Raise your hand if you saw that coming. I know I sure didn't.
A massive bombshell was dropped late at night last Monday when we all discovered that Marvel had been negotiating with Robert Downey Jr to tweak his contract and allow for another film in his deal.
Of course...
that particular bit of information was nothing new, right? We all saw RDJ hemming and hawing for the last several weeks about what was going on, and we all just went along with it and assumed it really
did have something to do with a potential
Iron Man 4 film (
well, at least now we know the reason RDJ had been jerking us all around: keep us focused on whether or not Iron Man 4
was happening, and we would never see the news about Captain America 3
coming. That sly, brilliant SOB!) .
No, the surprise came when we finally realized that the negotiations had nothing to do with a sequel to Shane Black's divisive (
in the fanboy community, at least) threequel...Marvel was negotiating to allow room for Iron Man to star in
Captain America 3 and jump-start their adaptation of the infamous "
Civil War" plotline of the comics, which would see Steve Rogers and Tony Stark at each other's throats over their differing views of the Superhuman Registration Act.
It's safe to say that most fanboys (
and casual fans alike) have been whipped up into a frenzy over this as-of-yet unconfirmed news, with reactions being split right down the middle.
Understandably, there's a rather large segment of comic readers who never really enjoyed the
Civil War storyline to begin with, citing terrible writing, beloved fan-favorites acting way out of character, and boneheaded creative decisions that would require huge ret-cons later on, as massive flaws in the tale.
Perhaps the most popular complaint is that Marvel simply doesn't have the rights to enough of the characters who play crucial parts in the comic crossover, such as the Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, and many others.
Obviously, the most apparent solution to both of these issues is the fact that Marvel will undoubtedly change things up and radically stray from the source material. I mean, how else would they do it? There aren't even any secret identities in the MCU for the heroes to get all protective about in the first place! And thanks to Natasha releasing all of SHIELD's files online for the world to see in
The Winter Soldier, any possibility of hidden identities goes straight out the window anyway.
So, the one remaining gripe that is most likely to pick up some steam (
if it hasn't already, that is) has to do with the perception that this is simply a reactionary move because of WB/DC's highly-anticipated blockbuster -
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.
Unless you've been living under a rock the past several months, everyone is aware of the much-publicized battled
outside of the theaters as WB/DC and Marvel both claimed the same weekend slot to release their respective blockbusters:
Batman v Superman and the still-untitled
Captain America 3. Given that WB/DC backed off and moved their release date from May 6, 2016 to a few weeks earlier, it stands to reason that Marvel wanted yet another weapon to take away some of the spotlight from their studio rivals and use it to convincingly win the PR battle
and the battle of the box office. Well, what better way than to answer fire with fire...in the form of another superhero vs superhero film?
But having said that...is it possible that Marvel has had this move planned for a while now? Could it be that WB/DC caught wind of this development earlier than
Variety or anyone else did, and so that was the reason why they blinked first and moved off that very contentious release date? Might there be hidden clues in the previous MCU movies that hint that this was the direction they were going in all along? Let's take a look:
1) The Avengers
The animosity between Steve Rogers and Tony Stark.
We all know the story of
The Avengers: a group of individual heroes, each with wildly different and potentially volatile personalities, have to band together to defeat one of the biggest threats that the planet has ever faced. Of course, before they could learn to work together and before we could witness the immensely satisfying payoff with that glorious revolving shot as the Avengers assembled in New York City...there were some bumps and bruises along the way.
Chief among these was the ongoing feud between Steve Rogers and Tony Stark.
Obviously, that subplot made its way into
The Avengers because it was a perfectly natural way for the two characters to interact. An old-school, professionally-trained soldier from WWII mixing it up with the wise-cracking, egotistical, narcissistic civilian Tony Stark? Yeah, take a wild guess how something like
that would turn out.
But could that have
also functioned as a set-up or foreshadowing of some more friction and animosity to come?
Nothing about this would seem forced, out of place, shoehorned-in, or out of character at all. It'd simply be a case of Marvel delving into the relationship between the two headstrong heroes after properly setting it up in previous movies.
