The movie started with Tony's parents getting killed.
Why do you seem to keep ignoring that this is something which was set up in
The Winter Soldier and practically cried out to be followed up on? Given that, would a full
Avengers film really be so much more appropriate a venue in which to do so?
Steve's romance with Sharon Carter was rushed
Their romance has barely even
begun by the end of
Civil War, and had also already been largely set up by the end of
The Winter Soldier. That's not exactly what I would call "rushed." Besides, wasn't it obvious that Steve's heart really belonged to Peggy, and he couldn't very well take up with someone new (notwithstanding and even perhaps especially considering the connection between them) until she was well and truly out of the picture? And would Steve's love life have made for a particularly interesting
focus in this or any other movie anyway?
the Sokovia Accords story line and Tony's man pain made it impossible for the screenwriters to do justice to it.
For my part, I wouldn't have found it as satisfying for them to eschew picking up the pieces where
Age Of Ultron left them in favor of some unrelated "solo" caper. Would devoting the whole picture to battling Rumlow and some goons alongside only Sam and Bucky have made for a more distinctive and engaging story? (Not that this would be the
only potential alternative to what we got, but just for instance.)
Sam and Bucky's relationship was never explored. Instead, it was presented in a series of comedy routines in which they are mildly hostile toward one another.
I found the sibling rivalry between Cap's former sidekick and his current one rather appropriate and endearing. And let's not pretend as if this is the last of these characters we'll see and there won't be further opportunities to explore their relationships in greater depth down the line. (Whereas, on the other hand, I'd wager there's
less chance of us getting further Iron Man solo movies.)
The movie spent 10 to 15 minutes showing how Tony recruited Peter Parker (who really had no business being in this movie) for Team Iron Man, yet it failed to explain or show why Scott Laing and Clint Barton had decided to side with Steve.
As I've said, I concur that the undue focus on Peter was ungainly, but as to the second point, does it really require all that much explanation why those characters would side with Team Cap? Given Lang and Barton's family situations and pasts as seen in previous films, isn't it obvious they'd value their anonymity and privacy, and not want their loved ones exposed to the scrutiny and vagaries of governmental bureaucracy, nor their autonomy in protecting and defending them hindered by its overreach? Maybe that could have been explicated a bit more, sure, but it's not as if the dots are too hard to connect there as it is.
Zemo's whole plot was all about Tony finding out that Bucky had killed his parents. Again, it all became about Tony.
Because Tony's nature is to
always make it all about Tony! Zemo undoubtedly understood this and counted on it, exploiting that well-established character flaw to play him against Cap.
I have now developed contempt toward Marvel and pure dislike toward Downey Jr.'s Iron Man.
While I do think you're overreacting a bit, I don't think it was
intended that you should like him all that much in this story. While I found his motivations quite understandable, and empathize with him, his role is precisely that of the interloper you accuse him of being, and is overall portrayed as such. Hey Tony, butt out, don't tread on me! Your reaction, while extreme (and bordering on the absurd with the "contempt for Marvel" bit), is not entirely out of line with the thrust of the drama here, as I see it.
They practically turned him into a Dr. Doom type super-villain there. Hell, the only reasons I saw the first Iron Man in the theaters after the Civil War comic were the amazing reviews, and the coin toss came up "heads" ("Tails" would have been Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull).
