Love Interest for Captain America II

[marvel_freshman]

[deleted, wrong thread]

[pr0xyt0xin]

Assuming its Sharon Carter, I personally hope she is not played by Anna Kendrick.

[spideymouse]

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

Assuming its Sharon Carter, I personally hope she is not played by Anna Kendrick.

This is OT, but do you like Anna Kendrick in any other Marvel role?

[marcvader]

Wasp

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by BullMcGiveny

Honestly, I'm not sure what the overall issue is.

Is that that Sharon has a similar skillset to Natasha, or is it that there'll be two characters with similar skillsets in Captain America 2?

The former leads to the latter, or a similar conflict in Avengers 2.

[Lorus]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

The former leads to the latter, or a similar conflict in Avengers 2.

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.

[pr0xyt0xin]

Originally Posted by spideymouse

This is OT, but do you like Anna Kendrick in any other Marvel role?

Originally Posted by marcvader

Wasp

um. yeah, I'd prefer her as Wasp over Carter... but hmm... let me think.

idk... Mockingbird maybe.
Firestar?
Spider-Woman! :P
wait, no. Invisible Woman.

I see her as any of those 5 before Carter. I do like her as an actress but I prefer either of the others that were rumored (Imogen Poots and Felicity Jones) for Sharon Carter.

EDIT: not that I actually expect to see Spider-Woman, Firestar or Invisible Woman in the MCU. I was doing a bit of reaching.

[BullMcGiveny]

EDIT: Damn, double reply.

[BullMcGiveny]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

The former leads to the latter, or a similar conflict in Avengers 2.

... I don't understand how.

Quite likely, she'll be left out of the Avengers 2.

[DrCosmic]

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.

[BullMcGiveny]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

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.

I don't think Rhodey being in California was the issue. It's more likely that he was deployed by the Air Force somewhere, and due to the short time span of the Avengers movie, he never learned about the situation or made it there in time.

Similarly, Sharon could be on a mission when whatever happens in Avengers goes down.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

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.

I'll be honest, I can't understand how or why you need only one female for any given role, or why it has to contribute anything at all to the 'overall story', if by that you mean the Avengers.

If Avengers 2 will be about Thanos, adapting the Winter Soldier won't -baring massive departure from the source- contribute to the overall story.

[DrCosmic]

Again, I'm not saying you need only one, I'm saying you don't need two, and using one makes for a better story. For instance, Widow, a character on contract, who we're already invested in, can do every single thing that Sharon Carter can, from action to romance to whatever. So what is the point in bringing in a brand new character to do that? Not that we need to do it with one character, and that has advantages, but that we can, so why get two?

The world is ending, so we need all the help we can get... Sharon's busy though, with something... more important? Insert excuse here. Don't call her in. -shrug- It's hard to give her a reason not to be there that's not crap. It made sense to remove Pepper and Jane. They were useless. It doesn't make sense to remove capable agents... so we make Sharon an incapable agent? There's nothing natural about removing her from SHIELD in a time of crisis.

And it all builds together, because the movies, if done right, are about developing the main characters that end up leading the Avengers. These stories should be able to stand on their own, but the reality is that they don't, they are all taken in context of the MCU as a whole.

[Chewy]

Natasha is one of SHIELD's top agents. Sharon doesn't necessarily have to be... she can be the wide-eyed, youthful agent. Or not. Either way, it doesn't matter. These movies do largely stand on their own, and they can be taken either in context or watched all on their lonesome. The reality is that there are 1000s of SHIELD agents, and the Avengers don't call all of them in. No need for the fanwanky explanations, just tell your story with your characters and let the audience assume the others are otherwise occupied.

Also there is absolutely no sexual tension between Steve and Natasha in Avengers. So, no, she can't do everything Sharon can. The personality of the characters matters about a billion times more than whether or not their jobs have superficial similarities.

