The Russos confirmed the movie doesn't take sides and presents both Rogers' and Stark's viewpoints as equally reasonable.
So, who do you guys think the average audience will most likely side with?
>sold weapons to terrorists
>hid arsenal of massively destructive robot suits from the government
>incited multiple acts of terrorism on US soil by mocking terrorist on tv
>let robot arsenal go out of control in public on several occasions
>created evil AI that tried to destroy the earth
>defied government for years
>his name in the title
>has saved earth several times
>only "crime" is not wanting people to be on a list
>mfw people genuinely pick Tony just because RDJ
Just because it's bait doesn't mean you're not stupid for writing it.
Alot of people are going with Tony cause he's hot. Which I fiND ridiculous I mean if Hitler was hot would they side with him. There choosing the face not the cause which will ultimately lead to there demise
Not like that. I mean, when I'm watching a movie, I'm not thinking. I'm along for the ride, enjoying myself.
It's only after the movie, when I go sit down and reflect on it, I start to think. Consider things from different perspectives. And very likely change my view on aspects of the movie.
And that's what I mean. While watching the movie, I expect my heart goes out to Cap. But afterwards, after thinking about it, I'll expect to side with Stark.
As opposed to making Tony look like he was Iron Hitler?
SORRY BUT YOU WHEN YOU PUT DAREDEVIL IN SUPER DIMENSION PRISON, Y'DONE WENT OVERBOARD!
Yeah I know that wasn't actually Daredevil... Or it was but... God dammit I hated Civil War so fucking much.
I'm talking about this guy.
>One side is pro-government
>One side is anti-government
Unless they win the next election, it's pretty obvious they'll be team Cap. Or hate both because they're villifying a rich guy.
They'll side with Tony. People might talk up Freedom, how much they love it but in the end they are cowardly and fearful, they'll run into the arms of the authority stroking their fears every time. Especially Americans.
Which was supposed to be a parallel of this page.
The thing about Civil War that makes it so interesting, and also so difficult to do well, is that both sides really can both be seen as the right way. Everyone should be held accountable, even superheroes, but also there needs to be people who can go beyond the law to do what's right.
Why would they side with Tony if they like to talk up freedom? Are you implying that you can do anything other than talk about fictional characters fighting over fictional issues?
Always wondered how Carol was forgiven for that. It's okay to forever ostracize Pym for one thing he apologized a million times but Carol beating mothers and taking childs away can be forgiven and forgotten?
Everything I've read about it indicates the Russos pulled off validating both of their stances and encouring the viewer to consider whom they feel is right.
I think that's what is going to set it apart from BATMAN V SUPERMAN, in which we understand where Batman is coming from in regards to Superman, but the movie still presents him as a misguided and in the wrong.
God, that's so poorly written. I mean, it's stupid in the first place, forcing in that Judas reference. But then Millar was so unsure if people would get his reference that he had to end the page by actually explaining his joke.
So we already did this in Winter Soldier kinda... But will they do it again?
>is that both sides really can both be seen as the right way.
Sort of. If you look at all the tie-ins and all the justifications made after the fact, it looks that way. If you just read the Civil War miniseries Tony Stark employs Supervillians to capture heroes and place them in a prison outside of our reality, because Mark Millar doesn't have the skill necessary to tell this kind of story.
The new lineup? Haven't read it, but I know none of the other versions worked for the government.
Not at all. They worked for Nick Fury. Even if you make the argument that they worked for SHIELD, SHIELD wasn't a part of the government at the time.
Okay so THIS is the one thing I actually want translated from the books.
Whatever Avenger Team that goes in to counter Spidey for whatever reason gets almost steamrolled by him.
Well now that's reaching a lot. That's not being a futurist that's flat-out future sighting. Whoever wrote that (and I'm guessing it's Bendis) couldn't even bothered to be subtle about it.
When you see it...
>Americans are probably the most anti-authoritarian developed country.
Americans fellate the cock of authority like mindless birds.
Most are guilty of not knowing what they want other than guns and the bible.
That's a hot opinion. Take some time to reflect on who gave it to you and made you feel the need to parrot it on an anonymous image board.
Or just get buttflustered or something, it's whatever
Yes, that's what Tony told us when we made the buy. But we sincerely doubt it because we managed to kill many joes with that tech...
>not buying American
>Someone like our friend Spider-Man
>Someone they can unmask on TV
>Destroy his marriage and family
>Pin a crime or two on
Gee Tony, if only you could remember saying this before you did LITERALLY ALL THOSE THINGS.
If Tony legit didn't know about his weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists, he is one fucking dumbass arms dealer.
Never mind that he's putting weapons in the US armies hands, who themselves have a bunch of issues.
>Take some time to reflect on who gave it to you and made you feel the need to parrot it on an anonymous image board.
I am a reasonable person, and I know most Americans are ignorant of their political process and what their civil rights mean.
>Or just get buttflustered or something, it's whatever
I'll have you know my butt is a well lubricated fuck machine. It never gets flustered.
It was supposed to come off as an Oedipal action. Have Peter do it voluntarily as a show of solidarity to the cause and countermand fallout.
WHICH FAILED SPECTACULARLY, and required the third/fourth stupidest Spider-Man storyline ever written to only partially correct.
Thor's a representative of an alien government... So he doesn't have to sign.
Hulk's... probably not considered an Avenger no more so... Yeah.
Now I'm all for there being a command structure to make everyone feel better about incredibly powerful and skilled people on the frontlines between humanity and the horrors of the world.
But maybe don't put General "I WANT THE HULK DEAD" Ross in charge?
I'm actually cautiously optimistic about this. James Gunn has been saying that so far, most of the studio is praising the movie, which doesn't tend to happen in the early stages.
