to be a completely different movie to BP and CM, which will presumably be less wacky and more in line with the usual Marvel films.

 

[Godzillasaurus]

There were also a lot of characters in CA:TWS, and I never thought that the film lost focus on Cap.

You had: CA, BW, Falcon, Bucky, Fury, Hill, Rumlow, Agent 13, Pierce, Agent Sitwell, Zola, Batroc.

While CA:CW definitely has more prominent characters (and will probably have more than TWS), if they are used in a similar fashion to the previous film we are in for a treat.

But 6 of those characters were villains...

Let's see, in CW we will have a total of AT LEAST 6 heroes, despite it being a CA movie. That is more than the first Avengers!

 

[warhorse78]

If Marvel followed that logic we wouldn't even have an MCU. They would have given up after the Hulk.

Even if Ant-man bombs they're not going to cancel half of their phase 3 slate. Ant-man is going to be a completely different movie to BP and CM, which will presumably be less wacky and more in line with the usual Marvel films.

But, they did give up on Hulk solos, and the next movie was, shocker, Ironman 2!!!!!!!! Who knows, maybe they did have plans with making a Hawkeye/Black Widow solo, but cold feet after The Hulk, so they decided to just stick them in Thor(which was another big gamble) and Ironman 2.

 

[Protar]

But, they did give up on Hulk solos, and the next movie was, shocker, Ironman 2!!!!!!!! Who knows, maybe they did have plans with making a Hawkeye/Black Widow solo, but cold feet after The Hulk, so they decided to just stick them in Thor(which was another big gamble) and Ironman 2.

They gave up on Hulk solo films yes. But nothing else. Just as if Ant-man fails they'll probably give up on Ant-man solo films but continue other properties.

The rest is just baseless speculation. It doesn't even make any sense. Why would the relative failure of Hulk cause them to cancel BW and Hawkeye films over the other films? Especially with SJ as Widow. She was always one of Marvel's most bankable stars. If Marvel getting cold feet over TIH's lack of success would have caused them to cancel a phase 1 film it would have been Thor imo.

 

[warhorse78]

They gave up on Hulk solo films yes. But nothing else. Just as if Ant-man fails they'll probably give up on Ant-man solo films but continue other properties.

The rest is just baseless speculation. It doesn't even make any sense. Why would the relative failure of Hulk cause them to cancel BW and Hawkeye films over the other films? Especially with SJ as Widow. She was always one of Marvel's most bankable stars. If Marvel getting cold feet over TIH's lack of success would have caused them to cancel a phase 1 film it would have been Thor imo.

No she wasn't. When she was just cast, she was more of a critic darling than a BO draw. The only movie she's been in that she was lead, and not associated with Black Widow, that did good at the Box Office was Lucy. The rest of her slate were nothing compared to likes of major female BO draws like Juliet Roberts, Sandra Bullock or Cameron Diaz.

And with Thor, they were fortunate. They had a good director, and had Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman coming in fresh from her first Oscar win. But, even then, lets look at what is happening to Thor and Black Panther now, they are getting pushed back to make room for Spider-Man! Look, you can think and say what you want, but just because Marvel mentions all of these movies at some event, doesn't mean that they are all going to happen or continue on. Stuff happens. Ceo's move, change hands, actors, director have falling outs, or become too incapacitated to continue on. The movie going audience might find a new franchise to start dumping money into (seriously, who would have thought Captain America and X-Men would out do a Spider-Man flick?) There is that saying, don't count your chickens before they hatch!

 

[Tacit Ronin]

So what you guys are articulating is that this film is gonna be more like a Singer X-men movie, in that there will be two or three guys the movie will focus on and rest will be glorified cameos?

 

[Protar]

No she wasn't. When she was just cast, she was more of a critic darling than a BO draw. The only movie she's been in that she was lead, and not associated with Black Widow, that did good at the Box Office was Lucy. The rest of her slate were nothing compared to likes of major female BO draws like Juliet Roberts, Sandra Bullock or Cameron Diaz.

Given that non of the Avengers were very big names at the time (RDJ had fallen from grace), Evans was mostly known for F4, I'd still count her as one of the bigger names of the cast.

And with Thor, they were fortunate. They had a good director, and had Anthony Hopkins and Natalie Portman coming in fresh from her first Oscar win. But, even then, lets look at what is happening to Thor and Black Panther now, they are getting pushed back to make room for Spider-Man! Look, you can think and say what you want, but just because Marvel mentions all of these movies at some event, doesn't mean that they are all going to happen or continue on. Stuff happens. Ceo's move, change hands, actors, director have falling outs, or become too incapacitated to continue on. The movie going audience might find a new franchise to start dumping money into (seriously, who would have thought Captain America and X-Men would out do a Spider-Man flick?) There is that saying, don't count your chickens before they hatch!

