Should Civil War really be from Cap's perspective?

[CaptainWagner]

It's really pretty simple to show both sides as having legitimate views. Obviously, the events of AOU will leave Tony disillusioned with the Avengers. He joins with Zemo and maybe Pym to sponsor a program that will bring all super-powered beings under close government control. It soon becomes apparent that Zemo has bigger plans. In the new, intergalactic world that Earth has been dragged into, he wants to unite the world under one ruling power, seeing it as the only way to survive future alien encounters. As the movie progresses, Tony slowly realizes just how far Zemo is willing to go to "save humanity", but by the time he is willing to admit he was wrong, it is too late, the Thunderbolts have run amuck, and Cap is forced to make the ultimate sacrifice, seemingly taking Zemo to the grave with him.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I hope they take a similar approach as the film Gettysburg, where both sides are shown in a sympathetic light with legitimate arguments. And they get about equal screentime.

 

[Loki882]

They'll handle it well. The concept already makes a lot of sense themeatically coming off AoU, so I have no worries

Actually the more that I see of AOU, the LESS sense it makes.

 

[Mjölnir]

The answer is NO!! One of the things that I absolutely HATED (although certainly not the only thing) about CW was that Marvel flat-out lied their asses off. They CLAIMED that it was going to be a fair and balanced look at a complicated/difficult issue (and it IS a complicated/difficult issue), but then went out of their way to paint Tony and his side as cartoonish pseudo-fascists in order to prop up Saint Captain Gary Stu.

The ONLY way to do this even remotely decently imo is to show that both sides think that they're in the right, they all have good intentions at the end of the day, and they all have legitimate/reasonable points. Basically be artistically and intellectually honest enough to treat both sides fairly and let the audience make up their own minds (which the comic did NOT do).

What in the world does that have to do with artistic and intellectual honesty? If anything you said the opposite of what's true since you complain that the comics promised a balanced experience but didn't deliver. The movie clearly promises that Cap is the protagonist, which then seems in line with what you think Civil War was.

How is that dishonest?

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

is not the title of this movie: Captain America?

[blackout]the SUB title is Civil War.[/blackout]

 

[mightiest_mortal]

I think people are reading too much in the name.

Sure, it's likely taking its most base concept from the comics, but there simply isn't the size of universe and number of heroes in the MCU to make a story anything like the comics version.

You can practically count the number of super-powered beings on your fingers, registration seems completely pointless.

 

[Dark Raven]

Since David Tennant has been cast as the Purple Man, could there be any way he is somehow behind things?

Or if not him, then maybe Loki's sceptre at work again?

Or if not that, then the continued work of Dr Faustus?

 

[CaptainWagner]

Since David Tennant has been cast as the Purple Man, could there be any way he is somehow behind things?

Or if not him, then maybe Loki's sceptre at work again?

Or if not that, then the continued work of Dr Faustus?

Or it could just be that Tony genuinely thinks what he's doing is right...

You know, like in the comics?

 

[hoy-small-fry]

Actually the more that I see of AOU, the LESS sense it makes.

How so? It's sowing seeds for Stark wanting to make peace with creating Ultron, and Cap would obviously be on the side of freedom

 

[MbJ]

Since David Tennant has been cast as the Purple Man, could there be any way he is somehow behind things?

Probably not since they've repeatedly been against having the TV characters show up in the movies and it was just recently said they want to keep them more in their own corner of the universe.

 

[Loki882]

How so? It's sowing seeds for Stark wanting to make peace with creating Ultron, and Cap would obviously be on the side of freedom

Because "I personally created a killer robot" doesn't immediately equal "EVERY hero needs to be under government control." That was YOUR screwup Tony, not everyone's. Unless there's some genius writing, I'm not seeing it, sorry. Especially given MCU Tony's established character.

Also, I also found the argument that "Cap is on the side of freedom" to be rather unconvincing. Vigilantism is a crime. So technically every single time they put on those costumes, they're breaking the law. And the fact that so many of them have great power/tech DOES make them potentially dangerous. We've SEEN how devastating it can be when they go out of control. So Cap's argument is essentially "they should be able to break the law and still have some fundamental right to privacy because of it, to be accountable to no one but themselves." That's not only not a convincing argument to me, it's a downright stupid one and part of the reason why CW sucks.