He also never showed any enthusiasm for Ultron but did show for Ant-Man, and you could tell when asked he never complimented Ultron. Also from the footage, the action and characters and even the score seem to have weight and personality: the kicks connect and feedback, the characters have reactions instead of mindless quips, and the tune is pretty melancholic.
The Russos have also never disappointed me in Cap2, Agent Carter, Community or Arrested Development, their episodes were always the best ones.
>But maybe don't put General "I WANT THE HULK DEAD" Ross in charge?
As a duly elected official, having been confirmed into that position, it's the will of the people to put him there.
Anthony only: "Top Banana", "Key Decisions", "The Immaculate Election", "Spring Breakout"
Joe only: "Bringing Up Buster", "In God We Trust", "Pier Pressure", "Marta Complex", "Shock and Aww", "Missing Kitty", "Hand to God", "Motherboy XXX", "Meet the Veals"
Would he even have a written signature? Probably a picture perfect of his face, drawn in the similar technique that Sonny had in IRobot.
But Russian female names should be Romanova and Maximova, respectively, they would only be called "-off" in informal english conversation if tired of correcting people.
Also, why is Clint there, but not Banner? I thought he retired completely.
Going off of my casualfag friend and his friends, people will side with Tony. The 'So was I' line seems to have sealed it for them, even though Tony was just constantly shitting on Cap, while Bucky is literally Cap's oldest and best friend, whom he's just got back.
I find it pretty funny how they're comedy directors, but they're actually doing the most serious movies in the MCU so far.
I'd be curious to see how they'd handle a more comedic MCU movie.
Nonono, LAIUS, his father, received the prophecy, and took steps to prevent it, thus ensuring its occurrence. Only late in life did Oedipus hear of the prophecy, by which time it was already far too late.
So, it's not an Oedipal action, but a Laial one.
Season 4 was pretty cool, though. You just have to think about it like a 13-hour episode for it to hit.
Most people like it once they reach episode 7 or 8, but if you watch it out of order, it still mostly works. It's a very good piece of writing on constraints.
Not saying they should make the Cap movies comedies since that would be shit, but maybe a property like Ant-Man in the future.
That's out of the question till after 2019 though, since they have to do Infinity War now. Assuming they'll be still working with Marvel after.
Brit here, and I'm somewhere between. Mandatory service or prison, just for having powers, is some Nazi level crap right there. That said, a voluntary 'Super Hero' police force helmed by trusted and reliable commanders, like Cap himself, that would police the super heroes makes sense. Or something like internal affairs for super heroes.
How it played out in the event was just stupid, and Cap was in the right almost all the way.
It's a fine line between governance and police state, but I can see the issues Tony raises, and others aside.
Imagine if we had civilian militias today, in none-US locations? If we in the UK started forming little militias, in the style of the Minutemen, our Goverment would have the counter terrorism forces out in force, even if their express goals were to defend against terrorists themselves.
Super heroes being common, like in Marvel? Wow, that would be a mess.
Then again, our government is somewhat elitist-despotic. We have knife drives, to 'protest knife crime' and 'make our streets safer'. When in reality we just voluntarily disarm ourselves of the most basic of rights, self defense, while the actual criminals have a good laugh. The aim is to make us helpless, so we rely on them, and make our choices in fear. Yet, they are even pretty bad at that, because despite knife crime, and even gun crime, you can still buy a high-powered crossbow without documentation. Ugh.
I suppose my point is regulation does make sense, but unfortunately the people generally in charge are either corrupt themselves or unqualified.
Most things in life are people would justify with a deontological appeal to freedom, freedom of speech, of thought, of association. There is nothing inherantly wrong about using freedom as a moral standard.
I'm pretty sure that the canon explanation is that her birth name is "Natalia Romanova", while "Natasha Romanoff" is the Americanized name she adopted when she moved to the States.
Depends on how they frame the issue, I'm worried that they are going to make the choice between direct government control or total unaccountability. If thats the case then obviously Tony is going to seem to be making the more logical argument. However thats a false choice.
Also I don't see any reason why direct government control of superheros would reduce collateral. Government doesn't have some special insight that would allow them to use the avengers power more effciently than the avengers themselves. I also don't see it as unreasonable that people in the government would have approved of dangerous shit like the Ultron project.
>Mandatory service or prison, just for having powers, is some Nazi level crap right there.
That's not what the Civil War in the movie will be about. See:
It's just the Avengers, and powers are irrelevant; it's about being a private army.
>The Russos confirmed the movie doesn't take sides and presents both Rogers' and Stark's viewpoints as equally reasonable.
>Stark creates Ultron and causes everything in AoU to happen
>World gets pissed off at the Avengers and all the other superheroes in the MCU because of what Stark did
>Sokovia Accords are created as the result of what Stark did.
Well, the problem will be that the Marvel government hangs knee-deep in SHIELD,ssupports the Avengers and so on and so forth. They created the current situation by allowing vigilantism on a large scale. So shutting down this national institution will cause problems. And any move trying to conscript people by force is a bad one. What would be the right way would be a soft pressure with arreasonable affiliation system deputizing the heroes in question and effectively making them accountable but not into employees or servants. I think gene-coded access to a support system and published high scores/legal responsibility would be great.
So you get a body cam, a com line to an agency assistant with operational support data and info on who is around. The only thing they have is a genetic sample and the power to announce you rogue if you do bad things. They would be more closely supervised than cops but could remain anonymous to the authorities.
>We don't. We just give them away. Gotta justify that military presence somehow.
Yeah. We give them away to terrorists.
We *sell* them to the oppressive governments the terrorists fight, as well to the gangs and drug traffickers in Mexico, Central and South America.