Case in point:
The Avengers did the dirty work of establishing that the two heroes had to really work hard to get along with each other (
though it's important to note that by the third act of the film, Tony was willingly taking orders from Steve, who finally took charge of the team), and so it really isn't out of the realm of possibility that there's still some bad blood simmering underneath the surface, just waiting for the right opportunity to present itself and burst out.
What could that opportunity be? Well, why not the Superhuman Registration Act?
2) Iron Man 3
Tony Stark gaining the President's trust.
Wow, I can almost
hear the collective groan from the majority of all you folks who despised
Iron Man 3, and maybe I'm crazy...but I'm fully convinced that there was a higher purpose to this movie other than just screwing around with fanboy expectations. Hear me out!
Lost in the shuffle of Tony running his mouth and getting his Malibu mansion destroyed, the 'blasphemous' decision to reveal the Mandarin as an alcoholic imposter, and the legitimately questionable choice to fix Pepper's Extremis problem and Stark's ongoing shrapnel injury in a tacked-on montage sequence at the very end, one thing that may have been overlooked in
Iron Man 3 is the pretty huge fact that Tony and Rhodey teamed up to save the President's life.
Even beyond that: they also managed to uncover a conspiracy at the highest level, where the Vice President was actually in league with Aldrich Killian and planned to have President Warren Ellis killed, install himself as a kind of puppet leader (
with Killian's AIM organization pulling the strings in the background), and all this in exchange for the Extremis that would cure his daughter's disability.
Obviously, Tony and Rhodey made sure that such a disastrous set of circumstances never happened...but has the fanbase somewhat glossed over the massive ramifications of this?
Though the movie itself doesn't delve into the after-effects, it's only logical to assume that Tony Stark and James Rhodes now have President Ellis' and the U.S. government's implicit trust moving forward, and vice versa. Why is that a big deal? Well, maybe it really wasn't...up until the news broke of the MCU adapting
Civil War.
Now, the stage is set for the various alliances that may form up during
Captain America 3.
If (
and it's a big "if") the MCU follows the source material to this extent and has the Superhuman Registration Act become the catalyst for the entire conflict that follows, it would make perfect sense for Tony to ally himself with the government.
But there's just one problem - how would that answer the pressing question of: "
Why the heck would Tony even listen to a thing the government has to say after all of his previous experiences, especially given that scene in Iron Man 2, where he basically tells the government to go [frick] themselves because there is no way they are getting control of his Iron Man suits?"
Yeah...I guess you could say that's kind of a big discrepancy.
But look, I certainly get it: it's no secret that Tony has some issues with authority.
Clearly, after finding out about Nick Fury and SHIELD intentionally hiding crucial details from our favorite superheroes in
The Avengers, and after suffering through Senator Stern (
hail HYDRA!) and Justin Hammer's unrelenting witch-hunt to deliver control of Stark's valuable inventions to the U.S. government, he would have every right to be suspicious of a government mandate requiring extraordinary people with extraordinary abilities to turn themselves in, submit themselves to a registration act, and act as a sort of federal police force...
especially after the downfall of SHIELD and the ensuing lack of a governing entity for the Avengers to answer to.
But isn't it possible that, through his newfound trust and acceptance by President Ellis, he could be persuaded that this is the right thing to do and the right way to go? And don't forget - this would be taking place after the events of
Avengers: Age of Ultron, where Tony will be almost single-handedly responsible for the death and destruction that Ultron will inevitably unleash.
If the fallout from
Age of Ultron is as global and catastrophic as we are being led to believe, then it would make perfect sense for Stark to feel ridiculously guilt-ridden over whatever happens (
could he possibly hold himself even more responsible for helping out with those 3 weaponized helicarriers that ended up being essential to Project Insight in The Winter Soldier
, too?).
This could then result in a stunning - but not unexpected - change of heart, where Tony finds himself 100% on board with the idea of the government centralizing and regulating the superheroes...because God knows the tremendous cost of having superhumans running around on their own, recklessly dealing with and sometimes even
causing and
contributing to their own threats.
This is a biggie: think of that scene near the end of
The Winter Soldier, where Natasha is called in to face the Congressional committee on Capital Hill. When questioned as to whether her own tumultuous service record, filled with plenty of red on her ledger, should dictate her arrest and imprisonment (
along with the other superheroes), she brashly and stubbornly states that the world needs heroes. Sure, these same heroes sometimes make the world more vulnerable...but she confidently says that "we're also the ones best qualified to defend it."
