Infinity War Captain America|Steve Rogers - Chris Evans

[Spider-Fan]

There are always going to be several ways for people to judge who's movie it is, but I don't think a lot of people would judge who's movie it is that way. Myself, I judge it by who and how many have the emotional beats, and who and how many get the notable character arcs.

And I'm not sure how the movie would exist without the Avengers. I'd love to hear how you'd see it working out.

You may judge it differently, from a screenwriter's perspective, importance to the plot/narrative is how I view it. You have to examine the nuts and bolts of the film's structure.

And also continues storylines started in Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Yes, but it is way more a sequel to TWS. Easily a 65-35 split.

IM2 wasn't an event movie. And neither Fury nor Widow had a huge character arc in it the way they do in TWS.

Supporting characters are allowed to have arcs, that doesn't make it an ensemble.

 

[Spider-Fan]

To add to my above post, Iron Man is an antagonist in CW. He is a sympathetic one and one you may agree with, yes. But effectively he is an antagonist. More specifically, he is the one known as the Authority Figure. Much like the principle in Ferris Bueller's Day off, Iron Man is the face of the establishment who is attempting to limit the protaganist's freedom or ability to do something. In Cap's case, his freedom to be a hero on his own terms and use his own judgement. His role in CW is entirely reactionary to Cap's actions in the film.

 

[SteveRogers41]

What's hilarious to me is there was a time when the Avengers properties as a whole, including Iron Man, were considered past their expiration point. Before the first Iron Man movie came out Iron Man was not a popular character AT ALL in the comics. In fact, because of that, in the early 2000's, where Mark Millar claims that Marvel gave him pretty much given carte blanche to do anything he wanted with the Avengers (and we all suffered for it... sorry Millar fans, am not a fan of his) because at the time the X-Men were the more popular franchise and Marvel didn't really care what happened to the other heroes.

And after Millar's Civil War came out, the comics community pretty much hated Iron Man because of the fascist stance he took in the comics.

I am not saying this to pick on Iron Man, I've read the Avengers since the 80's, obviously I'm a fan. Plus I have the new Slott Iron Man series on my pull list. My point is that the movies made all the characters popular and mainstream again, including Iron Man.

So this claim that Cap needs other characters to sell is really bs. It's a shared universe, obviously we're going to see characters pop in and out of each other's story. Moreover, Cap's history has always been closely tied to SHIELD, even in the the comics. He's worked for them on and off since Kirby brought him back in the 1960's. In the comics Fury is an old war buddy of Cap's (and the leader of the Howling Commandos while Steve led the Invaders)! It was a natural fit, from a storytelling perspective, to put Widow in Winter Soldier since they both work for the same organization. Hawkeye was originally set to cameo too but they couldn't fit it in.

If anyone is ever in doubt over Steve's popularity and ability to sell based on his name alone, walk into Target and count the sheer number of Cap merch available. Seriously, walking around I see more Cap t-shirts than any other superhero.

The Russos originally intended to do Kirby's Madbomb story for Cap 3, they said this themselves to Entertainment Weekly. Markus and McFeely mentioned in their 2016 SDCC panel that they had started a different script for Cap 3 before switching to Civil War, they've also indicated that the beginning scene in Lagos, where Cap and team are preventing Crossbones from stealing a 'deadly virus' was brought over from that original script. Feige decided on Civil War because DC announced they were doing B vs. S, it had NOTHING to do with Cap not being able to sell a franchise on his own.

Plus it became a really convenient way to have the Avengers split up to segue into Infinity War.

I'd also like to point out that even during the Avengers lull in popularity, during the early 2000s, Steve has ALWAYS been popular with the troops. Marvel used to send Captain America comics overseas as a morale booster. They might actually still be doing that, don't know, I'll have to ask my Navy buddy. God, I hope they didn't send Secret Empire.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

You may judge it differently, from a screenwriter's perspective, importance to the plot/narrative is how I view it. You have to examine the nuts and bolts of the film's structure.

1.

The average viewer doesn't care about the screenwriter's perspective, they're most likely to go the movie for the Avengers and most likely to walk out thiking more about the team, or Black Panther, than Steve in particular.

And the business side knows it. The suits at Marvel don't attribute the billion dollars it made to Chris Evans.

2.

If that is true, then TWS is definitely not Cap's movie. Remove Cap and the solidly Cap characters, and the movie works the same. Fury would drive events the same way without him.

3.