>It's not really fair
That's the point though. Both points can't be equally reasonable when everybody knows that the basic premise of this movie is all because of what Tony Stark did in AoU and Tony is coming in and giving Cap shit,
Bottlenose Dolphins and Chimpanzees also wage war. Dolphins usually rape their enemies. Chimpanzees will generally spare females and young, but will kill and eat the males until there are none left in the other group- THEN move in and rape the females and kill/eat the young.
Not him but Tony's popular. He might not be hotter, but in the public eyes he's considered the "face" of the MCU. I was watching AoU and heard some dudes talking about how Cap "needed to shut up" while the sabbatical scene was playing.
I don't think the trailer presented both sides equally, I didn't like the excessively sympathetic potrayal of Tony compared to Cap. I mean Cap must also be in at least as shitty a situation as Tony is.
A decent amount will side with Iron Man because RDJ, a decent amount will side with Cap because "'Murica!" and they attribute working with the government like Stark is to working with Obama.
The rest of the sheeple will side with whoever they are attracted to more.
The people with brains will analyze the movie and decide based upon the things the movie does compared with things they believe in and have experienced in real life. They will pick up on different small parts of the plot and the way people act.
This is all if the movie does manage to show both sides in a rational light.
And if there's no accountability to the power that deputized them, is affiliated with them, and gives them all their support, then who are they accountable to? What is the aim of this agency project? To just hand out a bunch of support and see what happens?
And none of this is going to matter when a handful of them fuck up. You think that, "We just deputized and supported the murderer. We didn't order him to kill because we have no code of conduct and any bad things our agents do is everyone else's problem." is going to be a good defense?
like batman vs superman will be any better
I don't know what they were trying to do in this page, but I can't help but notice that Tony is actually the villain in most of his own predictions. This casts all of his actions in an even more sinister light. He didn't ask for Peter to unmask to help his side, he did it because he KNEW that it would cause Peter pain and suffering and maybe he was doing that to try to guilt the other side?
This turns him from a well meaning person into someone that literally set his friend up to fail and potentially die to gain a martyr on his side...
>The Russos confirmed the movie doesn't take sides and presents both Rogers' and Stark's viewpoints as equally reasonable.
I find that extremely hard to believe considering the movie is called CAPTAIN AMERICA Civil War instead of Avengers Civil War, or just plain Civil War.
I would love that if this was in the movie, subplot is Pepper finding out that a huge chunk of the 'evidence' the pro-regs are using is actually based on Korean knock-offs of Stark tech and etc.
>Never admit you are wrong, ever, for any reason
>Why can't they be accountable normally to the law. Like if they fuck up and break the law, have an investigation, have a trial and decide the appropriate punishment.
Imagine if a city's SWAT had absolutely no in-house documentation, investigation, punishment while carrying out its own operations as it saw fit- and relied entirely on the outside intervention other law enforcement agencies to ensure its agents were acting appropriately.
Imagine if the restaurant you went to had no expectations of its employees, and relied entirely on the OSHA, the health inspector, and other agencies to make sure they did a good job.
Imagine losing a loved one because the third pilot in a row crashed a plane drunk, only to be told by the airline that hired the pilot that they have absolutely no rules/punishment/accountability for pilots flying drunk. It's up to pilot themselves, passengers, and law enforcement to ensure they don't do so. You and the relatives of those who died can all sue the pilot if you want, but the airline company has nothing to do with what happened.
Can you see the kinds of issues that raises? This is why most agencies have internal monitoring, required documentation, codes of conduct, and a system of consequences for those who violate the rules that people employed by them are subject to. They know they're going to get blamed, and they want to go through efforts to prevent shit from getting that bad- or at the very least- show they made some effort to try and prevent it. And they STILL get shat on.
>Oh no, the suppressors broke off. The guns are unusable now because the sound level would exceed city regulations.
Pretty sure that's not a clean break, and only an idiot would try to fire a weapon with an obstructed barrel like that.
He is saying that even if everyone decides something wrong is right then you still should not change your position. Its a simple speech, obviously he isn't going to go into a speech on the nature of knowledge. But the point about having moral conviction, not behaving in an immoral way just because everyone else does, is not a bad point.
Then require the Avengers to have documentation, and a code of conduct and everything else. I don't see why the Avengers couldn't have all of those things without direct government control. The public and the government could check the code of conduct and have inspections to see if the documentation is up to date. I mean restaurants don't need to be directly controlled for there to be regulation and accoubtability. You can do all these things without registration.
I like GIJoe better, frankly.
>Then require the Avengers to have documentation, and a code of conduct and everything else. I don't see why the Avengers couldn't have all of those things without direct government control.
Well sure, they can do that. Then they'd be just another Private Military Contractor service.
Of course they wouldn't likely be able to go out and investigate/apprehend/use lethal force on suspect in the streets for the same reasons Blackwater/Academi and other PMCs can't.
That kind of stuff is pretty much the domain of the US government. That's why if they want to go out and fight crime, including the use of deadly force, they have to be a government agency or part of a government agency.
Isn't that just arbitrary? If the avengers aren't challenging the government or blatantly ignoring laws like those against murder, then I don't see any reason for it to be directly government controlled. It just seems like you can have all the benefits of government regulation and accountability without the government assigning missions to the avengers or micro managing avenger protocol(which have obvious downsides).
Of course they fellate authority, don't pull that bullshit on the whole "if you knew the first thing"
>let's belittle black lives matter to never care about the point of their arguement and focus on how cool cops are!
>let's make the authority punish gays, muslims, and stoners!
>let's protect fetuses with authority by forbidding abortion yet taking away food stamps and second chance programs
>let's pay for MORE WAR MORE PRISONS
If they're following the comic plot this is going to end with Cap dead and Tony admitting it wasn't worth it before giving himself brain damage to protect everyone's secret identities. .
>If the avengers aren't challenging the government or blatantly ignoring laws like those against murder, then I don't see any reason for it to be directly government controlled.
