Marvel Universe (Thar be spoilers ahead.)

[UnSub]

It may have been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but Rouke did a lot more scenes for "IM2" that got cut to make way for all the Avengers tie-ins. He had more of a character than crazy Russian man (who's dad may have been screwed over by Stark's dad).

"IM2" didn't suck, but a lot of it is filler.

[Ironwood]

That's not why Iron Man 2 Sucked Tann.  It sucked because it had more potential than it used.

Also, I thought Hammer was kinda awful...

[Velorath]

Stop bitching about CW from the comics. 

No deal.

[HaemishM]

I liked Iron Man 2 and I thought Justin Hammer was hilarious. I'm sure the MCU can do a good Civil War story - mainly because it won't be even remotely connected to the abortion that was the comics in anything other than name and "heroes vs. heroes."

[Ironwood]

He wasn't MEANT to be hilarious tho.  I kept asking myself how the fuck Zaphod got elected CEO.

[Nevermore]

Hammer kind of reminded me of Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg, only Rockwell wasn't nearly as entertaining as Oldman.

[Velorath]

He wasn't MEANT to be hilarious tho. 

I disagree. I think he was meant to be played for laughs as a guy who was desperately trying to be Tony Stark but didn't have the wit, charisma, or talent.

[Ironwood]

And yet built Hammer Industries.

It didn't work for me.  Enough said, really.

[Velorath]

And yet built Hammer Industries.

Which was a constant runner-up to Stark Industries until Stark got out of weapons manufacturing. I don't think Hammer was meant to be completely incompetent or anything, but his ambition ultimately outstripped his talent.

[DraconianOne]

it won't be even remotely connected to the abortion that was the comics in anything other than name and "heroes vs. heroes."

This.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was nothing to do with a registration act or even much about hero vs hero. CA3 has to resolve some outstanding issues - mostly Bucky Barnes/Winter Soldier and possibly SHIELD/HYDRA. Couple that with the fact that neither Downey Jr nor Chris Evans will play a "bad guy" because cinema audiences wouldn't tolerate that. I reckon likelihood is that CA3 will be about the future of Winter Soldier and who gets to decide it: Rogers - Barnes was his best friend - or Stark - Barnes killed his parents. Also some other stuff that might constitute Avengers 2 spoilers so won't say here.

Of course, I am extremely drunk and can barely focus so I reserve the right to deny having said any of this in 17 months time.

[jgsugden]

They've already said what it will be. 

[NowhereMan]

I could see Downey's Stark as a bad guy, or at least a control freak type who's making the hard decisions and ultimately is in the wrong without realising it. Honestly it will be hard to do things worse than the comic book version of Civil War. The core of the story is great, it was just the implementation in the comics that sucked horrendously.

[Threash]

The thing is there wasn't supposed to be a "bad" side but two sides who both had good points.  The fact that Stark went ridiculously comicbooky evil is a failure of writing.  I doubt the movie is going to follow the shitty comic and make Stark's side the obviously wrong/bad side and whole "pick a side" thing will actually be meaningful.

[HaemishM]

They had to use existing superheroes who we see as "good" to make both sides, but there was so clearly writer bias against the registration side (likely based on the Gitmo allegory) that they couldn't pull it off. It didn't help that the amount of thought put into the pro-reg actions was comically shallow. I mean, I realize they were trying to make Reed Richards somewhat aloof but cloning a fucking Asgardian GOD? That's one of those "hold my beer" kind of moments where you have to ask both the character and the writer "WHAT DID YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN?" I mean, it takes Hank Pym's creation of Ultron (an understandable goal that went horribly wrong) and turns the stupid to 11. A prison in the Negative Zone where you imprison former super heroes overseen by a dead Captain Marvel that you plucked from the time stream? No smart person with good intentions should ever fucking think of those words in the same sentence, much less be actual implemented ideas by characters we've seen make great personal sacrifices over the years to do things NOT like that? If it had been Henry Gyrich suggesting these things, both Tony Stark and Reed Richards would have fought it tooth and nail.

And there I go again. The fucking stupidity in that one series just induces a blinding rage in me. It's horribad, lazy writing and I can't believe anyone thought it was any different.

[Khaldun]

It's worse than you think. Millar was trying to be pro-registration, in line with some of his post-9/11 views. Reportedly he was a bit unhappy with some of the tie-ins and then the follow-on stories that unambiguously came down against the pro-registration camp. It's not even clear that Millar thought Stark, Richard and Pym were acting like bad guys, just that they were being resolute, etc.  Millar has a fairly long history of writing douchebags that he himself apparently doesn't think of as being douchebags.