I'd still love to hear how CW would exist without the Avengers.

Yes, but it is way more a sequel to TWS. Easily a 65-35 split.

TWS teased Crossbones and Sharon as major future characters. That didn't really materialize.

Compare the toll of Tony's culpability in Ultron on his psyche, the political fallout from Sokovia's destruction, Vision's and Wanda's arcs.

Supporting characters are allowed to have arcs, that doesn't make it an ensemble.

To a point. But TWS goes well beyond that point.

For instance, the movie's big bad is far and away more an antagonist to Fury than to Steve.

 

[Kev4000]

For instance, the movie's big bad is far and away more an antagonist to Fury than to Steve.

Because Steve has enough to do with handling Bucky?

 

[Spider-Fan]

1.

The average viewer doesn't care about the screenwriter's perspective, they're most likely to go the movie for the Avengers and most likely to walk out thiking more about the team, or Black Panther, than Steve in particular.

And the business side knows it. The suits at Marvel don't attribute the billion dollars it made to Chris Evans.

2.

If that is true, then TWS is definitely not Cap's movie. Remove Cap and the solidly Cap characters, and the movie works the same. Fury would drive events the same way without him.

3.

I'd still love to hear how CW would exist without the Avengers.



TWS teased Crossbones and Sharon as major future characters. That didn't really materialize.

Compare the toll of Tony's culpability in Ultron on his psyche, the political fallout from Sokovia's destruction, Vision's and Wanda's arcs.



To a point. But TWS goes well beyond that point.

For instance, the movie's big bad is far and away more an antagonist to Fury than to Steve.

Out of town for the weekend, but rest assured I will address all these points when I return home Monday night

 

[Spider-Fan]

1.

The average viewer doesn't care about the screenwriter's perspective, they're most likely to go the movie for the Avengers and most likely to walk out thiking more about the team, or Black Panther, than Steve in particular.

And the business side knows it. The suits at Marvel don't attribute the billion dollars it made to Chris Evans.

That has no bearing on narrative structure. Narrative structure is the nuts and bolts that make up the movie, and that is not really up for debate. The movie was marketed in the best way to get people in the seats. That is what a marketing campaign is for. But, who your protagonist is, who your villain/antagonist is, arcs, etc. All that is decided when the script of the movie is written as the characters are designed for a specific purpose narratively. That purpose doesn't change based on how Marvel sells the movie.

2.

If that is true, then TWS is definitely not Cap's movie. Remove Cap and the solidly Cap characters, and the movie works the same. Fury would drive events the same way without him.

Incorrect. The plot runs through Captain America. Cap helps get the Lumerian star plans off the boat, and Act 1 officially ends when Cap is given the flash drive by Fury. In Civil War, Act 1 similarly ends with the Vienna bombing, which springs Captain America into action to save Bucky. Both stories run through Captain America.

3.

I'd still love to hear how CW would exist without the Avengers.

Without the Avengers, Cap simply would have been on the run from another opposing force that Ross would have made to enforce the Accords. The face of that regime could have been headed by anybody, but making it the Avengers was best from a marketing perspective and due to the history the characters have with one another. But, the Avengers easily could have been removed from the story regardless.

TWS teased Crossbones and Sharon as major future characters. That didn't really materialize.

Doesn't matter. The story went another direction. Hardly the first sequel to do that.

Compare the toll of Tony's culpability in Ultron on his psyche, the political fallout from Sokovia's destruction, Vision's and Wanda's arcs.

Yes, Tony has an arc. He is an antagonist in the plot and the best ones do. As for Vision, he doesn't have much of an arc. He is an obstacle basically. The changes made to him post the events of Civil War all are developed off-screen. Once the airport happens, we see him cry once. That's not much. Wanda has a more defined arc, but her arc more or less ends when she decides to join Cap's team. She doesn't change after the airport fight.

To a point. But TWS goes well beyond that point.

For instance, the movie's big bad is far and away more an antagonist to Fury than to Steve.

Incorrect again. Pierce as a face is closer to Fury, yes. But the underlying threat in the movie is Hydra, the organization. Which Cap has been fighting longer than ANYONE. Therefore it is a more personal struggle for him. Further, they enter the fight in the end to end Hydra and SHIELD per Cap's directive. Not Fury's. Cap assumes control. The film is all about Captain America. I don't even see how this can even be debated.