For the same reason you and I can't just up and start a company called "The Protectors", where we investigate, raid, arrest, and occasionally use force to subdue who we consider to be criminal suspects.
>>It just seems like you can have all the benefits of government regulation and accountability without the government assigning missions to the avengers or micro managing avenger protocol(which have obvious downsides).
By giving an independent business the ability to carry out law enforcement/military/intelligence duties- up to and including lethal force- as they see fit.
That itself is against the law.
It's a big agenda filled with author self-inserts, the worst being Sally Floyd.
Then again, there are bail enforcement agents aka "bounty hunters". If you skip out on your bail, independent contractors can be hired to track you down, enter your property without a warrant, and take you into custody via force- including lethal force if the situation warrants.
They receive no city/state/federal government support, though.
I understand your point, but the point of the avengers is that it is an organization meant to face threats the government normally can't. I understand that you can't have a general principle of everyone creating their own security force. But I'm only looking at this very specific case of the avengers and I can't see any benefits of direct government control. And I'm wondering if there can be any exceptions in this case.
I don't see how the govermment can manage the avengers better and I'm worried that the government will expand the avengers from its relatively limited role of preventing special threats, to serving specific political interest. I'm more trusting of the people in the avengers, who risk their lives and who most understand their powers than I am of some politician. I don't know if all this added risk is worth it for the general principle that not anyone can create his own police force.
>I understand your point, but the point of the avengers is that it is an organization meant to face threats the government normally can't. I understand that you can't have a general principle of everyone creating their own security force. But I'm only looking at this very specific case of the avengers and I can't see any benefits of direct government control. And I'm wondering if there can be any exceptions in this case.
You can't see how being accountable to the institution whose weapons/intelligence/material/resources you use has any benefit to that institution as opposed to having it be autonomous?
Sure, any given person would prefer to do whatever they want without any accountability so long as they don't break the law. That's rarely the way things work when you agree to receive expensive support from someone as you work to pursue their interests.
>>I don't see how the govermment can manage the avengers better and I'm worried that the government will expand the avengers from its relatively limited role of preventing special threats, to serving specific political interest.
Well a city/state/federal government generally has an internal investigations, a series of checks and balances, required documentation, etc that is ultimately answerable to voting population.
And again, the Avengers would be using their resources. They'd likely want to have say in how those resources are used.
The authority you're talking about tends to stem from religious/moral authority.
They believe that power has the obligation to punish criminals, gays, abortionists, and Muslims. People who violate their religiously informed moral beliefs.
Outside of that, they are staunchly anti-authoritarian. They believe authority should not tell them how many weapons they can own, whether or not they can enforce their ideas of traditional gender roles, or restrict free trade.
But that's just a portion of the US population.
Aren't the avengers self financed with Tony paying for everything? And again, I'm not saying there be no accountability, but that doesn't mean direct government oversight.
If the government in the MCU was able to be infiltrated so utterly by Hydra, which just barely suceeded in its plans, with no one knowing anything for decades. Then I'm skeptical how accountable the governemnt can be if it wants to run the avenegers covertly. The thing is, I trust the people in the avengers to actually be more worried about being accountable to the public and focusing on the actual problems than politicians or General Ross.
I side with whatever side wants regulations
No, I don't care if you saved the world you fucking destroyed my home and now I'm homeless. Are you going to buy me a new house for my family?
that monster probably would have killed us but you've also put us on the path to death
my kids are sleeping under the bridge during the winter. little holly has caught pneumonia
Cap because his name is in the title.
I mean you can blab all you want about how they're equally represented and all that but really, this isn't Iron Man 4, or even Avengers Gaiden, it's Captain America Civil War, and Cap is going to be portrayed as the hero in this.
>So, who do you guys think the average audience will most likely side with?
Jesus, get of your high horse you arrogant nerd. You are the average audience.
Obama has done the same.
tony sticking it to bureaucrats is what made people like him, now that hes of them his appeal is gone
and there is no way he can present any opinion he has from a point of leverage. He is literally taking the side of "everybody should be punished because I personally couldn't handle power"
For me I think it boils down to avoiable property damage. I don't want my supes restrained but for example take the Hulk, master of destruction.
Did you really need to grab that guys car to smash him with or throw? You're the fucking Hulk just use your fist or grab a tree.
It was funny though but jesus Hulk
>published high scores
I know it's not what you meant, but that sounds to me like a leaderboard for capes. Gotta get that terrorist kill streak up amirite.
Seriously though, what does that mean?
Cap is all about freedom and personal rights. He is against fascism and totalitarianist regimes/dictatorships.
He's not saying
>do whatever the hell you want and consequences be damned
He's saying that there is exists morality (concepts of right/wrong) and truth. He's basically saying that, just because lots of people do something or that people with authority do something - it doesn't make it right.
If the whole world is doing something wrong/immoral/committing injustice etc. then it is the responsibility of those who believe contrariwise to adhere to their morals and not give in or change. To essentially stand up and fight for what is right/moral/just.
>Aren't the avengers self financed with Tony paying for everything? And again, I'm not saying there be no accountability, but that doesn't mean direct government oversight.
Yeah, the movie pretty much totally ignored the ramifications of a US based privately funded paramilitary organization engaging in unilateral anti-terrorist/government operations around Eastern Europe.
>>If the government in the MCU was able to be infiltrated so utterly by Hydra, which just barely suceeded in its plans, with no one knowing anything for decades. Then I'm skeptical how accountable the governemnt can be if it wants to run the avenegers covertly. The thing is, I trust the people in the avengers to actually be more worried about being accountable to the public and focusing on the actual problems than politicians or General Ross.