[BullMcGiveny]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Again, I'm not saying you need only one, I'm saying you don't need two, and using one makes for a better story. For instance, Widow, a character on contract, who we're already invested in, can do every single thing that Sharon Carter can, from action to romance to whatever. So what is the point in bringing in a brand new character to do that? Not that we need to do it with one character, and that has advantages, but that we can, so why get two?

Because its more fun to bring in new people - characters and actors - who we can becomes even more invested in.

Because the story should dictate the characters, not the other way around.
If they include Natasha at this point, they have the Natasha from Iron Man 2 and the Avengers they need to adhere to when it comes to characterization. On the other hand, they have much more leeway with Sharon.

And because the flipside also applies. Why make Natasha Steve's love interest -a relationship that, no matter who tells you otherwise, never happened in print-, thereby preventing her from getting involved with Hawkeye or Bucky, both of whom DO have a history with her, relationships which have a large following among fans, when Steve already has en enduring love interest from the comics -which has been partially set up in the last movie- who doesn't have any romantic entanglements with anyone else?

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

The world is ending, so we need all the help we can get... Sharon's busy though, with something... more important? Insert excuse here. Don't call her in. -shrug- It's hard to give her a reason not to be there that's not crap.

It made sense to remove Pepper and Jane. They were useless. It doesn't make sense to remove capable agents... so we make Sharon an incapable agent? There's nothing natural about removing her from SHIELD in a time of crisis.

Early on in the Avengers, Fury says that until the world is actually ending, he'll act as if it will keep spinning on. If Sharon is doing something important at the time, Fury will have her doing that until such a time that he can't spare her.

Or, maybe she's not an Agent of SHIELD in the movies. Maybe she works for MI-6 or the CIA.

In the end, Sharon won't be the first one to be dubiously absent, nor the most egregious.

Rhodey has the War Machine armor, he's reliable and respects authority, and he'd be able to rein in Tony if need be. Why don't SHIELD call him in?

[Lorus]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

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.

This, I think, falls under the umbrella of accepting that the films are to be stand alone as well as part of a shared universe. If Sharon is not required to be in Avengers 2 then she'll simply not be included. The audience will be able to accept that not every character who was in the previous films will be in Avengers 2 providing that film tells a complete story with the characters it does use. Much like the Avengers was not effected by the fact that War Machine wasn't in it and the film provided no explanation or reference to him. For Sharon, it's not even particularly difficult to explain her absence because SHIELD is a massive organisation and she could be busy with any number of assignments.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

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.

I think the mistake that you're making here is assuming that the emotional development of a character or the act of providing them with depth is linked inseparably from their general skill set, in this case, secret agent. Natasha and Sharon may have reasonably similar skills but that doesn't mean that they have to share one specific story/character arc. In the Avengers, both Natasha and Clint are called 'master assassins' by Tony but they have different roles in the film and serve the narrative in different ways. In terms of the practicality of action, both Natasha and Steve use acrobatic hand to hand combat and yet they still fill different roles in all the set pieces without feeling remotely interchangeable.

I think it's also worth mentioning that you say that the character does everything that falls under that character type, but Sharon and Natasha fall under different character archetypes, they just have similar skills.

[spideymouse]

Originally Posted by Lorus

This, I think, falls under the umbrella of accepting that the films are to be stand alone as well as part of a shared universe. If Sharon is not required to be in Avengers 2 then she'll simply not be included. The audience will be able to accept that not every character who was in the previous films will be in Avengers 2 providing that film tells a complete story with the characters it does use. Much like the Avengers was not effected by the fact that War Machine wasn't in it and the film provided no explanation or reference to him. For Sharon, it's not even particularly difficult to explain her absence because SHIELD is a massive organisation and she could be busy with any number of assignments.

I think the mistake that you're making here is assuming that the emotional development of a character or the act of providing them with depth is linked inseparably from their general skill set, in this case, secret agent. Natasha and Sharon may have reasonably similar skills but that doesn't mean that they have to share one specific story/character arc. In the Avengers, both Natasha and Clint are called 'master assassins' by Tony but they have different roles in the film and serve the narrative in different ways. In terms of the practicality of action, both Natasha and Steve use acrobatic hand to hand combat and yet they still fill different roles in all the set pieces without feeling remotely interchangeable.