 

[ohiostate124]

You know, the more I think about it, they really should have given Cap the energy shield in this movie. Especially considering that the Wakanda Border tribe already has them. I’m sure it would have taken no time at all to make a circular one.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

That has no bearing on narrative structure. Narrative structure is the nuts and bolts that make up the movie, and that is not really up for debate. The movie was marketed in the best way to get people in the seats. That is what a marketing campaign is for. But, who your protagonist is, who your villain/antagonist is, arcs, etc. All that is decided when the script of the movie is written as the characters are designed for a specific purpose narratively. That purpose doesn't change based on how Marvel sells the movie.

Well, maybe if you've got a creative writing degree you can see Cap as technically the distinct main character. The 99.99% who don't don't care.

Ultimately, if people go to see it for reasons other than Captain America, and enjoy it for reasons other than Captain America, that's hardly a triumph for Captain America.

Whatever the intentions of the writers is purely academic.

Incorrect. The plot runs through Captain America. Cap helps get the Lumerian star plans off the boat, and Act 1 officially ends when Cap is given the flash drive by Fury.

You're describing the events of TWS, not proving it needs Cap.

Fury is the one to realize something is off with Insight. It is his plan to get the algorithm off the Lumerian Star (which is done by BW, btw). Cap rescued the hostages. Without Cap, Fury would have assigned someone else to rescue the hostages. With more casualties, possibly, but BW would have gotten the algorithm all the same.

Without the Avengers, Cap simply would have been on the run from another opposing force that Ross would have made to enforce the Accords. The face of that regime could have been headed by anybody, but making it the Avengers was best from a marketing perspective and due to the history the characters have with one another. But, the Avengers easily could have been removed from the story regardless.

If the opposing force isn't the Avengers, then Zemo doesn't have a reason to enact his plans at all.

And even if he did, it would just be Cap on the run from an opposing force. There would be no split among the Avengers. No Tony finding out about his parents' murder. No Steve throwing the shield away.

It'd be a totally different story. It wouldn't be a civil war at all.

Doesn't matter. The story went another direction. Hardly the first sequel to do that.

Your argument is that CW is mostly following plot threads from TWS.

 

[Samuron]

You know, the more I think about it, they really should have given Cap the energy shield in this movie. Especially considering that the Wakanda Border tribe already has them. I’m sure it would have taken no time at all to make a circular one.

Oh geeze; you're absolutely right.

 

[Raiden]

You know, the more I think about it, they really should have given Cap the energy shield in this movie. Especially considering that the Wakanda Border tribe already has them. I’m sure it would have taken no time at all to make a circular one.

Energy shield isn't Cap's style; he deserves a real Vibranium shield because that's who he is. Besides, you can't attack with it.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

You're describing the events of TWS, not proving it needs Cap.

Fury is the one to realize something is off with Insight. It is his plan to get the algorithm off the Lumerian Star (which is done by BW, btw). Cap rescued the hostages. Without Cap, Fury would have assigned someone else to rescue the hostages. With more casualties, possibly, but BW would have gotten the algorithm all the same.

It would have been a hell of a lot shorter. As HYDRA would have essentially won halfway through.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

It would have been a hell of a lot shorter. As HYDRA would have essentially won halfway through.

HYDRA essentially won halfway through TWS anyway. That's how it usually goes, actually. The antagonists are usually winning halfway through before they are defeated.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

You missed my point but oh well.

 

[ohiostate124]

Energy shield isn't Cap's style; he deserves a real Vibranium shield because that's who he is. Besides, you can't attack with it.

It would have just been one of those comic callback moments they like to give us. He could have got it just for this movie before ultimately getting the metal shield back in A4. Who’s to say he couldn’t attack with it?

 

[Spider-Fan]

Well, maybe if you've got a creative writing degree you can see Cap as technically the distinct main character. The 99.99% who don't don't care.

Ultimately, if people go to see it for reasons other than Captain America, and enjoy it for reasons other than Captain America, that's hardly a triumph for Captain America.

Whatever the intentions of the writers is purely academic.

Once again, none of that matters. How a movie is marketed has no bearing on the script. When a movie is written, characters are given roles they serve in the story. That is built into the script in pre-production, and that is the role they serve when the movie is made. This role doesn't change. It's built in like a blueprint (which is what a screenplay is...a blueprint for the film).

You're describing the events of TWS, not proving it needs Cap.