I just flat-out hate this story and don't that it works, either in the comics or the context of the MCU. Too many characters have t be dumbed down/dragged through the mud just to TRY and make the premise work. They had DECADES worth of potential stories to choose from, and they picked this POS, ugh.

 

[hoy-small-fry]

I don't think you're looking at this the right way, but its clear you don't like the concept regardless so maybe that's clouding your view...

Doesn't matter, I think it works neatly, but time will tell

 

[ernesth100]

Most of the time it should, butit should switch perspective's for important moments.

 

[Arach Knight]

One of the interesting things of Civil War was that it wasn't black and white, it was full of greys. With Marvel's "Event Story" being told as a Captain America film I feel that this conflict will be shown (primarily) as a good vs evil film. At the end of this movie, I feel that there should matters unresolved and the audience shouldn't think either side is totally right.

What do you guys think?

Based on Age of Ultron, I doubt that the impetus for the cinematic version of Civil War will mirror the comicbook version of the narrative. Ignoring the fact that Age of Ultron will pretty much give everyone a reason to hate Tony, there is also the fact that there aren't nearly enough superhumans in the MCCU to warrant a registration act (unless Age of Ultron sees the introduction of more characters aside from The Vision, Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver). So there is little chance that the film will skew the perspective of the narrative by being a Captain America film, because it won't be about the same issue.

I fathom that this film will instead address a more direct falling out between Steve and Tony due to the aftermath of Age of Ultron, rather address a political agenda that more or less criticizes the U.S. Patriot Act. This film will pretty much be Civil War in-name-only. It would be like calling Batman Begins a retelling of Year One or The Long Halloween. Civil War will have touches of the comicbook, but nothing in the films has prepared a narrative similar to the comics.

 

[Arach Knight]

Iron Man was a borderline super villain in the comic storyline. They claim it was supposed to be very gray with no good or evil, but I guess they failed miserably because by the end everyone hated Tony and Cap was as heroic as ever.

Honestly, Civil War led to the third time I quit reading Marvel comics (the other two being the second clone saga and heroes reborn). Civil War was pretty much garbage in terms of story telling. The idea was decent, but horribly old (DC did it first, and better, five decades or so prior) and poorly executed. Most of the plot revolved around characters making arbitrary decisions that were grossly out of character.

Tony spent so much of his early run resisting government intrusion into his affairs, then boom, suddenly he is kowtowing to a government orders. Spider-Man fights tooth and nail to keep his identity hidden from everyone, but a couple of months hanging out with Tony Stark, and he decides that there is some how wisdom in revealing his identity. Most characters just did nonsensical things, such as the X-Men keeping out of it.

The X-Men ACTIVELY fought against mutant registration, but then put up two middle fingers when other metahumans are asked to register for a similar act. The only character that acted according to their known characterization, was Captain America, and they shafted his character the entire time. The only good that came from Civil War was World War Hulk, an awful plot device, but a great deal of fun to read when it came to Bruce laying THE smack down on people who had it coming.

 

[Raiden]

Because "I personally created a killer robot" doesn't immediately equal "EVERY hero needs to be under government control." That was YOUR screwup Tony, not everyone's. Unless there's some genius writing, I'm not seeing it, sorry. Especially given MCU Tony's established character.

Also, I also found the argument that "Cap is on the side of freedom" to be rather unconvincing. Vigilantism is a crime. So technically every single time they put on those costumes, they're breaking the law. And the fact that so many of them have great power/tech DOES make them potentially dangerous. We've SEEN how devastating it can be when they go out of control. So Cap's argument is essentially "they should be able to break the law and still have some fundamental right to privacy because of it, to be accountable to no one but themselves." That's not only not a convincing argument to me, it's a downright stupid one and part of the reason why CW sucks.

I just flat-out hate this story and don't that it works, either in the comics or the context of the MCU. Too many characters have t be dumbed down/dragged through the mud just to TRY and make the premise work. They had DECADES worth of potential stories to choose from, and they picked this POS, ugh.

I think after AOU, the government decided to intervene because they probably saw the Ultron program as a failed experiment from the Avengers, even though it was Stark's creation, and wanted to make sure that it won't happen again through some kind of governmental oversight program. SHIELD is gone, and the Avengers will probably be scrutinized heavily after AOU, and rightly so.

