Is it a mistake that Marvel is packing such an event as Civil War into one movie?

[Darth Kal-el]

This is one of the main flaw of Civil War the comic. It was written by Mark Millar, who evidently beliefs that all humans, superheroes included, are cynical, stupid, or flatout evil, or all of the above.

Also, 90% of Civil War was about the archaic secret identities trope, which the MCU has largely done away with. You've got Matt Murdock and... that's it, isn't it? Nobody's going to war over Daredevil. Including Daredevil.

I don't know if us humans are cynical and stupid but I think if someone with the power of Superman showed up the government and many people would react like they are being shown to in MOS and B v S

[HeWhoSlapsAll]

This is one of the main flaw of Civil War the comic. It was written by Mark Millar, who evidently beliefs that all humans, superheroes included, are cynical, stupid, or flatout evil, or all of the above.

Also, 90% of Civil War was about the archaic secret identities trope, which the MCU has largely done away with. You've got Matt Murdock and... that's it, isn't it? Nobody's going to war over Daredevil. Including Daredevil.

I disagree with you on Millar, but whatever; his non-Marvel stuff is his best stuff, and I like his more cynical take on things.

In regards to the identity aspect of Civil War, with Spider-Man being a minor, it would still be an important part of registering as he would need to give up his identity.

[QBall]

I don't know if us humans are cynical and stupid but I think if someone with the power of Superman showed up the government and many people would react like they are being shown to in MOS and B v S

Nope, that's a perfectly fair view of things. It's just not the view the MCU seems to have taken though. For all intents and purposes it looks like the public are perfectly happy with how things are in the MCU. I'm thinking that the Civil War will be purely coming from internal conflicts within the superhero/SHIELD community, not the SHRA as in the comics.

[HeWhoSlapsAll]

I don't know if us humans are cynical and stupid but I think if someone with the power of Superman showed up the government and many people would react like they are being shown to in MOS and B v S

Yup. It makes sense. Look at the destruction caused in Avengers 1, and 2, but we don't see much reaction to it; especially since the threats were a result of the heroes being there at all.

It's going to be interesting seeing how the public and critics react to both BVS and CW, as they both very similar.

[Carabas]

I disagree with you on Millar, but whatever; his non-Marvel stuff is his best stuff, and I like his more cynical take on things.

Most of his non-Marvel stuff is half -written by Grant Morrison, credited or not. And also well over 10 years old.
He's transformed into possibly the most misantropic comicbook writer ever since then.

In regards to the identity aspect of Civil War, with Spider-Man being a minor, it would still be an important part of registering as he would need to give up his identity.

Spider-Man wasn't even part of the MCU when they started working on Civil War. And likely is making his very first superhero appearance in this film. So it's unlikely to be about Spider-Man.

[Carabas]

Nope, that's a perfectly fair view of things. It's just not the view the MCU seems to have taken though. For all intents and purposes it looks like the public are perfectly happy with how things are in the MCU. I'm thinking that the Civil War will be purely coming from internal conflicts within the superhero/SHIELD community, not the SHRA as in the comics.

Besides, pretty much all superheroes ARE registrated. The SHRA was only a big deal because there were hundreds of B-listers clinging to their secret identities.

[Babylon23]

Having written adaptation screeenplays in the past, I don't think there's anything wrong with making this one stand-alone movie. Actually, I think this is the ideal way of telling this particular story. If written well, Civil War could easily be compacted into 100-150 minutes without sacrificing the core themes and messages of the original comic.

[TakoM]

I don't know if us humans are cynical and stupid but I think if someone with the power of Superman showed up the government and many people would react like they are being shown to in MOS and B v S

Superman is just one person so it is hard to compare. It is true that when you say the U.S would properly react this(brainless) way it does in CW but we all know this plan was originally only for the mutants which fought the X-Men against for years.

The problem is what would really happen ? Most of them would quit being a superhero or leave the country so far I understand it are the Avengers, FF and X-Men the only ones in the U.S for fought on higher planes , the others fighting criminals in the street like cops but in the end that's all charity work for their cities. They are like Spider-Man and Derdevil.

In the end you would hearing villain X took over city Y on a running band Tony's Avengers would go nuts because they can't work so fast.

I must admit I don't like CW and I don't like anything Miller did does non-superhero stuff don't belong in my view of the Marvel Universe.

[Mike82]

Unlike AOU, Civil War will have a much simpler storyline. Most of the superheroes will probably only show up for the major battles. This movie will be a good dry run for the Russo Brothers since they they will also direct Infinity War.

[Prof. Warren]

I think they are throwing way too much into one movie. I feel it became a response to Batman verses Superman and was not what Cap 3 was originally going to be about based on how TWS ended

CIVIL WAR was always going to be Cap 3. It's not a response to BvS. It'd be more legitimate to say that BvS, by immediately cramming all the big DC icons into one movie, is a response to THE AVENGERS. As for CW, Bucky will have a big part to play and it will clearly be a follow-up to the events of WS. And, as it will probably have just slightly more to do with its comic book counterpart than AoU, I'm sure this will be a more streamlined story that will fit into a feature just fine.

[Bunai]

Without reading through the thread. Yes, I think it is too much for a movie that was suppose to be about said character. Civil War should have been reserved as a separate movie or worked into another Avengers plot.

When I read the short description about Captain America 3, I was getting excited; you got SHIELD down, you got Caps close friends risking their lives for his old one, and possibly more interaction between Steven and Sam, which was very much needed. But BOOM! Civil War comes because Marvel got scared of something.

My issues is that there are so many characters, as that is the purpose of CW. My issue is that it is too many characters for a CA movie. If the focus is Steve, then what is everyone else doing there?

[The Fury]

It's not Civil War, it's just called Civil War. There are too few characters to be a Civil War for one but also, Age of Ultron was not about Wolverine travelling in time stopping Ultron being created. Just a title, characters will fight, over a dispute, that is it.