And yet Marvel have done exactly that. "This egg is Captain Marvel, this egg is Doctor Strange, this one's Black Panther." There's no way ever that they're cancelling those movies now that they've announced them. Like it is boggling my mind how nonsensical an argument you're presenting here. A comedy about a shrinking man fails so they scrap more than half of Phase 3? Are you insane?

 

[MadVillainy]

Johannson was definitely a bigger name in the cast. Im not saying she was a box office draw but everyone pretty much knew who she was. Whether that be for movies or the fact that she is constantly called one of the most attractive women in the world

I really think people are very wrong in thinking that Ant Man failing would cause them to shift their whole phase 3 slate. It's not impossible but I do think it's ludicrous. There is no evidence of that.
The only movie I remember that was announced that ended up not going through was Runaways.

But, they did give up on Hulk solos, and the next movie was, shocker, Ironman 2!!!!!!!! Who knows, maybe they did have plans with making a Hawkeye/Black Widow solo, but cold feet after The Hulk, so they decided to just stick them in Thor(which was another big gamble) and Ironman 2.

I mean that's just a silly way of thinking.

Of course none of us know what goes on in the MArvel Studios so anyone can say "well maybe this happened" and use it as facts to back up a claim.

And they gave up on the Hulk sequels because TIH didn't do well. No other movie had a role in that. It's not like Iron Man failed, TIH failed, so then it just didn't move forward.

 

[Dark Raven]

Part of the reason Marvel have given up on Hulk sequels is that Hulk solo films are distributed by Universal. When TIH was made, Marvel wasn't under the Disney banner. Disney don't want Universal distributing their Hulk films. Having Hulk in an ensemble movie is a different matter though, as Universal have no part in that.

And even if Ant-Man failed, is that the same premise as Black Panther or Captain Marvel? Are they about shrinking people even remotely? If TIH didn't do well, should Marvel just assume that people don't like any comic book movies and scrap all of the rest of their film slate? Are Cap or Thor the same premise as the Hulk in which the lead hero wants to be free of his alter ego and has rage issues?

There is no logic to scrapping Black Panther and Captain Marvel based on Ant-Man's success or failure, whether or not they are seen as lesser-known heroes. Iron Man wasn't a household name to the public before he jumped to the top of the A list.

 

[MadVillainy]

And even if Ant-Man failed, is that the same premise as Black Panther or Captain Marvel? Are they about shrinking people even remotely? If TIH didn't do well, should Marvel just assume that people don't like any comic book movies and scrap all of the rest of their film slate? Are Cap or Thor the same premise as the Hulk in which the lead hero wants to be free of his alter ego and has rage issues?

There is no logic to scrapping Black Panther and Captain Marvel based on Ant-Man's success or failure, whether or not they are seen as lesser-known heroes. Iron Man wasn't a household name to the public before he jumped to the top of the A list.

Exactly

 

[Gu3ree]

So many people are asking for another Hulk movie. I believe this time, they can get it right. There are plenty, if not many cool reasons and situations out there for Banner to Hulk-out, that's the most interesting part about the Hulk's story. I don't think the Hulk is hard to do. I think using Ruffalo's Hulk, they tell the story of the She-Hulk. The two of them being allies. General Ross is involved too. I think it would be great. They could keep it simple that way. Betty Ross doesn't have to be there. I just feel like there is so much yet to be told about the Hulk. TIH didn't do so well, but it was a start, but wasn't good enough. This time, they don't do an origin.

I know TIH wasn't exactly an origin story, more like a reboot and a sequel, but that was a bad move, seriously. At this point, learning from those mistakes, they don't do either of those, and instead just pick off where Banner has already been the Hulk for years (I mean affected by gamma ray).

 

[Gamma Goliath]

I alway felt TIH should've used the gamma bomb, and should've started with banner at a monastery in china Or something.

 

[Illegal Seafood]

But 6 of those characters were villains...

Let's see, in CW we will have a total of AT LEAST 6 heroes, despite it being a CA movie. That is more than the first Avengers!

Half of those weren't villains until halfway through the film.

Anyone who is "pro-registration" will be "against" the main character of Cap for a while in Civil War, so whether they are a hero or villain is doesn't matter when talking about how the characters around Cap didn't take away from the fact that it can still be a Cap-centric film. The Russo Bros already proved that with TWS.

 

[kguillou]

I still maintain that TIH was a great film and one of Marvel's best. I dont get at all why it gets dogged on. Lets be honest, even to this day Hulk himself has never been better rendered than he was in that movie.

 

[BatsDC]

If Marvel weren't confident in Ant-Man they wouldn't be including him here.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

So what you guys are articulating is that this film is gonna be more like a Singer X-men movie, in that there will be two or three guys the movie will focus on and rest will be glorified cameos?

The difference being is that in this case the "glorified cameos" will be distinct characters and personalities that make an impression despite their limited screentime, as opposed to being mute ciphers that exist merely to showcase abilities. Less FC/DOFP and more TDL/TWS.