It's no coincidence that this scene was added to the film late in the game, during reshoots. It seems pretty clear that this scene functioned as some massive foreshadowing for the potential problems that superhumans could cause and be involved in, as they have now gone on record and outright refused to answer to anyone.
So could a combination of crushing guilt and a sense of mutual trust with the federal government sway Tony into strongly believing that superheroes need to be reeled in and controlled to an extent? Could this be the perfect one-two punch of motivation that Tony needs to place his beliefs on the exact opposite side of Steve Rogers in
Captain America 3?
3) Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Steve Rogers' distrust of SHIELD and the government.
Ironically, while Tony had been off rescuing and gaining the trust of the U.S. President and government during
Iron Man 3,
The Winter Soldier saw Steve Rogers in almost the exact opposite situation: caught in the web of a vast conspiracy and on the run from a HYDRA-corrupted SHIELD.
Much like Tony, Rogers already had his fair share of misgivings directed at Nick Fury and SHIELD as a result of the events in
The Avengers. The difference, of course, was that Fury's complete lack of trustworthiness had a much more personal effect on Cap - SHIELD had been secretly planning on using old WWII-era HYDRA weapons in order to stockpile and create even more weapons of mass destruction to deal with super-powered threats.
Nick Fury's continued lies and withholding of information (
compartmentalizing Cap's missions and sending agents on his team on their own secret missions during an op, for example) combined with the fuzzy morality of Project Insight only served to heighten Steve's apprehension with what SHIELD was doing: seeking out and eliminating perceived threats
before they even become an issue, while simultaneously jeopardizing the security and freedoms of countless citizens.
Add to that the attempted assassination of Nick Fury, Alexander Pierce's faux-suspicion of Captain America himself, the mysterious nature of the Winter Soldier, and the ultimate realization that HYDRA had never truly been defeated and instead had been corrupting SHIELD from the inside...and it's incredibly easy to see why Steve Rogers would become morally opposed to legislation such as the Superhuman Registration Act - the ultimate example of a complete loss of liberty, basic rights, and freedom.
While Stark begins to see that government control of superheroes just might be the way to go, the dramatic irony results from how the audience realizes that that is the exact antithesis of what Rogers' recent experiences have taught him. In
The Winter Soldier, an established, centralized, powerful government organization was the
very reason why HYDRA managed to survive and thrive in secret, right under everyone's nose.
Of course the two fan-favorite heroes would find themselves disagreeing over this idea on a basic fundamental level.
Just like in
The Avengers, events in a previous MCU movie once again end up serving two simultaneous purposes: fueling the actual plot, events, and themes of that particular movie...while
also setting up natural character arcs and believable motivation for future events. Now that we seem to know the structure of Marvel's future plans, it'd appear that such a game-changing future event would be something along the lines of a superhero Civil War.
Speculation
But is all this really reason enough for two friends and colleagues, who have been through so much together (
and who even went out for shawarma together after their last big adventure), to take a complete 180 degree turn and actually be brought into intense conflict with each other, one that would dwarf any and all of their past disagreements? Is there any
extra motivation that could possibly explain this sudden change of course?
While the events of
Avengers: Age of Ultron will undoubtedly play a major role in shedding some light on this, I have seen one extremely tantalizing piece of information floating around (
one that I've already seen plenty of perceptive CBM users comment about as well) that could potentially drive Stark and Rogers to want to kill the other...even
without the excuse of a Superhuman Registration Act, and all the conflicted alliances that such a McGuffin would create.
This theory would also explain the apparent inconsistency between the very last scene of
Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and the reports of Marvel adapting
Civil War for
Captain America 3. Let me explain:
After Cap, Falcon, Black Widow, and the other loyal members of SHIELD manage to dismantle the HYDRA infestation, the status quo appears to be disrupted forever. SHIELD ceases to exist, Nick Fury is no longer director, and Bucky once again disappears underground. The last scene ends with Steve Rogers and Sam Wilson deciding to embark on their mission to find Bucky, who is implied to have begun to remember who he once was.
