Civil War Sharon carter A.K.A. Agent 13 - Part 2

[BullMcGiveny]

What, like this badass right here?

 

[Knight_SV]

You can say that after the fact, but Sharon wasn't portrayed as much of anything, aside from maybe generic.

Could it be that, perhaps, Sharon was a foil for Steve originally -much like the comics-, but then the Russo came along, rewrote all or most of Sharon's scenes for Natasha, and then added Sharon back in but with different characterization?

That's 1 of my problem with TWS. Maybe because russos is fan of scarjo? So they tried to shift her into the main heroine spot despit it belongs to sharon

 

[Anita18]

That's 1 of my problem with TWS. Maybe because russos is fan of scarjo? So they tried to shift her into the main heroine spot despit it belongs to sharon

Thematically in TWS, it works beautifully. Nat's a foil for Steve because in the beginning she works in the shadows, hiding her intentions while Steve makes his very clear, standing proud for what he believes in. In TWS, Nat shifts to more of Steve's stance, by letting all of her secrets out in the SHIELD data dump.

We don't see much of Sharon in TWS, besides her being a proxy for "normal" SHIELD agents who stand with Steve in the end. She couldn't have been a foil for Steve because the audience simply doesn't have a familiarity with her like we do with Nat - the film pretty much leaps into their opposing viewpoints right off the bat.

I'm not sure what role Sharon might play in CW, but the Russos should have something interesting. They wouldn't waste an appearance from a recurring character.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You can say that after the fact, but Sharon wasn't portrayed as much of anything, aside from maybe generic.

Could it be that, perhaps, Sharon was a foil for Steve originally -much like the comics-, but then the Russo came along, rewrote all or most of Sharon's scenes for Natasha, and then added Sharon back in but with different characterization?

Then they made a good decisions. Because a lot of what works about TWS is the relationship between Steve and Nat, and how their history plays into it. When he saves Nat from Bucky, it works so well because it is the Black Widow. Same with the trust scene.

 

[Poppy]

That's 1 of my problem with TWS. Maybe because russos is fan of scarjo? So they tried to shift her into the main heroine spot despit it belongs to sharon

Same.

I'm looking for spoilers for Sharon in CW and I found nothing except that she doesn't have a lot of screentime.

 

[Voltron]

Thematically in TWS, it works beautifully. Nat's a foil for Steve because in the beginning she works in the shadows, hiding her intentions while Steve makes his very clear, standing proud for what he believes in. In TWS, Nat shifts to more of Steve's stance, by letting all of her secrets out in the SHIELD data dump.

We don't see much of Sharon in TWS, besides her being a proxy for "normal" SHIELD agents who stand with Steve in the end. She couldn't have been a foil for Steve because the audience simply doesn't have a familiarity with her like we do with Nat - the film pretty much leaps into their opposing viewpoints right off the bat.

I'm not sure what role Sharon might play in CW, but the Russos should have something interesting. They wouldn't waste an appearance from a recurring character.

But Sharon's a spy herself and people in general know that spies work in the shadows and are shady. And,

I can only speak on paper which is that Sharon an unknown spy with unknown true allegiance would contrast better with Rogers than Widow who we know is an Avenger so you know from the get go that she's on the good side. It would've been great to go on a journey to find out about Sharon, but alas. I must say that there were no surprises in TWS. It was so obvious that Pierce was the villain even from the trailers and that the movie was extremely predictable.

Hence, Russos screwed Sharon and Sharon fans over.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

That's 1 of my problem with TWS. Maybe because russos is fan of scarjo? So they tried to shift her into the main heroine spot despit it belongs to sharon

Well they've gushed repeatedly about Black Widow and ScarJo, and they've admitted that it was them that pushed for her getting a much bigger role.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Then they made a good decisions. Because a lot of what works about TWS is the relationship between Steve and Nat, and how their history plays into it. When he saves Nat from Bucky, it works so well because it is the Black Widow. Same with the trust scene.

And it would have worked just as well for Sharon and Steve. Better, in fact, since Sharon would have been an unknown quantity and the truth of her loyalties would have been a source of suspense.

No one believed that an Avengers wasn't going to turn out to be a good guy.

Plus, they'd have contributed establishing more of a personal supporting cast for Steve.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But Sharon's a spy herself and people in general know that spies work in the shadows and are shady. And,


Hence, Russos screwed Sharon and Sharon fans over.