HYDRA did infiltrate SHIELD. At the same time, Nick Fury, Black Widow, and Captain America were also Shield Agents and they worked together with other SHIELD agents to take down HYDRA.
In fact, lack of oversight was one of the reasons why the HYDRA problem had gotten so bad, as any organization can be infiltrated.
>>The thing is, I trust the people in the avengers to actually be more worried about being accountable to the public and focusing on the actual problems than politicians or General Ross.
Fairly easy to say because we know on a meta level they'll always do the right thing and save the day in the end because they're the stars of the movie. They'd never allow one of them to do something that actually hurts people.
Whereas the government is shown as being made of as more of a mix of perfect people (usually those allied with the Avengers), regular folks, and villains.
But in universe, people don't have that meta knowledge.
Their "authority" is less about a certain person/place/institution but more a set of ideas. US Christianity is a lot more about every individual's personal relationship with faith, with far less regard for the opinions of actual religious leaders.
Bush did nothing wrong.
>christianity is more about individual faith
In modern American context. Jesus could be interpreted anywhere between a jew socialist or a WWE Super Slam God. Religion warps around the culture for individual/neighborhood interpretation and somewhat the other way around but the Christianity these people practice is very different from the Christianity practiced in Latin America or Europe. When their individual faith creates governernment influence that stops me from the ability to start smoking weed or start liking homo man butt to whatever extent I please, they've crossed the line of individual faith and are imposing it. The speaker of the house of reps is Paul Ryan who is a radical right winger for his interpretation of Jesus. Most of our legislative branches deny anthropogenic climate change which is one thing but then there is the significant amount that deny climate change all together due to being Fundamentalist fascists.
I think you would kinda know on a meta level. If there people who are risking their lives for little personal gain in order to keep the world safe, then its fair to assume those people care greatly about public wellbeing. Yes there will be fuck ups like any organization(and I don't think government control will prevent those fuck ups) but at least their motivations are easier to ascertain and evaluate then some military person the public doesn't know who can send out teams of superheros to do shit in parts of the world that the public doesn't care about.
Also the fact he kept a silver dollar under his tongue for god knows how long all so he could give Tony Stark a sick burn. What if he never ran into Stark? Would he just keep it there forever? Eating prison food with a hunk of metal in his mouth?
depends on the country. germans, russians, developed asian countries will probably side with iron man. americans, frenchies, will side with cap. africa will side with whoseever side black panther is on.
Parenthesis is speculation:
Falcon (+ Redwing)
Ant-Man (joins after being called by falcon)
Scarlet Witch (not on promos, may be sidelined/mcguffin for act 2)
>Team Iron Man
Spider-man (not on promos, may change teams)
Black Panther (probably independent to the conflict itself, just chasing bucky)
Heh, it's entirely dependent on Scarlet Witch she can stop almost anyone from a distance, technically, but a strong wind can put Wanda out of commission. It's not even a power level, it's a strategy thing. HawkAnt can also take both War Machine and Iron Man, even though Stark is for Cap+Bucky to take down.
>Also, why is Clint there, but not Banner? I thought he retired completely.
Banner vanished they can't find him.
And that is probably the whole problem Clint has with it and why he decides to go rebel with Cap. He wants to retire and be with his family. Government says nope, he'd better be an Avenger or there's gonna be a problem.
He could basically play the role Luke Cage did, who was with Cap in the comic because the showed up at his house and basically tried to force him at gunpoint to comply forcing him to send his wife and kid off and go with Steve.
Alternatively he's back with the team at the beginning like AoU never happened(and I think he might actually be as he was reported on set when they were filming the Crossbones fight which is the beginning battle of the film)
She did fuck up most of the Avengers with the right delivery system. She probably wouldn't be able to get close enough to panther to fuck him up, but she should be able to tear apart the Iron Men. Vision would just cry and give up for love.
>I think you would kinda know on a meta level. If there people who are risking their lives for little personal gain in order to keep the world safe, then its fair to assume those people care greatly about public wellbeing.
You couldn't know on a meta level because heroes go out and save the world by saying "fuck you" to the law but are always right in the end were that common, then we wouldn't have laws against vigilantism on the books to begin with.
>>but at least their motivations are easier to ascertain and evaluate then some military person the public doesn't know who can send out teams of superheros to do shit in parts of the world that the public doesn't care about.
Ascertained by whom? They don't have to answer to anyone unless they are found to have committed a crime.
And even then, you have to trust that if they have been accused of a crime by law enforcement, that they actually submit and allow themselves to be taken into custody. Which they rarely do. Instead, they point out that some element of law enforcement is corrupt and then engage on highly destructive cross country chase in an effort to clear their name. Usually they think that by exposing another conspiracy, they can exonerate themselves of all crimes/damages they may have otherwise committed.
>> I don't think government control will prevent those fuck ups)
You don't think having to answer to someone other than their own consciousness would help some characters make better decisions? Having super powers doesn't instantly imbue you with superior foresight and judgement.
And ignoring all that, there's the fact that when shit does happen, which it inevitably does, people start assigning blame, and the blame is going to quickly fall on the local/state/federal government to deal with metahumans anyway.
What's the point of making them both the sympathetic good guys while the movie is specifically named after one of them?
Whedon makes his dislike for a character well known. He's done it before with punisher by writing him completely out of character and then getting punched by molly. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he made cap look like a joke on purpose because he just doesn't like captain america. He's fucking petty.
I thought it was because Joss Whedon hates guns or some shit like that, isn't that why he dumps on the Punisher?
I mean, no wonder he'd make superhuman super soldier guy an ineffective retard with a gun, he should be running in and punching them like a real hero should!
Gun nuts fucking clapped for Bundy and write hate filled manifestos against people like Occupy and BLM. Obviously they have no problem using the government when it suits their own interests.
