Why there won't be an Avengers: Civil War Movie

[MichaelChen]

Stark is the one whose fought the government trying to get his tech every other week. He should have always been anti-reg.

Rogers is the good soldier who believes in the nobility of public service and democracy. He should always have been the pro-reg guy.

[Lord Bravery]

Rogers isn't a government stooge though. So it wouldn't work for him being pro-reg either. He's told the government to go screw themselves on a few occasions. That instance in Civil War was probably the only bit of decent characterisation in the whole thing.

[Monty_Cristo]

shadowy commission group, in response to Fury's defiance, promote Maria Hill or Gyrich to head this up. S.H.I.E.L.D is provided cape-killers from some other evil tech person (possibly Advanced Idea Mechanics or even Ultro-masquerading-as-Pym).

[XPac]

Stark is the one whose fought the government trying to get his tech every other week. He should have always been anti-reg.

Rogers is the good soldier who believes in the nobility of public service and democracy. He should always have been the pro-reg guy.

Stark fought the government in Armor Wars. But he was also Secretary of Defense.

So you believably could have had Stark on either side of the issue. And to a degree you in fact did. He initially opposed the SHRA before anyone even saw it coming, and only decided to jump on the bandwagon when he believed it was inevtiable and attepted to control it himself.

As far as Rogers siding with the SHRA... we see in hindsight the SHRA is tossed out with the government believing the law was unamerican. No reason on earth to make Steve Rogers the face of that.

In effect they really both opposed the law... they just did it differently. Stark wanted to take control of it (which IMO is very in character of him), while Steve wanted to fight it head on. Which likewise was in character for him.

That said, it's possible that if they were to do a movie version of Civil War their roles might be different because the movie versions are somewhat different characters.

[Lord Bravery]

I'm not sure. Cap in his own movie defied his superiors orders because he believed it to be morally wrong. And in Avengers he and Stark both agree that they are not "marching to Fury's fife".

[XPac]

I'm not sure. Cap in his own movie defied his superiors orders because he believed it to be morally wrong. And in Avengers he and Stark both agree that they are not "marching to Fury's fife".

I'm honestly not sure either... which is why you might be able to go either way if you really wanted to. The guys been out of suspended animation for like a week or whatever... I'm not sure he's in a position to really have a positon on a matter like this.

For my money, if I were doing a Civil War story I'd place the movie Steve in the role of Spider-Man. I'd have him initially side with the government, then switch.

[nosocialize100]

How would they pull the idea off without seriously damaging at least one lucrative movie property?

That's basically what I was saying.

[RatFace]

I can guarantee that Avengers 2 is not going to be a CW movie. It took 5 movies to build up to the Avengers, and you really think that they'll throw all that away for a CW movie?

[NotSuper]

Stark is the one whose fought the government trying to get his tech every other week. He should have always been anti-reg.

Rogers is the good soldier who believes in the nobility of public service and democracy. He should always have been the pro-reg guy.

Nope, Stark is all about controlling situations before they end up blowing up and harming everyone. He's more of a consequentialist where Cap is more of an idealist. If iron Man saw registration as inevitable, he'd clearly become part of it so it could be done in a way as to cause the least amount of harm.

[mikekerrIII]

Rogers is the good soldier who believes in the nobility of public service and democracy. He should always have been the pro-reg guy.

Cap also worships the Constitution, so pro-reg was out of the question for him. I don't think that you understand what "good soldier means" in the US military. The first lines of the Oath of Enlistment should give you a clue.

[Lord Bravery]

Yea a "good soldier" should follow orders, but they should still have their own moral compass and not be what amounts to a drone who does literally anything his superiors say, even if it conflicts with the Constitution and what is morally right.

[Frank]

Rogers isn't a government stooge though. So it wouldn't work for him being pro-reg either. He's told the government to go screw themselves on a few occasions. That instance in Civil War was probably the only bit of decent characterisation in the whole thing.

It's not about Cap being a goverment stooge. Cap is pretty naive in this new World and probably sees authority with a whole different view than the other Avengers and to even 616 Cap from the comics. You take a soldier from 1945 and bring him here right now, he'll follow the President like the USA are fighting Hitler every day.

Tony though he's very different from the comics, he's a free spirit and we've seen him time and time again being annoyed that Shield is in the way.

I think a Civil War would likely be Shield Avengers + Cap vs the others.

[Frank]

Something I just learned and didn't know was that Sam Jackson was saying in an interview that Maria Hill was appointed at her job by the Shadow Council? That's not only a nice connection to the comics but could it be a foreshadowing of something...?

[Vic Vega]

Really there aren't enough characters in the Marvel Movie-verse to pull Civil War off even if they wanted to.

I assume that Marvel probably has the rights back for Blade and Elektra and Man Thing, but that still doesn't help(and Blade is better off in an R-Rated universe as he was).

Now stuff like Secret Invasion, Dark Reign and even the Infinty Gauntlet Marvel could pull off with the characters they have now.

[CHOX]

A Civil War movie would be a disaster. Imagine the chaos going on in Spider-Man 3, now multiply that by 50.

The only way a Civil War story would work is if Marvel becomes INCREDIBLY successful, and continues to launch and profit on all their characters. If that happened, maybe in 30 years we could have a Civil War movie, but only if we're get 10 different Marvel movies each year for like, 3 years. Won't happen.

The only wait it works is if it's an animated movie. Devote a season or two of an Avengers cartoon to it.

Something I just learned and didn't know was that Sam Jackson was saying in an interview that Maria Hill was appointed at her job by the Shadow Council? That's not only a nice connection to the comics but could it be a foreshadowing of something...?

I figured a bunch of that stuff was thrown in just to get us thinking. The montage of news footage at the end caught my attention with the whole "CAN SUPER HEROES BE TRUSTED?!" dweeb. I figured it was just to get us thinking, "Oh, Civil War!", an Easter Egg, if you will.