Poll: What Did You Think Of The First "Captain America Civil War" Trailer?

[Da Boat]

Looks good. Although I had no idea it was just about Bucky and Iron Man and his guys running after Bucky. Not sure what I feel about that.

[Da Boat]

Not the same case. What you're proposing is, ridiculous as it may be, ultimately a title that has nothing to do with the movie. They can actually call this movie Civil War because it is centered in the conflict between the 2 factions within the avengers. The title fits the argument of the movie, and thats what should matter, regardless if it fits the story from the Civil War comic or not. Seriously I dont see whats the trouble here.

Seriously if this faithfulness to the original source is that much of an issue I don't know how you people got over Hank Pym not creating Ultron, Cap being on the avengers since the beginning, A black nick fury....

I personally I just wish they would find other titles instead of going for titles of famous comic storyline that have nothing to do with the story. Like "Age of Ultron" , it was called like that in the comics cause Ultron took over the World. In the movie, not so much. Probably should have been called "The Rise of Ultron".

I wouldn't be surprised if Thor: Ragnarock would not even be close to the comic equivalent.

[kalorama]

I personally I just wish they would find other titles instead of going for titles of famous comic storyline that have nothing to do with the story. Like "Age of Ultron" , it was called like that in the comics cause Ultron took over the World. In the movie, not so much. Probably should have been called "The Rise of Ultron".

I wouldn't be surprised if Thor: Ragnarock would not even be close to the comic equivalent.

Which comic book equivalent? Unlike Age of Ultron, there's never actually been a specific standalone comic book series or mini-series called Ragnarok (at least not from Marvel). And while the Ragnarok event has been portrayed in the Marvel comics, it's also been done multiple times in multiple different storylines by multiple different creators, each one different than the previous ones in significant ways. There is no specific, single comic book equivalent for Ragnorok.

[Username taken]

I really loved the trailer.

I like the fact that it's hitting emotional beats as opposed to the live action battle board smack down the movie could have been .

I also love that it's more like Cap 3 as opposed to Avengers 2.5.

[Darth Phoenix]

It was OK the BP spot and the 2 attacking Stark made me smile but I just want to see Spiderman.

[Calighoula]

Seriously if this faithfulness to the original source is that much of an issue I don't know how you people got over Hank Pym not creating Ultron, Cap being on the avengers since the beginning, A black nick fury....

"Black" Fury actually happened in the comics first, unless I'm mistaken.

[Punisher007]

^Which some people STILL seem to conveniently forgot and/or ignore. Kind of like Hawkeye having a wife/kids to come to think of it.

[Punisher007]

this might need a thread of it's own but does anybody else feel like civil war should be an avengers movie rather than a cap movie??

i really loved the cap movies and how different they were from each other as a reflection of how different the times were, i was looking forward to what would come next. i look forward to civil war too but imo that's not a cap story even though he's one of the main characters. i think if not an avenger story it would've been better as an ironman movie just because i think ironman as a movie didn't have much else left in the tank anyways.

YES, THANK YOU!! That's one of the things that's bugging me the most about this (although certainly not the only one). Some people are saying "why are you upset that Cap is the hero in a Cap movie." And my response is simple, I'm not. I'm not upset that Cap is the hero in a Cap movie. What I, and other people, have a problem with is that, CIVIL WAR specifically SHOULDN'T be a Cap movie, or a Cap-centric story. If they'd have gone with a different plot for Cap 3, then there wouldn't be an issue here for me.

CW is allegedly (not that the original comic did a good job of executing this idea mind you) supposed to be about two sides who have a fundamental disagreement about a complicate political topic where there really isn't one "right" answer. The logical thing to do, and the only way to even have a chance of doing it well imo, is to make it an Avengers film, or a "Marvel Presents" kind of film where BOTH sides get pretty much equal time to develop their viewpoints/beliefs.

But here, they keep emphasizing that "it's a Cap film" or "it's very much Cap's story," and my response is that's NOT a good thing. Because if you're going to do a complicated issue like this, then devoted the majority of the story/screentime to ONE side and THEIR viewpoint undercuts the whole premise imo. Also, it's kind of a cheat because, unless you do it REALLY well, then the audience is already predisposed to come down on that side because, well we see much more of them/spend much more time with them.

Oh and btw, I'd be saying the exact same thing if this were called Iron Man: Civil War instead.

[Majesty]

YES, THANK YOU!! That's one of the things that's bugging me the most about this (although certainly not the only one). Some people are saying "why are you upset that Cap is the hero in a Cap movie." And my response is simple, I'm not. I'm not upset that Cap is the hero in a Cap movie. What I, and other people, have a problem with is that, CIVIL WAR specifically SHOULDN'T be a Cap movie, or a Cap-centric story. If they'd have gone with a different plot for Cap 3, then there wouldn't be an issue here for me.

CW is allegedly (not that the original comic did a good job of executing this idea mind you) supposed to be about two sides who have a fundamental disagreement about a complicate political topic where there really isn't one "right" answer. The logical thing to do, and the only way to even have a chance of doing it well imo, is to make it an Avengers film, or a "Marvel Presents" kind of film where BOTH sides get pretty much equal time to develop their viewpoints/beliefs.

But here, they keep emphasizing that "it's a Cap film" or "it's very much Cap's story," and my response is that's NOT a good thing. Because if you're going to do a complicated issue like this, then devoted the majority of the story/screentime to ONE side and THEIR viewpoint undercuts the whole premise imo. Also, it's kind of a cheat because, unless you do it REALLY well, then the audience is already predisposed to come down on that side because, well we see much more of them/spend much more time with them.

Oh and btw, I'd be saying the exact same thing if this were called Iron Man: Civil War instead.

I agree 100%.


And if they just HAD to make Captain America 3: Civil War then they should make Iron-Man 4: Civil War

It would have to be either a two part series from both of those movie's perspectives or one gigantic Avengers style build up movie.


But unfortunately we'll get neither, it's all gonna be in the background and sorta of a Captain America movie, one of the biggest events in comic history... *sighs*

[simbob4000]

That Civil War isn't a two parter is a good thing.

[Greywolf]

"Black" Fury actually happened in the comics first, unless I'm mistaken.

Sure it did, on the ultimate comics line. But the same purists complaining about lack of faithfulness over the original source material surely should be over their heads over nick fury not being the traditional ww2 era white one. That sillyness was the point I was trying to illustrate.

[Punisher007]

That Civil War isn't a two parter is a good thing.

A truly good thing would be not doing it AT ALL!!

[simbob4000]

A truly good thing would be not doing it AT ALL!!

It doesn't look like they are.