That's all well and good...but we already knew that Cap's mission would inevitably be derailed and sidetracked as a result of
Age of Ultron. With the news of
Captain America 3 being focused on the
Civil War storyline, it's fair to ask exactly when Bucky would factor into the equation again. Plenty of users (
myself included) even started to dislike the notion of adapting
Civil War because of a perceived lack of focus on Bucky, in favor of even
more attention on Iron Man and his shenanigans.
Well, that's where this theory comes in and makes all of that obsolete: what if Bucky
IS in
Captain America 3, and actually plays an integral role in it too?
Let's back up for a second.
Remember that pivotal scene in
The Winter Soldier, where the AI version of Dr. Zola implements his stall tactic and informs Cap and Natasha of what they have all been oblivious to since the end of WWII? Among the staggering deluge of exposition, detailing everything that HYDRA has been doing and is still doing, one easy-to-miss detail is the implication that the death of Tony Stark's parents was
NOT an accident.
While it's clear that HYDRA had
something to do with their untimely demise...is it that much of a stretch to figure that the infamous Winter Soldier himself had been dispatched to assassinate them? And if that's the case, then what would potentially happen if the past criminal deeds of a mind-controlled Bucky were released to the public, and Tony Stark learned of this?
Maybe during the first act of
Captain America 3, Cap is continuing his search for Bucky...but Stark ends up finding him first? Or perhaps Tony simply interrupts their joyful reunion and irreversibly complicates the situation beyond repair? What if Steve is desperately trying to save the life of his best friend, but Tony can't get past the fact that this former HYDRA assassin also committed countless crimes against humanity, not the least of which was the murder of his own parents? What if he's driven to apprehend Bucky, or maybe even attempt to kill him right then and there?
Who would the audience sympathize with? Which "side" would be right and wrong here? Who would be looked at as the "villain" and the "hero"? Hopefully, if done right,
both characters would appear to be justified in their actions...while also displaying some pretty huge character flaws as well. Now imagine the
further complication of a Superhuman Registration Act on top of all these intimate, personal issues.
Taken together, this would be the perfect catalyst for some excellent and emotional, yet heartbreakingly tragic, drama.
Conclusion
Despite everything I've written to this point, there's something I do have to admit:
It's almost impossible to definitively say
anything, one way or another, regarding something like Marvel's long-term plans for their universe. Simply put, none of us are in the industry; we don't have sources or scoops - we just go by what we see and what we've been told by those who
are in the know.
But if any of the professional bloggers and writers of reputable and trustworthy websites scattered across the internet are worth their weight in gold, then it would seem safe to deduce that Marvel
DOES have a long-term plan...one that has actually been written down as a document and shown to select few people in the industry (
with their planned movies apparently projecting far into the 2020's). The caveat, though, is that it may only be a broad, generalized outline of the major beats that would be included in the MCU - the nitty gritty details are always free to be as flexible and fluid as they see fit.
(
While there are many sources for this bit of info, which you can find if you look hard enough, here's just one readily-available link for you.)
So again, that's the million-dollar question here: Has Marvel always planned on doing a
Civil War adaptation? And if so, have they been steadily building up to it by including subtle hints and clues in the previous MCU films?
Well, rumor has it that the final decision to go ahead with
Civil War was made only at the
very end of production for
The Winter Soldier. So if that's true...well, there goes my entire editorial, right??
Not so fast.
I believe that Marvel intentionally included the specific instances and events I have explored here...with one eye set on
potentially using it as a springboard to further develop something as game-changing as the
Civil War. Perhaps they didn't know exactly which movie they would include the storyline in, or to what capacity, or who exactly would be involved, or any number of finer details like that...but I certainly think the afore-mentioned points are evidence that Marvel has had plans to do this for a long time now - at least since
The Avengers entered into production. All of it just fits too well to be a complete accident, or a case of Marvel just making things up as they go along.
But here's the most important question: Do
YOU believe that?
Are you at all convinced that the groundwork has been laid throughout the previous movies, and that it has all been building up to Avengers: Age of Ultron and the subsequent Civil War in Captain America 3? Or has all this just been a waste of my time and yours? Thanks for reading, and sound off in the comments below!