Ok, but again, if the film is written as a Captain America story and framed as a Captain America story, how does it make sense to NOT call it Captain America: Civil War? They can still make Iron Man a heavy presence in the movie without it being structured as a Cap/Iron Man movie or Avengers movie. It just means that Steve's perspective is the one driving the plot, and he'll be the primary character in the film rather than split evenly with Iron Man or Black Panther.
Now it's gets personal I guess, coz to me, personally, this civil war story shouldn't be be framed as a captain america perspective. instead of just calling it cap3 with the movie following him since its his, and iron man being the 2nd most important character, it should be called avengers: civil war or marvel's civil war if it is going to be a massive crossover story like its comic book counterpart was.
There are also contractual and branding reasons why it's more beneficial to call the movie Cap 3 than Avengers whatever.
that's what I suspect and it's why I don't think having it be a captain america film is doing it justice. chris evans has contracted to do a certain number of ensemble and solo films and writing this off as a solo film fills that void, and rdj got contracted into this movie and will receive additional benefits if the film outperforms cap2, because they think it'll be because of him.
yes, we do. The people actually involved with the movies have said up and down that they planned on using Ultron for Avengers 2 since before the first movie (and given how forward-thinking they are with mapping out movies, is it really impossible to believe that they'd already planned this 3 years in advance?) and have equally sworn up and down that there'd be no Planet Hulk/World War Hulk movie. The only person with a shred of credibility who said the latter was a possibility of happening was El Mayimbe, who took a lot of shit when that wasn't the case and backpeddled on it later.
it was rumored that marvel had two scripts for cap3 written, one with and one without spiderman, if sony weren't to comply for a crossover. so even if a marvel rep said av2 was always going to be ultron, it is still possible they had a script or an early draft or even just a rough idea of doing thanos for av2 in order to have av3 be civil war. but yes, I know marvel likes to map out their movie directions, i heard they have plans throughout 2029 or something like that.
People on the internet make shit up about how they'd like to see the movies go in the future or because they want clicks and then pass that around as "rumor," doesn't mean there's anything true to it.
yes. i'll agree with you there.
Marvel Studios does not slavishly adhere to comic book storylines. Iron Man will most likely play a supporting role as an antagonist, but Cap will get the lion's share of character development.
again, this is a double edge sword. if iron man's role in the film is minimal at most, then it isn't doing the civil war story justice (and i understand that this may not be a direct adaptation of the civil war comic, but they are using the overall principles if iron man is a part of the cinematic story) since it is supposed to be a massive crossover story, like the avengers movies are.
If Spidey is so vital to Civil War, why hasn't he been officially cast yet? I'm seeing him in a cameo role, nothing more.
i think they're gonna have to announce casting soon. and although it is not official confirmation i think rdj mentioned in passing that spiderman is supposed to show up.
Marvel is about the spirit of the story, not letter by letter retelling.
I wasn't to say this was gonna be a panel for panel base of the civil war comic, but with the hype behind iron man being involved as well as several of the other marvel mainstays, it does seem like they are choosing to go by the overall direction that civil war was - a story that had not just cap as the most important character.