They produced one of the finest flicks the genre has seen, and now might be doing it again. Reaction so far is incredible. So suggesting they screwed anyone seems a bit unfair. You service the story and the main character first and foremost.

 

[Suzanne78]

They produced one of the finest flicks the genre has seen, and now might be doing it again. Reaction so far is incredible. So suggesting they screwed anyone seems a bit unfair. You service the story and the main character first and foremost.

Yep, this.

While I feel for the Sharon Carter fans, so long as Cap isn't shunted aside in his own movie and the movie itself is solid (and, apparently, pretty great), I'd say the Russos did their job, and did it well.

But we can all form our own opinions about Sharon's role in this movie when it comes out. There are varying opinions on many of the aspects of CW too.

 

[Voltron]

Remember this? On the sequel elements that are front and center in their minds as they start prepping the story for Captain America 3

McFeely: We laid some threads out at the end of this one, but I think we're going to pick them up, and we don't know how long we're going to pull on them. But we're certainly going to try to.... Sharon Carter seems to be fairly active.

On whether there’s a future for more of the Black Widow in their Cap-verse

Markus: Potentially. I'm very glad that we flirted with flirting but didn't go there, you know? And I don't want to go there. They work really well together as friends and as comrades. Plus we're bringing Sharon up.

THIS! This was the reason I got excited for Cap 3 in the first place before Civil War was announced because I thought we were getting more Sharon
Then I read somewhere she only got 15 mins in CW

And I remember this http://www.nbcmiami.com/blogs/popco...el-Return-to-a-Wartime-Setting-127908023.html around the time TFA came out:

They’re also intrigued by the chance to explore some of the latter-day additions to the Cap mythos, like love interest Sharon Carter (a lookalike relative of the film’s Peggy Carter) and his sidekick The Falcon, one of comics’ first black superheroes.

[Asked about Sharon Carter and the Falcon.] M&M: I want both of them! Sharon is meaty, almost to a point where you get a little uncomfortable because her relation to Peggy has shifted over the years, as time has passed. She’s the sister, she’s the cousin, she’s the niece. You have to walk a fine line there because it does seem like you’re dating your girlfriend’s daughter.....

This! This was the reason I got excited for TWS in the first place until the Russos screwed Sharon over! 3 mins in TWS and 15 mins in CW is not meaty!!? See, no mention of BW. at. all!

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Thematically in TWS, it works beautifully. Nat's a foil for Steve because in the beginning she works in the shadows, hiding her intentions while Steve makes his very clear, standing proud for what he believes in. In TWS, Nat shifts to more of Steve's stance, by letting all of her secrets out in the SHIELD data dump.

We don't see much of Sharon in TWS, besides her being a proxy for "normal" SHIELD agents who stand with Steve in the end. She couldn't have been a foil for Steve because the audience simply doesn't have a familiarity with her like we do with Nat - the film pretty much leaps into their opposing viewpoints right off the bat.

Except the things that make BW a foil were established in TWS rather than before.

 

[Voltron]

They produced one of the finest flicks the genre has seen, and now might be doing it again. Reaction so far is incredible. So suggesting they screwed anyone seems a bit unfair. You service the story and the main character first and foremost.

All I'm saying is that TWS could still have been fine with more Sharon. Sam/Steve development was managed just fine so why not Sharon/Steve/Sam as well?!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And it would have worked just as well for Sharon and Steve. Better, in fact, since Sharon would have been an unknown quantity and the truth of her loyalties would have been a source of suspense.

No one believed that an Avengers wasn't going to turn out to be a good guy.

Plus, they'd have contributed establishing more of a personal supporting cast for Steve.

Based on what? We have no history with Sharon and neither does Cap. Which is why exposition is totally unnecessary. Loyalties are irrelevant. It is about Widow's own insecurities, born from what we already know about her. The vulnerability means something then.

They have Bucky and Falcon in terms of a established personal supporting cast.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

They produced one of the finest flicks the genre has seen, and now might be doing it again. Reaction so far is incredible. So suggesting they screwed anyone seems a bit unfair. You service the story and the main character first and foremost.

The characters they choose to service all being current and prospective Avengers. How about that.

They took one of the perennial main characters in the comics and demoted her to recurring bit character.

As a result, she's been dead/in comic book limbo in comics for the past two years.

I call that screwing Sharon and Sharon fans over.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

All I'm saying is that TWS could still have been fine with more Sharon. Sam/Steve development was managed just fine so why not Sharon/Steve/Sam as well?!