 

[Godzillasaurus]

Half of those weren't villains until halfway through the film.

Anyone who is "pro-registration" will be "against" the main character of Cap for a while in Civil War, so whether they are a hero or villain is doesn't matter when talking about how the characters around Cap didn't take away from the fact that it can still be a Cap-centric film. The Russo Bros already proved that with TWS.

But they really didn't take very much time away from Rogers as the protagonist, not even the title character himself was very significant.

-Batroc only served the purpose of being a starter villain
-Sitwell was kinda just there to act as a mole and reveal HYDRA's plans
-Zola was there as the bigger bad, but was only in the film for a few minutes in one scene

The other 3 were more significant, but they still served the same purpose as every other MCU villain save for maybe Loki. It was clear that Cap was the main character

But at this point CW seems very much like Avengers where the main focus will be distributed evenly

 

[Gamma Goliath]

Even though it'll have a lot of characters i dont see the focus being taken off of cap. As long as Cap, Panther, bucky, falcon have meaty roles I'll be fine.

 

[Illegal Seafood]

But they really didn't take very much time away from Rogers as the protagonist, not even the title character himself was very significant.

-Batroc only served the purpose of being a starter villain
-Sitwell was kinda just there to act as a mole and reveal HYDRA's plans
-Zola was there as the bigger bad, but was only in the film for a few minutes in one scene

The other 3 were more significant, but they still served the same purpose as every other MCU villain save for maybe Loki. It was clear that Cap was the main character

But at this point CW seems very much like Avengers where the main focus will be distributed evenly

That's just fan overreaction...

Just because someone is on the casting list doesn't automatically mean they will be a main character. Falcon, Agent Carter, Selvig, Heimdall, etc were all on the AOU cast list, but they may have had 2 mins of screentime combined.

When the film is called Captain America: Civil War ...I think it's safe to assume the focus will be on him. And if there's anyone who can pull this off, it's Cap. Because he functions as the leader of a large group. Several characters can be involved but the scene or film as a whole can keep the focus on the leader.

Reference the Batroc scene: Instead of Cap leading a Shield Special Ops team in a mission, he's leading the New Avengers. Did that scene ever lose track of Cap as the focus? Nope. The only thing that changes in Civil War's case is that Special Ops team is made up of more recognizable faces.

 

[Godzillasaurus]

Just because someone is on the casting list doesn't automatically mean they will be a main character. Falcon, Agent Carter, Selvig, Heimdall, etc were all on the AOU cast list, but they may have had 2 mins of screentime combined.

But remember that they were only intended as cameos in AOU, not significant members of the team

 

[Illegal Seafood]

But remember that they were only intended as cameos in AOU, not significant members of the team

Who has said that anyone except for Cap (and probably RDJ) will be significant characters in the film?

That's my point. Is that we are jumping to conclusions based on a cast list for a film that has barely started production. We should just wait it out for now.

 

[Godzillasaurus]

Hmm.... You're right. Well to be honest I am hoping that those two get the most attention. Even with the Spiderman rumors, I really don't desire for him to have a major role in this movie.

If the entire premise was just Rogers vs Stark with one or two actual villains thrown into the mix, that would be A-OK for me

 

[Illegal Seafood]

Hmm.... You're right. Well to be honest I am hoping that those two get the most attention. Even with the Spiderman rumors, I really don't desire for him to have a major role in this movie.

If the entire premise was just Rogers vs Stark with one or two actual villains thrown into the mix, that would be A-OK for me

Me too. I think (and hope) that Steve/Tony and their respective ideologies will be the focus of the film, with the search/redemption of Bucky a main sub-plot of the film.

The extraneous characters like Spider-Man (if he's in it) Black Panther, and the rest of the New Avengers are good characters to give weight to the Steve/Tony argument, but only in secondary roles.

 

[Katsuro]

Hmm.... You're right. Well to be honest I am hoping that those two get the most attention. Even with the Spiderman rumors, I really don't desire for him to have a major role in this movie.

If the entire premise was just Rogers vs Stark with one or two actual villains thrown into the mix, that would be A-OK for me

It's not really a war if it's just two people though, is it? And also, wouldn't it then raise the question of "where is everyone else?" Cap is the leader of the Avengers, if he's fighting Tony, why isn't his team on his side? The MCU is too big now to just ignore other characters. They were smart in finding ways to take a couple characters off the map who would demand quite a bit of screen time if they were present, but it won't be difficult at all to have Paul Bettany as the Vision in the opening scene, and then find an excuse to not fight.

You can have a large cast of supporting characters, but as long as you devote most of your screen time and character development to Captain America (and Tony Stark to a lesser extent) it can still be his movie. I'm not worried about it at all.

 

[Godzillasaurus]

The "war" part is only intended to signify tension which ultimately transformed into physical violence. It doesn't have to be a literal war.

I still think that Captain America and Stark need to hold the bulk of the focus/screentime by a long shot