The Winter Soldier Love Interest for Captain America II - Part 1

[spideymouse]

But why would they bother to add Sharon to the movie at all if they were going to go with Steve/Natasha? If that was the case wouldn't it be easier to just leave her out instead of adding another character to the already bloated cast? Or is there a bunch of sarcasm going on in here that I'm missing completely?

I figure when it comes to romance that they'll use this film to tie up things with Peggy and set the stage for Sharon so that she can be the full blown love interest in the next one.

Most blockbuster movies have a lot of characters in them. They have one or a few main characters, a handful of supporting characters, and then a lot of minor characters in the background to fill the world. In a Cap movie with a lot of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents in the background, why not add Sharon? I liked things like mentioning Dr. Connors and "Eddie" in the first Spider-Man movie or actually seeing Connors in SM2 and SM3. If you have these characters at your disposal and you have use for them, why not use them, especially if it (as you said) sets the stage for future films?

 

[Loki882]

Sharon is an interesting character who ties in thematically to the first film. She doesn't have to be sleeping with Steve in order to work and be a good character.

 

[DrCosmic]

But why would they bother to add Sharon to the movie at all if they were going to go with Steve/Natasha? If that was the case wouldn't it be easier to just leave her out instead of adding another character to the already bloated cast? Or is there a bunch of sarcasm going on in here that I'm missing completely?

I figure when it comes to romance that they'll use this film to tie up things with Peggy and set the stage for Sharon so that she can be the full blown love interest in the next one.

Or not. All the reasons why Sharon makes a great love interest cause her to be a great supporting cast member just the same.

But it's very possible (even likely) that Steve and Natasha will fall apart in Avengers 2, leaving room for a Steve that's clearly moved on from Peggy in Cap 3.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

So, Emily VanCamp has finally owned up that she's basically just a cameo in the movie.

 

[Vartha]

Interesting.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

She has scenes with SHIELD and Robert Redford and is also a love interest of the main character, her amount of screen time will be small, but not cameo small.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Sharon is an interesting character who ties in thematically to the first film. She doesn't have to be sleeping with Steve in order to work and be a good character.

She is.

All that stuff they describe Steve and Natasha's dynamic as, her being a modern woman and a foil for the old-fashioned Steve, and them learning from each other and complementing each other?

That's exactly what Steve and Sharon's dynamic is, but they're transplanting it to Natasha.

Sucks to be a Sharon fan.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

She is.

All that stuff they describe Steve and Natasha's dynamic as, her being a modern woman and a foil for the old-fashioned Steve, and them learning from each other and complementing each other?

That's exactly what Steve and Sharon's dynamic is, but they're transplanting it to Natasha.

Sucks to be a Sharon fan.

Natasha is more appealing to the GA than Sharon. Due to TA and all.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

She has scenes with SHIELD and Robert Redford and is also a love interest of the main character, her amount of screen time will be small, but not cameo small.

Might as well be.

I'm pretty sure now that Natasha will be Steve's love interest.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Natasha is more appealing to the GA than Sharon. Due to TA and all.

But the casting proceeds the role not the other way around. If they wanted TA, then they could have cast someone with TA.

Not that it isn't a stupid reason, anyway.

 

[peterparker0077]

dude, chill. I think she's just throwing out the scene with "Kate", and not talking about the rest.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

But the casting proceeds the role not the other way around. If they wanted TA, then they could have cast someone with TA.

Not that it isn't a stupid reason, anyway.

I mean The Avengers.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

I mean The Avengers.

...Oh.

Okay, that is an actual reason.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

...Oh.

Okay, that is an actual reason.

It's good for marketing. Two Avengers in the movie.

I also like Natasha more than Sharon, so it doesn't bother me.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

It's good for marketing. Two Avengers in the movie.

I also like Natasha more than Sharon, so it doesn't bother me.

I like Natasha more than Sharon, too.

But, like, you can have more than one character that you really want to see in significant amount. Natasha already got to be in two movies, and a third on the way.