Because it did not fit the story they were telling. They didn't want to do it, and considering it didn't hurt the film at all, why would they need to add more to it? You also just can't add stuff to movie. Well you can, but it usually doesn't work out.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Based on what? We have no history with Sharon and neither does Cap. Which is why exposition is totally unnecessary. Loyalties are irrelevant. It is about Widow's own insecurities, born from what we already know about her. The vulnerability means something then.

You're gonna talk about themes but brush off Steve not knowing who to trust?

They have Bucky and Falcon in terms of a established personal supporting cast.

So one guy they inherited from Joe Johnston, and another guy.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The characters they choose to service all being current and prospective Avengers. How about that.

They took one of the perennial main characters in the comics and demoted her to recurring bit character.

As a result, she's been dead/in comic book limbo in comics for the past two years.

I call that screwing Sharon and Sharon fans over.

Has this hurt the movies? Because so far, it hasn't seemingly done so. They are responsible for the comic, just the movies they make.

So one guy they inherited from Joe Johnston, and another guy.

And this is a problem why exactly?

 

[Voltron]

“Not a huge amount”

That gif is me too

 

[Poppy]

You service the story and the main character first and foremost.

And Sharon should be a main character, as she is in the comics, I don't know why it's such a hard concept to grasp.

The fact that every heroes in that movie had more screentime than Sharon even thought she belongs to the Cap mythology unlike 90% of them is disrepectul to the fans and the source material.

Cap characters should have more to do than Avengers characters in a Cap movie. For the Avengers to have glorified cameos instead of the other way around.

Anyway,Sharon was "tough AND she looked beautiful, too!" in Cw so I guess that's something.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You're gonna talk about themes but brush off Steve not knowing who to trust?

The elements are at play with Widow, but are not the emphasis. So it works with her, while adding the personal worth aspect. You can't get that with Sharon without tons of exposition. With Nat, just need the little weird scene on the boat. Plus you get the stuff with Fury. His known connection to her.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Has this hurt the movies? Because so far, it hasn't seemingly done so. They are responsible for the comic, just the movies they make.

Does it have to hurt the movies before she can be treated decently?

And this is a problem why exactly?

Because two guys is a pretty poor supporting cast.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And Sharon should be a main character, as she is in the comics, I don't know why it's such a hard concept to grasp.

The fact that every heroes in that movie had more screentime than Sharon even thought she belongs to the Cap mythology unlike 90% of them is disrepectul to the fans and the source material.

Cap characters should have more to do than Avengers characters in a Cap movie. For the Avengers to have glorified cameos instead of the other way around.

Anyway,Sharon was "tough AND she looked beautiful, too!" in Cw so I guess that's something.

There is only one main character in a Cap book. Whomever is Cap in that moment. The rest are supporting characters.

This movie is called Captain America: Civil War. Of course everyone else has more screen time. This is a film about the major superheroes doing battle. She isn't one, and never has been. They wanted to tell this story, and Fiege signed off. Considering the reaction, hard to see how that was a bad decision.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Does it have to hurt the movies before she can be treated decently?

What about this is indecent? They are making great films about Captain America. They don't want to use Sharon heavily right now. That is a creative decision, done by the people who are making these rather good films. How is this indecent?

Because two guys is a pretty poor supporting cast.

The supporting cast per film has actually been quite excellent. They just rotate it with the time jump and main story. Which is actually rather great considering we are talking about a comic book movie.

Heck, Iron Man is a supporting character this time around.

 

[Voltron]

Because it did not fit the story they were telling. They didn't want to do it, and considering it didn't hurt the film at all, why would they need to add more to it? You also just can't add stuff to movie. Well you can, but it usually doesn't work out.

Refer to my post about M&M discussing using Sharon and Sam way back in 2011 where there was no mention of BW until the Russos took over and admitted themselves that they pushed for BW to have a bigger part, as in she only had a small role in the M&M script but changes were made for BW to have a bigger part. Come on, look at Mission Impossible 5 where the script did an excellent job of introducing a new female spy. Sharon's a spy and it's a given that spies are shady and their true loyalties are unknown. This would've been great for the audience who aren't familiar with Sharon to leave them guessing if she can be trusted or not by Cap, if she's Hydra or not.

The storytelling = script was changed to accommodate the Russos wish for BW to have a bigger role. I really want to get my hands on the script with BW in a small role.