I think it's also worth mentioning that you say that the character does everything that falls under that character type, but Sharon and Natasha fall under different character archetypes, they just have similar skills.

I agree with you 100%. I would say that sometimes you can differentiate/develop two characters even better when they are both in the same situation. Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne are both billionaire playboy philanthropists, but their personalities and backgrounds are so different that you can't say that Batman and Iron Man are at all the same character.

As for Natasha and Sharon, you have one Russian femme fatale trained as an assassin since childhood, and you have one American child of privilege inspired by her heroic aunt/grand-aunt's war stories to voluntarily join S.H.I.E.L.D. as an agent. Sure, they're both skilled spies, but the similarities end there--they're not at all the same character.

[DrCosmic]

Hmmm... good points all around.

For Chewy, are there 1000s of SHIELD agents? Lets say there are, and while personality can matter more depending on the story, what sets Sharon apart from Natasha so much that she wouldn't be called in? Or that she can't develop something with Steve, whether foreshadowed before or not.

For Bill, it's more fun when it works, I don't necessarily see this works, yeah... but I don't see anything restrictive about Natasha's characterization that prevents her from standing in for Sharon? Sure, some fans would lose their shipping wars, and those who felt like Peggy was just a set up for Sharon would get something unexpected... -shrug- Doesn't seem like a loss, especially to movie quality.

And while Rhodes was absent, he doesn't work for Fury, so he's not as egregious at all, assuming Sharon works for SHIELD. And that kinda highlights my point too. Different personalty + same skillset = redundant. Yes, Rhodes could have had all sorts of depth, but in the end, the action as so much a part of the character moments in a film like this that dividing up the action *is* dividing up the character development.

For Lorus, yes they could say she's on assignment, but unless she's an unremarkable agent, it contradicts with what they did in Avengers 1. Clint qualifies Tony's statement in that Clint is a Soldier (and a bad guy for most of the film) while Natasha is not (presumably, she's a spy). They're different archetypes, but even his redundant modern human perspective requires he be removed from the story and team for an extended period of time. How do Natasha and Sharon fall under different archetypes?

For spideymouse, not saying they're the same character, but they serve the same role in a story. It's not a coincidence that these are the two characters who have single handledly taken on the rest of their teams, or the ones who have usurped leadership on one level or other from the traditional 'boyscout' leaders. Backgrounds might be different, sure, but the stories you tell with them are the same.

Overall, it can be done, but I just don't think it's worth it, not when there are alternatives. Perhaps they alter Sharon until she's barely recognizable, a young CIA agent liason with Cap. Sure. But... -shrug-

[marcvader]

Sharon could be an up and coming operative that's also a psyche specialist and is assigned to Rogers to help him acclimate to modern times.

[TheGuy]

^^^I'd like that route.

[Lorus]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Hmmm... good points all around.

And while Rhodes was absent, he doesn't work for Fury, so he's not as egregious at all, assuming Sharon works for SHIELD. And that kinda highlights my point too. Different personalty + same skillset = redundant. Yes, Rhodes could have had all sorts of depth, but in the end, the action as so much a part of the character moments in a film like this that dividing up the action *is* dividing up the character development.

Forgive me, but I feel your declaration that Rhodey's absence is not egregious is a tad arbitrary. Admittedly, he doesn't work for Fury but Tony is fully aware that his well trained military disciplined friend has a suit of armour and could help but doesn't reference or call him. Not to mention that SHIELD monitors people with such offensive potential and they make no attempt to contact him independently? The major difference between Sharon and Rhodes though would be that in a sequel to Captain America, Sharon's personal relationship and connection with Steve is more important to that story than Rhodes is to the story of how the Avengers are formed. It's different needs for different purposes. I don't necessarily think Sharon is needed myself but I don't think the comparison is particularly sound.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

For Lorus, yes they could say she's on assignment, but unless she's an unremarkable agent, it contradicts with what they did in Avengers 1. Clint qualifies Tony's statement in that Clint is a Soldier (and a bad guy for most of the film) while Natasha is not (presumably, she's a spy). They're different archetypes, but even his redundant modern human perspective requires he be removed from the story and team for an extended period of time. How do Natasha and Sharon fall under different archetypes?