[HaemishM]

So you're saying he went Frank Miller batshit? 

[Tannhauser]

You never go full Frank Miller.

[Raguel]

I've never liked Millar to begin with.

[Khaldun]

I don't think he's as fuck-all crazy as Miller. Most of the biggest asshole shit he's said or written has a certain kind of postmodern-ironic deniability to it. Frank on the other hand appears to have gone fully into batshit land.

[jgsugden]

There is an Ant-man Trailer out there.  Sort of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQjhJf1R4k4

[HaemishM]

ROOFLES.

[Sir T]

That's about as clear on the plot as the usual hollywood trailer.

[eldaec]

They had to use existing superheroes who we see as "good" to make both sides, but there was so clearly writer bias against the registration side (likely based on the Gitmo allegory) that they couldn't pull it off.

One of the problems I see with MCU civil war is that they are doing it in a Captain America film, and MCU Cap is such a boy scout they can't possibly make him wrong about anything, or even raise the possibility he might be wrong about something in his own film. So a film with Captain America's name on it centred in a security vs freedom philosophical question is stillborn if Cap has already made his mind up. Plus nuanced plot is hardly the MCU's strength.

I can't decide how aware Disney are of their own limitations on this. If they just make about Stark and Cap bring grumpy with each other but having to come together to fight a big bad monster I'm sure it'll be fine.

[Sir T]

I'll just remind people how bad the second half of Xmen III was, and that had a Civil war type plot...

[eldaec]

Well yes, but every Xmen story is basically civil war, and many of them are just fine.

[Hutch]

The story of Winter Soldier was security vs freedom. Rogers knew that Project Insight stank as soon as Fury showed it to him, and neither of them even knew about Hydra or Barnes yet.
That's the moment in the film when we see Rogers start to question whether he wants to keep working for Shield. He doesn't know what else he'd do, of course.
And we don't have to wait around for the answer, because the next thing that happens is Barnes shoots Fury, Rogers/Romanov team up to discover Hydra's involvement, and then bang bang comic book ending.

So I see Cap 3 as the answer to the question, what does Steve Rogers do once he's cut loose from Shield? The answer will, of course, be bang bang comic book Stark vs Rogers.

[Evildrider]

Soo Cap 3 ends with Steve Rogers giving up the Captain America mantle.  The government makes Bucky or they introduce John Walker to become his replacement, and Steve Rogers becomes Nomad.   

[UnSub]

And yet built Hammer Industries.

It didn't work for me.  Enough said, really.

Yes, but he built Hammer Industries in the Marvel Film Universe where Tony Stark is always right.

So Hammer Industries could customise the War Machine suit perfectly because it was Stark's, but its own high explosive rocket didn't work at all.

Well yes, but every Xmen story is basically civil war, and many of them are just fine.

If they're Civil War, then the pro-registration side are always cartoonish villains. How Civil War deals with Tony "Never Wrong" Stark being pro-registration is an entirely different issue.

(Side note: In "X-Men", Senator Kelly asks the question, "Are mutants dangerous?" and the rest of the film goes on to answer that question with, "Yes, yes, fuck yes". I've always found that funny.)

[Ironwood]

It didn't work for me.  Enough said, really.

[jgsugden]

For those that are interested, there is a Jeph Loeb interview that is fairly spoiler free, but gets into some details on how they're handling casting / recasting issues.  His answers are intended to be ambiguous about how they'll approach an inevitable end to RDJ as Stark and stuff, but I think he is pretty bad at hiding the 8 ball.  I found the last 40 or so minutes of his interview to be interesting.

http://wordballoon.blogspot.com/2015/01/word-balloon-podcast-jeph-loeb-talks.html

[Threash]

Could you uh... give us a one paragraph summary of the two and a half hour video you just linked?

[jgsugden]

Could you uh... give us a one paragraph summary of the two and a half hour video you just linked?

I basically did hit the relevant stuff:  First 20 minutes is a waste, then 40 minutes of interesting casting talk that doesn't go into specifics, but how he answers the questions is interesting.  He discusses casting for MAoS, Carter, Daredevil, Jessica, the movies.... The rest of the podcast is other people that I did not listen to...

[sickrubik]

That's more of an outline than a summary.

[Evildrider]

http://marvel.com/news/movies/24062/sony_pictures_entertainment_brings_marvel_studios_into_the_amazing_world_of_spider-man


I'll just leave this here.   

[sickrubik]

Yeah, looks like that summit un-fucked things... though the mentions of re-casting, yet again, is perhaps troubling.