It'd make sense to have Civil War after AOU, because I don't think we want MCU to suddenly develop a short-term memory and pretend the events of AOU never happened. I think they will make Civil War into a more grey than black-and-white issue from the comics, and I doubt RDJ would agree to appear in it if he read that Tony Stark is going to be portrayed as an evil villain instead of a misunderstood superhero. However, it's still a Cap. America movie so the movie might take Steve Rogers' POV to see how the events unfold.

 

[The_Manhunter]

One of the interesting things of Civil War was that it wasn't black and white, it was full of greys. With Marvel's "Event Story" being told as a Captain America film I feel that this conflict will be shown (primarily) as a good vs evil film. At the end of this movie, I feel that there should matters unresolved and the audience shouldn't think either side is totally right.

What do you guys think?

It should be gray/told from both perspective IMO. Audiences like Iron Man more, but they also know Captain America as a goody-goody, so I think that is the best route to take.

 

[Wolftek]

I don't believe Tony is playing an antagonistic role. I think he gives in because he feels guilty as the one who causes the events in AOU. All the death and destruction will weigh on him personally more than anyone. He thinks this is the right thing to do and will feel strongly about it. I really love where they could potentially go with this story. This will be nothing like the comics.

First post! I absolutely agree with this. I think it will be made to feel as if Tony has no other road to travel than compliance with a super human registration act.
Again, as it will likely be nothing like the comics, who really knows.

 

[Pecola1]

Yes and no. It should be mostly focusing on him, because it is the Captain America 3 movie. However, like in the comics it shouldn't be all black and white. I feel that there will be so many people, it will be more like another avengers movie... I almost feel they should make it just that: Avengers 3.
[Speculation and Possible Spoilers Below]

Spoiler

However, this will possibly be the story of Steve Rogers death. IF it is, then there NEEDS to be more focus on the Cap, and his long lasting legend. I think there should be a good focus on characters in-between the battle. Maybe spiderman will be in it, if so this will be a perfect role for him. Otherwise the black panther I believe is going to stay neutral. It should show that neither side is fully right, but both sides have a good point, so neither should DIE. Thats where the bad side comes in and takes out the side they don't like, allowing for the temptation and weakness of Pro Registration to put more restrictions on superheroes.

 

[Hypestyle]

Steve Rogers should be the main focus. if this ends up being Robert Downey's ad-lib-my-way-to-the-most-screentime "guest appearance" it may get a critical drubbing, despite still presumably being a profitable film.

 

[SuperSanchez]

Personally, I think due to the massive story, there should be Captain America Civil War then Iron Man Civil War, but if they did that Iron Man would have to come first seeing Captain Americas death ends Civil War.

 

[Pecola1]

Personally, I think due to the massive story, there should be Captain America Civil War then Iron Man Civil War, but if they did that Iron Man would have to come first seeing Captain Americas death ends Civil War.

I agree, especially because they can have a stronger storyline with so many characters...
hold on...
What about just making it Spider-Man Civil war part 1 and 2? First part he can be with Stark, second with the captain. The viewpoint would shift, but it would make more sense. It would make the film see both sides, and understand the importance of both. It would allow to focus more on characters from each side. It would allow for the shift at the end of the first and the beginning of the second, a good transition. The story could still be a focus on iron man and the cap, but it would be more from the view of spiderman.

 

[Wolftek]

I like the idea of civil war being from Spider-Man's point of view. He has a significant role in civil war, especially front lining the struggle between registration and non registration in an understandable way.
To answer the question and having read the entire civil war event, I really can't pin point key perspective roles other than cap and iron man. Do I think it should necessarily be from caps perspective? Perhaps. There are just so many characters involved in that event, it really is a huge mashup. I DO think marvel will do very well making the movie from his perspective though. I'll definitely be there.

 

[BarryAllen]

Or it could just be that Tony genuinely thinks what he's doing is right...

You know, like in the comics?

I can bet $100 that there will be some sort of third party (rumored to most likely be Baron Zemo) manipulating and fueling the events. No way Marvel or Disney are not going to have failsafes put in place in case the general audience turns against their biggest moneymaker.

And I think the plot of Civil War will be much different than the books. Less identities and more about government regulation. This would make sense as Black Panther will be caught up in the middle. I do however wonder what role Spidey will now play.

 

[TeeKay]

Actually the more that I see of AOU, the LESS sense it makes.

Why don't you actually wait and see AoU before jumping to conclusions?