To start with, I would imagine Sharon is a pretty unremarkable agent. Her importance comes from her relationship with Steve, not her immense skill like Natasha. Like Maria Hill, she's a decent SHIELD agent but that doesn't make her anywhere near Natasha's league as she qualifies as an Avenger. It's not that Sharon or Maria are unremarkable so much as it is that Natasha is that good.

The point I was trying to make with the Natasha/Clint comparison was that although they have essentially identical skills (secret agent/assassin) they still fit into the narrative independently and without compromising the other because of their characterisation and how they were used. They're arcs are different and they contribute to the overall theme of the film separately. The example isn't perfect because of Clint's predicament during the first half, but again, that predicament is an external representation of one of the film's themes which Clint's character is used to explore. Meanwhile, Natasha can be used to navigate different waters and thus,two character which could supposedly make the other redundant are used to benefit the narrative without doing so.

As for the differences between Sharon and Natasha: From what we can see of Natasha's characterisation so far, she is very much a woman of the world. She has clearly watched the world burn a dozen times over and be rebuilt and now cannot see the individual for the system. She's become detached and clinical in her methods which offers room for all sorts of development of themes like the importance of symbols and history in a finite existence or heck, even anarchism. That's ignoring all the obvious redemption stuff that comes with her past atrocities. Sharon has none of these qualities going for her as a character, she is more idealistic and on a broader scale possibly represents something along the lines of letting go/moving on. It seems to me that looking at the characters, you would tell vastly different stories with each. At least, I couldn't tell some stories with Sharon that I could with Natasha or vice versa.

I certainly think characterisation and archetypes are far far more important than you give them credit for. They determine the story told, not arbitrary skills or techniques that writers manipulate and alter at whim. All that said, I'm not a huge Sharon fan and don't really care about seeing her so I hope I don't come across as arguing this aggressively

[DrCosmic]

Y'know... I may be off base on this. I thought Sharon was like... an awesome upper level agent with her own history and career, which would make her, personality-wise, a lot like Natasha. If they do her differently (as they've done Natasha) perhaps it would work better. I'll go actually read the Winter Soldier TPB and see what I think after that.

The comparison with Rhodey still seems sound to me, since there's more involved than a direction phone call, and I'm definitely not optimistic they're talking about Sharon based on the actresses shortlisted, but we shall see. I'll look into this more and perhaps comment later.

[Chewy]

That is what Sharon became, after 30 or 40 years. At the beginning she was just a SHIELD agent.

[BullMcGiveny]

Actually, Sharon WAS supposed to be one of SHIELD's best since she first appeared. Her codename, Agent 13, refers to her place in the hierarchy. IE She's the the 13th top Agent out of thousands.

It just wasn't noticeable because, you know, she was being written in the 1960s.

Then she died. And then many years later she was brought back by Mark Waid, who made her into a jaded mercenary-type character who had fallen on hard times and came to resent Captain America and outright wanted to kill Nick Fury. It was under Waid that she became director of SHIELD, too.

[DrCosmic]

Still going through Winter Soldier TPB, but Sharon as a SHIELD psychologist, as opposed to an experienced field agent, makes a lot of sense, story-wise.

[Lorus]

I was unaware of Sharon's characterisation under Waid and thus apologise for my incorrect statements. Although that makes some of what I mentioned invalid, I think my overall conclusion is still sound. There are nuances to the characterisation which would allow characters to co-exist without making them redundant.

To make a baseless assumption, it would seem like they're leaning to a more idealistic wide-eyed version of Sharon if Kendrick is being considered for the role.