Occupy and BLM speak out against a corrupt, unaccountable government and it's owners, gun freaks cheer when they get tear gassed and jerk off to fantasies about blowing away protestors.
They are about as authoritarian as you can get. Shut the fuck up, retard.
By the end of the film they will all be pursuing their own agendas. There won't be any teams.
They'll unite to stop Zemo but thereafter there's nought to hold them together.
Simply saying they hate those groups does not require them to be in favor of the government or, even worse, in favor of using the government to shut them up. A person can have completely legitimate problems with both groups, while simultaneously being opposed to large government.
>The Russos confirmed the movie doesn't take sides and presents both Rogers' and Stark's viewpoints as equally reasonable.
They say that like it's actually going to happen. One of them is going to look retarded. Civil War never made sense to begin with, and they're not going to be able to change that.
Scarlet Witch not being on the promos is due to Fox/Disney hate.
She's with Team Cap but probably goes Neutral when Cap starts going Full Retard. Probably like West Coast Avengers where she BTFO Cap.
Vision goes off to space so no reason to stick around she leaves the Avengers and joins Team Strange.
They are split off into little splinters...Team Cosmic, Team Mystic, Team Smash, etc for Infinity War Part 1
She'll unlock magic (or something like it, Chaos Energy as they will likely call it) in Civil War.
She's getting more and more powerful and that will continue right up to Thanos.
Her power is Chaos.
>I didnt do anything wrong
>Spider-man on the other hand makes sure that violent people are locked away and worries about his family's safety
>the genuinely evil stuff I did was just Marvel's writing though lol
If I were a super powered being I would want to have veto on being deployed. If I disagree with a mission I should be able to opt out as a Conscientious Objector.
Millions of soldiers have died to feed the egos and pockets of fat Generals and politicians.
Meant this one.
Captain America has literally never done anything wrong to warrant such a thing imposed on him. Why would I trust elected government officials who have proven to be corrupt time and time again over Captain America
>beat Iron Man
Kimmel fucking pranked us again, you idiot. I swear, does /co/ like not watch the news? Or even go to /tv/ for gossip?
Paul Rudd and RDJ were on set but were just visiting. Renner might have been doing the same.
Evans, Stan, RDJ, Scarjo, Mackie main characters. The other Avengers will likely peel away after the Airport fight leaving just the main characters fighting.
Everyone else just in action scenes and short cameos.
Opening Montage of Avengers fighten' baddies all over the world.
Cap's War Party gathers
(after this just Cap, Bucky, Falcon vs Stark, Widow, Panther...everyone else taps out after Rhodey injury)
Old HYDRA base
Stark vs Cap/Bucky
Epilogue: Disbanding of Avengers
>If I were a super powered being I would want to have veto on being deployed. If I disagree with a mission I should be able to opt out as a Conscientious Objector.
I agree. Of course, being a nonsuper powered being, I also like the idea that it's not legal for said super powered people to run around violating international borders/law, starting fights and enforcing the law as they see fit, with government sanctioned support but no government oversight, and all on my tax dollar.
>>Millions of soldiers have died to feed the egos and pockets of fat Generals and politicians.
And the whims of the people. Most of your big wars happen with overwhelming public support.
And the majority of those war crimes aren't carried out by soldiers under direct orders of their superiors- let alone civilian officials.
They tend to get carried out by non-government paramilitary organizations run amok, are the result of pet projects run by high ranking/autonomous individuals, or troops run amok.
You know... people with little to no accountability to their commanding officers, to say nothing of the civilian government.
Thanks to Marvel's modular approach to narrative, we already know that this film will have roughly the exact same ending as Avengers 2.
Stark will enter a self-imposed exile, War Machine & Vision will eventually switch to Team Rogers, and Hawkeye will leave or die. This will give us the exact lineup shown at the end of Ultron.
This is why Marvel tried very hard, against all narrative logic, to include Captain Marvel: the films between Avengers entires are designed to be skippable, so that casual viewers can watch only Avengers 1, 2, and 3 without missing anything important.
To understand how Marvel does continuity, you can look at two key examples. In Avengers 1, Steve Rogers has a vague conversation about fighting a bad man in Germany. The bad man is never named, so people who skipped First Avenger will assume he's talking about Hitler, and those who saw First Avenger will assume he's talking about Red Skull. This is what I mean by modular continuity. You can choose what the 'bad man' is, because the 'bad man' is ultimately neither: a nonspecific blur. It officially doesn't matter who Steve fought.
The second example is the big "this is what SHIELD was meant to be" scene in Avengers 2. Once again, those who skipped Winter Soldier will assume Steve is just praising his coworkers - because there is, deliberately, zero indication that what you're seeing is a plot twist. The events between films are, again, a nonspecific blur. Is Sam Jackson still working for the reptilian conspiracy, or did he fake his death to escape them? Neither! It officially doesn't matter who Sam Jackson is working for.
Civil War will not end with a return to status quo - but it will end with this same blurring. Did Hawkeye remain at the farm with his family, or will he die? Did Stark drive away in an orange car, or will he be forced into hiding? It won't matter. The endings are designed to be interchangeable.
Missing scenes from set/interviews/D23 panel:
>Vision in a suit playing chess
>Ant-Man going Gi-Ant-Man
>Hawkeye + Ant-Man combo
>Crossbones being based
But what about Zemo? Will Zemo's viewpoint be presented as equally reasonably to Cap's and Tony's respective viewpoints?
That's not really true. Avengers features heavily things that were introduced in other films, like Loki and the tesseract itself.
And AoU has Falcon, Rhodes who were introduced in other films, and it starts with the team back together and independently operating which was only set up in the other films.
Not to mention Infinty War's Villian was set up in GotG and is going to feature new Avengers introduced in the films between. In fact one part of Infinite Wars is barely going to feature the Avengers in the first two films at all.