So why not give someone else a chance?

 

[Dark Raven]

I do hope Sharon will show up in Agents of SHIELD even if just the occasional cameo. How hard can that be since the sets must be close to each other so it's just a matter of EVC walking across the hall in her lunch break and putting on a SHIELD uniform. Or if she were in her civilian clothes, she could just stay in the same outfit that she's wearing over on Revenge.

She doesn't even really need a plot-related reason all the time to be in various AoS episodes since it should be really easy to appear. She can be in the background saying a line or someone passes her by on the Helicarrier or something.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

I like Natasha more than Sharon, too.

But, like, you can have more than one character that you really want to see in significant amount. Natasha already got to be in two movies, and a third on the way.

So why not give someone else a chance?

1. Marketing.
2. It probably works better for their script.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

1. Marketing.
2. It probably works better for their script.

Yeah, I got marketing the first time you mentioned it.

I look forward to the future Marvel movies where we just see the same characters we've seen before.

 

[spideymouse]

Yeah, I got marketing the first time you mentioned it.

I look forward to the future Marvel movies where we just see the same characters we've seen before.

That future is now, for the most part. Isn't that the logic of movie franchises?

But to your point, hopefully that will be when they have already introduced hundreds of major and minor characters of all tiers and from throughout the MU.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

That future is now, for the most part. Isn't that the logic of movie franchises?

But to your point, hopefully that will be when they have already introduced hundreds of major and minor characters of all tiers and from throughout the MU.

They are already doing it with Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant Man.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

That future is now, for the most part. Isn't that the logic of movie franchises?

But to your point, hopefully that will be when they have already introduced hundreds of major and minor characters of all tiers and from throughout the MU.

I was being sarcastic. I do want to see new characters that actually get proper development rather than appear as cameos.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

I was being sarcastic. I do want to see new characters that actually get proper development rather than appear as cameos.

Falcon? Crossbones? They are probably going to get proper development. It's just Sharon that might not.

Oh, and Batroc.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Falcon? Crossbones? They are probably going to get proper development. It's just Sharon that might not.

Oh, and Batroc.

I'm happy we're getting Falcon and that Marvel didn't give Mackie a cameo while Steve partners up with Hawkeye. And even Falcon is going to get less screentime than Widow.

But I'd have liked Sharon with more than "a small amount". I wanted three things out of the movies, Sam in a major supporting role, Sharon in a major supporting role, and Steve adjusting to time displacement. Those three things, and I'd be accepting of whatever else Marvel gave us.

What can I say, the heart wants what the heart wants. If there's room for a modern woman SHIELD agent in this, I think it should be Sharon.

Yeah, Natasha is marginally more marketable, but I'm getting the movie, not the proceeds.

 

[DrCosmic]

It's not just about marketability, it's that Natasha can serve the same role as Sharon, and it makes more sense because she's actually more different from Steve *and* she's already got an established relationship with Steve. It's almost the exact same thing as Stark making Ultron.

Yes, they could introduce a new kick ass SHIELD agent spy chick and build her up... but why when you have a perfectly good one that everyone already likes and respects right there. This is in addition to Maria Hill. So at what point do you stop making new kickass female SHIELD agents in skintight bodysuits using up screen time that can actually make the story better as opposed to merely accurate and just start merging them together?

 

[BullMcGiveny]

It's not just about marketability, it's that Natasha can serve the same role as Sharon, and it makes more sense because she's actually more different from Steve *and* she's already got an established relationship with Steve. It's almost the exact same thing as Stark making Ultron.

Yes, they could introduce a new kick ass SHIELD agent spy chick and build her up... but why when you have a perfectly good one that everyone already likes and respects right there. This is in addition to Maria Hill. So at what point do you stop making new kickass female SHIELD agents in skintight bodysuits using up screen time that can actually make the story better as opposed to merely accurate and just start merging them together?

There's never a point when new, interesting characters are too much.

And it isn't about making the story accurate. I just happen to like Sharon as a character.