EDITORIAL: What Is To Come From CIVIL WAR?

The idea is simple and smart: take the two most profitable solo superheroes and put them in one film. Iron Man and Captain America. Boom, you've got a shit-ton of money on your hands. Marvel have proven their ability in giving the fans what they want while also producing a good movie for everyone--what we call the general audience.
 
However, I think we can all agree that it gets a bit trickier when you adapt a story as huge as Civil War. I mean, shit, in terms of affecting the characters, it's even bigger than The Infinity Gauntlet--and that story wiped out half the universe! Civil War left scars for every single character in the Marvel Universe, and if they're going to adapt it into film there are several things from the book that need to make that jump (and a few things that aren't needed, as well!).
   
As I said before, Civil War had bigger ramifications than even The Infinity Gauntlet. Let me explain what I mean by that. While TIG is most definitely a massive, massive story, it didn't truly propel the heroes forward much on their own (besides Silver Surfer and Adam Warlock, perhaps). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it was pretty much the heroes uniting to take down Thanos, and then it was back to business. Not only was Civil War much more personal, it had a greater and a surprisingly more lasting effect on our superheroes.
 
My point here is that Civil War should be so much more than a Captain America movie, a Cap vs Iron Man movie or even an Avengers movie. This is a HUGE event, and while it is currently still being paraded as Captain America 3, I hope this ceases very soon. Obviously Steve Rogers should be at the center, along with Stark, but there's no need to dumb this movie down to only that.  By this point, they'll have a large amount of cinematic heroes to choose from, and I'm sure they could use characters from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. or the Netflix series' if and when needed.
 
Of all the characters, Cap should have the biggest arc, I'm not debating that--in my opinion, he should be the biggest hero of the movie, just like the books. I'm sure Bucky will have a huge role as well. But the movie should just as importantly touch on other characters' big moments that the civil war brings out. While Cap is  the driving force, it should most definitely be a story of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a whole.
 
Call it Marvel's Civil War.
   
Now, I just explained why this shouldn't be a Captain America 3, so before I get to my reasoning here I want to make clear that this should NOT be an Iron Man 4, either. But with Tony Stark as an "antagonist" of sorts in this movie I think it's important that the two of them get equal spotlight. While one might say that Robert Downey Jr.'s character could easily overshadow Chris Evans', I'd say it's just as likely that Cap and his arc (friendship with Falcon, reuniting with Bucky, relationship with Sharon, etc.) could overshadow Iron Man. Since he is technically an "antagonist," to some this might not sound like a bad thing, but I think it is. Here's why.
 
For one, Iron Man is a superhero, and a lot of kid's favorite superhero that they look up to. For this reason Iron Man's actions should not only be understandable, but justifiable (to a degree). Not only this, but Stark will be coming off the wave of guilt that is Age of Ultron--he will have just created a robotic monster that was hell-bent on human extinction. Now he's supporting a government Act that leads to an all-out superhuman war. That's two good intentions gone awry. There's so much potential from what I've just told you to develop Stark as a character. Fighting his best friends, trying to figure out what "good" is, etc. Plus, when the stakes aren't as high as your typical catastrophic Avengers mess, I think bringing the characters back to their own world (Stark Industries, Pepper Potts,  his best friend James Rhodes) is at least somewhat of a necessity.
   
Well folks, we've reached the "Crucify GliderMan!" stage of our editorial.
 
Like I said, Civil War really is a story of the larger Marvel universe. While the MCU is enormous and can definitely tell good, fun stories without Spider-Man, X-Men and the Fantastic Four, I think we can all agree that it'll never be 100% Marvel without them. It's not like these movies need them; but it's preferable.
 
Spider-Man wasn't somebody that was integral to Civil War's story but he did play a big role. It's really interesting how conflicted he was during the entire happening, and I think this could translate beautifully on screen under the Russo Bros' hands. Initially, he sided with Iron Man, and shocked everyone by revealing to the public that he was in fact Peter Parker. Later on, however, he switched sides and joined Cap's anti-registration group underground.
 
If you agree with DrDoom on Andrew Garfield, I'm about to lose you.
 
I'm not about to sit here and try to persuade y'all that a Civil War movie needs Spider-Man; it does not. There's plenty of shit to make happen with the MCU characters that have already been established. I'm only saying that Spider-Man could bring another good angle to the movie (seriously, who wouldn't wanna see a live-action Iron Spider costume?), and I unshakably want him in the Marvel universe. Adding credence to this speculation are the several recent rumors of Marvel making a deal with Sony. Among these was a rumor stating that Spidey would be recasted from Sinister Six going forward.
 
But should he be? I mean, outside a significant portion of us comic geeks, Andrew Garfield's performance has been for the most part praised. Fans in the general audience love him as Spider-Man--he has become the Spider-Man of this generation. Most of the problems that people do have from him come from writers of The Amazing Spider-Man series--and they would have no say in this!

   
Earlier this morning I made a comment on another article stating that I don't want to see Civil War without the X-Men. While I had just woken up and actually meant to type "Fantastic Four," fellow user CorndogBurglar actually made a good point about the mutants:

But the X-Men had nothing to do with Civil War in the comics. Iron Man and the government made a deal with them that mutants wouldn't have to register if the X-Men just stayed out of it, because if they joined Cap's side it would have tilted the power in his favor.

This much is true, and because of this I don't see what the X-Men could bring to the table for a Civil War movie. The film is already going to be stuffed for the concept of mutants to enter in. For this reason I don't have much of a desire for Fox's X-Men to make any kind of appearance. The Fantastic Four, on the other hand, do play a rather large role, and seeing the rifts the Superhuman Registration Act causes between Reed and Sue could make for some really good storytelling. But because of the fact that we have no idea what the Fantastic Four will be like in next year's reboot, I say they don't belong. There's going to be a lot of characters in this film already.
   
In a tie-in story Howard attempts to sign up for the Superhuman Registration Act only to learn the government no longer acknowledges his existence. One-shot material, anyone?
   
Honestly I think a Civil War movie has the potential to be one of the most unique superhero stories ever told. The way I picture it is a tale of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, driven by the disagreements of two friends. I personally don't like the idea of Captain America being killed in this one or Spider-Man taking off his mask, but at the same time they are two iconic scenes that drove the comics forward and could potentially drive the movies forward. I'll leave that in the hands of the more than capable Russo Bros.
 
Hulk? Off-planet, just like the comic books. Yes, a Planet Hulk adaption has been denied, but how likely did we all think Civil War would be? I'd imagine Thor would be off-planet in Asgard as well but I'm sure an appearance could be handled the right way, albeit a minor one.