So it doesn't matter what Roster Civil War ends with, as Infinity War is going to feature different characters anyway.
Honestly, I'd prefer it if Civil War is about Cap and Tony fighting over whether Bucky gets tried for his crimes as The Winter Soldier, past and present. The Sokovia thing is a fucking mess and Tony's involvement w/r/t Ultron really kinda calls his motives into question.
The MCU's timeline is all fucked up. The Infinity Stones all have to show up, on Earth, by the time of Infinity Wars 1. Worse, they have to come back there so Thanos can show up and do snaps for good luck. Which means the Time Stone has to show up in Dr. Strange, Black Panther, Ragnarok, or the Spider-Man movie.
This is a problem because the Time Stone doesn't really fit any of those films. Maybe Dr. Strange?
>Ragnarok - Asgard gets destroyed
>Thor contacts the norms or some oracle on how to fix it
>They suggest time stone, but it's guarded by Surtur or whatever and his army
>Needs to get the Hulk for help
It's the last movie before IW, so it's never really put into use besides maybe restoring Asgard.
True, the only legacy they could get from there would be Sif or something. Unless they introduce someone else.
I actually wouldn't mind having a Sif-as-valkirie trilogy, with Thor cameos as the King of Asgard, just like Hopkins has been in these. Maybe then we'd get the cool space adventures we've been missing.
t's certainly an interesting puzzle.
Deliberately or not, the Avengers/MCU narrative is currently structured (to the extent that there is a structure) as a series of overlapping 'timelines'. The events are being continually repeated, with minor variations. Iron Man 3, Age Of Ultron, and Civil War all have the same ending, because they are all designed to function as the penultimate Iron Man film. Stark retires at the end of each so that he can dramatically 'come out of retirement' in Avengers 3.
Iron Man 3 is also designed to function as the final Iron Man film: the end of the "Iron Man Trilogy." And Of course, in theory, every film is designed to function as 'the final film in the series' - because, in theory, every film is designed to end satisfactorily.
The hidden corollary to "every comic is someone's first comic" is, after all, the simple fact that every comic is someone's last comic. There are a substantial number of people out there who have not seen a single Marvel Studios film - who will rent Age Of Ultron to see what all the fuss is about, and who will then never watch another for the rest of their lives. Is this person getting their money's worth? And then: are you?
When Age Of Ultron fundamentally does not function on its own, that means it survives only by parasitizing the more competent entires.
What I'm saying is that Civil War will be the story of Tony Stark getting into an orange car. Then he blows up all his suits.
Yeah, if you go out and do such things you should be accountable, but you should be able to opt out if you don't want to.
Most people if they had super powers would use them for convenience and not bother with anything idealistic.
That's the bullshit aspect of comic books, the notion that people would be that idealistic when most people would use it to get famous and do flashy concert shows and get rich off of it.
Of course most of the Avengers are orphans, and thus crave acceptance and approval from the world because they can't get it from the usual sources (family, friends).
>There are people who only watch the Avenger Movies
>Marvel is forced to pander to them otherwise they get lost
>Each movie between the Avengers is basically worthless for the main event
How the fuck do they expect someone to jump from Age of Ultron to Infinity War?
There are 9 Non-avenger movies between AoU and IW: Part 2.
That's a lot of missed story content.
They aren't. He's full of shit. AoU makes no sense going straight from Avengers 1 only. Thor is back. Tony doesn't have the reactor and has an army now. Hydra is freaking back and has two super people. War Machine and Falcon are in it.
Yeah they definitely expect people to watch all the movies.
>Yeah, if you go out and do such things you should be accountable, but you should be able to opt out if you don't want to.
Most of the bad shit happens when folks aren't being watched.
>>That's the bullshit aspect of comic books, the notion that people would be that idealistic when most people would use it to get famous and do flashy concert shows and get rich off of it.
Although even when they are being idealistic, they can make poor decisions. The most bullshit thing about comics is that no matter what decision they make, they always find a way out of it and end up justified in the end.
If anyone else accidentally unleashed a malevolent AI on the world that tried to drop a city on the planet- they'd be fired/arrested for gross negligence.
Tony Stark does it, and aside from being a little mad at him, everyone just shrugs and goes, "That's Tony!"
>imlying 70% of the audience won't side with tony cause muh RDJ
hell, I'm pretty sure even marvel wants that to happen seeing how they openly ask us to side with either (even when the movie is titled after one of them) and the trailer wants you to feel pity for tony
i'll just assume CW was written into a Cap movie in order to try and balance the RDJ popularity (though they seem to try and break that balance again by making them both right)
He's got it kind of backwards, but what he's talking about does happen. Specifically, the Avengers movies aren't supposed to contain anything that would affect each of the characters' stand-alones in a big way. Whedon talked about this in an interview with EW, where he mentioned that he was trying to make a movie that was important to all of the characters, and was a big deal, but he couldn't resolve anything about Bucky's storyline, because that would confuse people going into Cap 3 if him and Bucky were reconciled already. And he can't advance any of Thor's plot despite some big shit going down because that has to happen in Thor movies.
He sounded kind of pissed, actually, I wish I could find that interview again. He was essentially bitching about making a movie in which he wasn't allowed to actually do anything important with any of the characters. You got the feeling like he felt like he was making filler.
Also, most people watching the avengers watch at least a couple of the individuals, even if not all, but everyone following their favorite heroes will have to watch the avengers.
I imagine, in addition to what the other two anons said, a fair amount of people might just rent the other films to watch in their free time, but they make an effort to go to the theater for the big event.
Yeah, at this point I'd say a sizeable portion of viewers treat the MCU as a long-running massive budget series of 2 episodes a year, and a bunch of events in between (the netflix shows) and some filler (AoS, AC).