Fury is the one to realize something is off with Insight. It is his plan to get the algorithm off the Lumerian Star (which is done by BW, btw). Cap rescued the hostages. Without Cap, Fury would have assigned someone else to rescue the hostages. With more casualties, possibly, but BW would have gotten the algorithm all the same.

And that covers the opening 15 mins. What about the remaining 2hrs? It's a Captain America movie dude. Cap is clearly the star. I don't even see how this is a debate.

If the opposing force isn't the Avengers, then Zemo doesn't have a reason to enact his plans at all.

And even if he did, it would just be Cap on the run from an opposing force. There would be no split among the Avengers. No Tony finding out about his parents' murder. No Steve throwing the shield away.

It'd be a totally different story. It wouldn't be a civil war at all.

Steve could still throwaway the shield. He still would be disillusioned by the experience. The government is turning on the superheroes and he wouldn't stand for that.

Tony finding out about his parents was meant to create a conflict that would lead to a fight against Captain America. Once again, dramatic Tony moment, but meant to serve his role as the film's antagonist to Captain America.

Your argument is that CW is mostly following plot threads from TWS.

Which it does. The brainwashing of Bucky from HYDRA is essential to the film, as is the hunt for Bucky. Cap's distrust of the government is also key to why he opposes the Accords. It's very much a TWS sequel.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

The movie being Civil War isn't something cooked up by the marketing people. It was the core premise of the film. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but you're definitely a minority.

And that covers the opening 15 mins. What about the remaining 2hrs? It's a Captain America movie dude. Cap is clearly the star. I don't even see how this is a debate.

Well, Fury would get the USB from BW. Talk to Pierce, get attacked, pass the USB to someone else he trusted, fake his death, come up with a plan to down the Hellicariers. This are all things he did in the film proper.

Meanwhile, BW, Hawkeye, whoever, can track the USB to Zola, get the same exposition, get caught by HYDRA, saved by Hill, and join forces with Fury.

Instead of Steve giving a speech to SHIELD, have Fury deliver it instead.

Steve could still throwaway the shield. He still would be disillusioned by the experience. The government is turning on the superheroes and he wouldn't stand for that.

And the Avengers would be whole. Which in the antithesis of what the movie was achieving.

Tony finding out about his parents was meant to create a conflict that would lead to a fight against Captain America. Once again, dramatic Tony moment, but meant to serve his role as the film's antagonist to Captain America.

You're wrong, but that's not my point. Steve hiding the truth is a major part of the climax and it couldn't exist without Tony in the narrative.

Which it does. The brainwashing of Bucky from HYDRA is essential to the film, as is the hunt for Bucky. Cap's distrust of the government is also key to why he opposes the Accords. It's very much a TWS sequel.

And the destruction of Sokovia is what, incidental? Give me a break. It is, at the very least, as much a sequel to AoU.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The movie being Civil War isn't something cooked up by the marketing people. It was the core premise of the film. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, but you're definitely a minority.

Right, it's a Civil War between Team Cap and Team Iron Man. Cap is our protagonist, and Tony is the leader of the antagonist group in the movie. That's his role. I am not misrepresenting anything here. The movie is about a struggle between them, yes. But they still have assigned roles in the movie. It's not an ensemble like Avengers or AoU. If it were an ensemble, the other Avengers would have more defined arcs. In Civil War, they really don't mostly. They get brief speeches explaining why they side on team X, and then are mainly there so they can be in the main fight at the airport. After that fight, they are basically not seen again. In Avengers and AoU, all the Avengers had more even screen time and arcs. This one just mainly focused on Cap, Bucky, Tony, and Widow for the most part. Everyone else is minimally developed. Because they don't have as important roles to the story. Again, going back to my point of everyone has assigned roles in a screenplay.

Well, Fury would get the USB from BW. Talk to Pierce, get attacked, pass the USB to someone else he trusted, fake his death, come up with a plan to down the Hellicariers. This are all things he did in the film proper.

Meanwhile, BW, Hawkeye, whoever, can track the USB to Zola, get the same exposition, get caught by HYDRA, saved by Hill, and join forces with Fury.

Instead of Steve giving a speech to SHIELD, have Fury deliver it instead.

But who is carrying out the plan? Fury had no means to finish the plan. They needed Cap for that. Further, Fury's plot is in a supporting role in the overall narrative. The film is about Captain America finding his reason to fight in the modern world and fighting the demons of his past (literally). It's not about Fury vs Hydra. That plot line serves Cap's overall narrative struggle.

