Originally Posted by BullMcGiveny
... I don't understand how.
Quite likely, she'll be left out of the Avengers 2.
She'll be written out or marginalized in some way of unknown contrivedness, but it's not like she's off in California somewhere with Rhodey. She works for SHIELD, why would she not still be as active with SHIELD and Cap in Avengers 2 as she was in Cap 2?
They could make up some crap for her to not be where she naturally would be, but it would smell like crap to me.
Originally Posted by Lorus
I think that you are over emphasising the importance of having wildly different skill sets. You can incorporate characters with similar skills into a film quite easily I think. I also get the impression that Sharon is really closer to a SHIELD grunt than she is Natasha. I'm not widely read when it comes to Sharon though. In terms of Avengers 2, it shouldn't be an issue because Sharon won't actually be on the team.
I may be overemphasizing it, that's true. Certainly it's possible to incorporate characters with similar skills, but I believe stories, and characters, are better when they don't overlap in skills, job description and allegiance. When you only have one female agent, she does all the stuff, physical and emotional, that falls under that character type, and it makes her deeper and more interesting. When you have two, you end up cutting one out completely or taking some amount of that female agent narrative role/screentime and doling it out, even if just minute worth. Yeah, they could have Sharon just cameo, but that kinda highlights that she doesn't bring anything to the overall story, she's just there because she was there in comics.