Which is why they keep the layered canon-icity to it all, so that no-one feels forced to watch it all, and they can keep things mostly independent and easy to produce and manage until the 'finale' where they can have the option to pull it all together. This way, AoS and such become bonus content instead of mandatory homework, and the same can be said for the other tiers and the ones above them.
It's doing fine, I'd say.
Most civilian deaths are caused by government sanctioned operations. I don't see the risk of unaccountable superheros being reduced if you have the military using superheros. You are still likely going to have superheros violating norms and international boundaries of countries which don't have contrl of superheros. Or have the superheros violating the rights of citizens. Its just that instead of having people in the avengers who fundamentally care about human rights, accountibility and well being, theres a strong chance you will have people in governement cotrolling the superheros who only see another tool to be abused.
Just because the government takes control does not make it accountable. True accountability works when the public and the avengers have an effective feedback system. And I feel that the avenger are probably going to care about more and be easier to reach to the public then a general sending the avengers on some secret missions to topple some other government that the public doesn't know about.
It explains why Wanda, Vision, and Hawkeye have arguably the best development in the movie. Whedon could do pretty much whatever he wants with those three.
Ultron probably had more dev in early scripts but got squeezed down and Whedon I think got lazy and just quipped his way through because of the restrictions.
Whedon is not great at writing antagonists (there are some exceptions such as the bounty hunter in Firefly).
They'll side with whoever they fangirl over.
The non-fangirls will just favor Captain America because his name is in the title and the main character must be the good, right guy and everyone in his way has to be evil because their brains can't handle a scenario where there isn't an actual "bad guy" in a situation. They like to label every person as a good guy or bad guy, such as themselves as a good guy and their parents as bad guys for telling them to clean their rooms.
I imagine it helps with the focus of the movie. If it was just called "Marvel: Civil War" there's just too much there, the scope is just too large. Pulling it under Caps banner gives it some scope
>wanda on the other team
>TIR should slaughter them
>Implying there's isn't going to be a "It was me Steve" moment at the end of this film due to the inclusion of Baron Zemo.
I'm interested in how the movie's going to pull out Baron Zemo in the mid-end and make him interesting enough for normies to give a shit about him, especially since he doesn't have the sock over his face
wait what's this about the Infinity War having different characters? Where'd you hear this? Who's the roster? It's titled Avengers: Infinity War Part 1, so it only makes sense that the Avengers are all in it
He's going to be fucking Skullface and you know it.
Joss is a fucking moron who doesn't understand chracters.
Especially bad what he did with punisher, it was funny, sure, but juvinille and out of character.
Seems lots of people hate and misunderstand punisher.
Yep, I mean the events in Avengers along with AoU and TWD were cause for the creation of the accords.
But in the Avengers movie it was nore Loki attacking earth with the Chitauri and the Avengers defending it so they were hardly to blame and TWD it was Cap cleaning SHIELD's HYDRA mess.
AoU was strictly Tony fucking up and then repeating said fuck up with Jarvis but being lucky that Jarvis didn't turn into Ultron 2.0 when he became the Vision.
Cap was not at fault in anybof those events and he just wants to save Bucky, since everyone else wants to use him or kill him and does not necessarily want to see him get justice like Steve does.
Nope, Brubaker pretty much negated this in his Cap run and talked about it on an interview were he said that while Gruenwald ended up doing a lot of good shit for Cap in the long run that Steve being a soldier in WWII who never took a life or used guns was one of the most ridiculous things so Bru retconned it.
And not like it matters because Gruenwald ends up having Steve kill someone eventually.
Also in Stan and Jack's run Cap did kill and use guns, both Stan and Jack were in WWII so they would know.
Yeah, just because governments and whole countries now say black people and gays are alright, doesn't mean they are. You know blacks are a lesser race and gays are morally wrong. You should totally not consider anyone else's viewpoint, just stand up for what you believe.
Well it would explain the deal with the Institute for Infectious Diseases.
>mfw Zemo frames Bucky so he can use him as a Trojan Horse for the Avengers
Steve will be ashamed of his words and deeds soon enough.
I get the impression Hydra deliberately left Bucky semi-normal to lure Cap down a path of disaster.
The way Bucky looks at Cap in that trailer reminds me of the schoolkid who egged you on to steal stuff or do bad shit.
And Sputnik is going to be what they use to get Bucky to finish the job. Basically a
WORD THAT KILLS.
Tony's too much of a fuckup. Also there needs to be a version of this with his face on it.
I want this to be in the movie real bad.
But "Avengers Assemble" was basically guaranteed to be used in the first Avengers- and it wasn't.
"Ultron, we would have words with thee" was THE line to use in AoU- and it wasn't.
I see no reason why they would put one of, if not the most iconic line from the story in the actual movie.
My friend thinks like that too. people who do not know much about Cap except for the movies usually think that he's pretty useless. The first Avengers film had him fail at ridiculous things, the costume added to the dumbness. They all think Cap is no real super hero just a guy who can hit a little harder whereas Tony for example is very smart and has all this tech which makes him more visibly a "superhuman" with the suit by flying and everything. Cap has to run places.
That said personally I think MCU Cap is better at his own things as much as IM is in his own.
People just underestimate Cap cause they think he's just some dude with lots or morals and some steroids that make him punch harder than the next guy, they feel they need all the savvy tech or transformations to actually count as something.
With situations such as IM being fronted to fight Hulk people start cheering for him a lot more cause he feels more "usefull" and can blend into situations more.
I think Zemo's going to be looking down on them, despite all their powers they are going to be easily manipulated by him.
I really wouldn't be surprised if it isn't Zemo who leaks the info that Bucky killed Tony's father, trolling things up supremely.
>I am a reasonable person
Yeah, I highly doubt that.