And the Avengers would be whole. Which in the antithesis of what the movie was achieving.



You're wrong, but that's not my point. Steve hiding the truth is a major part of the climax and it couldn't exist without Tony in the narrative.

I didn't say the film would be 100% the same without Iron Man. But the story has less holes than if you took Cap out of the movie than Iron Man. That's my point. Further, the reveal of Steve's secret is mainly meant to make Iron Man and Cap fight again, and for Steve to face his own failures. It's less about Tony finding out Bucky killed his parents than it is to serve Cap's narrative again.

And the destruction of Sokovia is what, incidental? Give me a break. It is, at the very least, as much a sequel to AoU.

I never said it wasn't a sequel to AoU. It is. But it is also a sequel to TWS. But, given how important Bucky is to the heart of the film, it builds more off TWS. Particularly in regards to the arc of the film's main character (Steve Rogers). Therefore spiritually, it is 66% a TWS sequel and 33% an AoU one (or 60/40 if you prefer). Again, I said that earlier.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

@BullMcGiveny If you're going to argue that TWS isn't driven by Cap and not truly a Cap film (which I disagree with), you could say the same thing about TFA.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I do want to clarify, I don't have a creative writing degree. I have a filmmaking degree. Pre-production was always my strongest area with film also. So, breaking down movies is sort of what I do.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Right, it's a Civil War between Team Cap and Team Iron Man. Cap is our protagonist, and Tony is the leader of the antagonist group in the movie. That's his role. I am not misrepresenting anything here. The movie is about a struggle between them, yes. But they still have assigned roles in the movie. It's not an ensemble like Avengers or AoU. If it were an ensemble, the other Avengers would have more defined arcs. In Civil War, they really don't mostly. They get brief speeches explaining why they side on team X, and then are mainly there so they can be in the main fight at the airport. After that fight, they are basically not seen again. In Avengers and AoU, all the Avengers had more even screen time and arcs. This one just mainly focused on Cap, Bucky, Tony, and Widow for the most part. Everyone else is minimally developed. Because they don't have as important roles to the story. Again, going back to my point of everyone has assigned roles in a screenplay.

Let's be real, it isn't as if every Avenger have defined arcs in the regular Avenger movies.

But who is carrying out the plan?

Widow, Hawkeye, any SHIELD operator(s) you could place in the movie.

Fury had no means to finish the plan. They needed Cap for that. Further, Fury's plot is in a supporting role in the overall narrative. The film is about Captain America finding his reason to fight in the modern world and fighting the demons of his past (literally). It's not about Fury vs Hydra. That plot line serves Cap's overall narrative struggle.

I'm using your own argument here. You said you couldn't take Cap out of his movies, but you really can.

@BullMcGiveny If you're going to argue that TWS isn't driven by Cap and not truly a Cap film (which I disagree with), you could say the same thing about TFA.

Unless you wanna explain why, then I must say, it just isn't.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Let's be real, it isn't as if every Avenger have defined arcs in the regular Avenger movies.

They have more defined arcs in the Avengers movies, certainly. Also, the ending of CW comes down to a fight between Cap/Bucky vs Iron Man. In all Avengers movies, every Avenger has a role in the final battle (pre-CW, this would be Sokovia and NY). In CW, everyone else is in jail and has no bearing on the final outcome of the film's climax. Because it is not an Avengers movie.

Widow, Hawkeye, any SHIELD operator(s) you could place in the movie.

I'm using your own argument here. You said you couldn't take Cap out of his movies, but you really can.

No you cannot because the entire plot runs through Captain America. TWS is based on a man hunt for who? CAPTAIN AMERICA!!!! There is no movie without him.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Unless you wanna explain why, then I must say, it just isn't.

Using similar arguments to the one you used for TWS - villain has no real connection to hero, plot would proceed the same way without hero (creation of super soldier AND Red Skull's plan), random characters can be used to fulfill his role, etc.

 

[TalismanRing]

You are all not getting it. TWS and CW aren't truly Cap movies because Sharon isn't an important character in either of them.

 

[Xeno]

You are all not getting it. TWS and CW aren't truly Cap movies because Sharon isn't an important character in either of them.

Civil War definitely wasn't a Captain America movie because Sharon didn't shoot and kill Steve. How dare the Russos deny her her place in Steve's life like that? We'll just have to hold out hope that she gets to snipe him in the inevitable reboot, if she survived The Snapture, that is.