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

[Poppy]

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

I guess you never heard of co-lead.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

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.

No, you could have had Sharon be a member of STRIKE who had the mission to steal the files.

The stuff with Fury which was nonexistent before. Also, non-important.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

The directors executed creative control!?

Of course the did. Because a film always belongs to the director, unless the studio interferes to a point of no return. Feige believed in the Russos and their vision, and they delivered what many considered to be the best Marvel film yet. And now people are saying they did it again. Looks like Feige made a great decision.

Personally I prefer the Russos to exercise their creative muscles, then having others making lesser films.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

I'm getting this feeling Sharon is Marvel's Laurel Lance and Black Widow is Marvel's Felicity Smoak.

They at least tried to make Laurel a lead before giving up.

Sharon is more like Stannis Baratheon.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I guess you never heard of co-lead.

Co-leads are not main characters. Mr. Darcy is a co-lead. Elizabeth Bennet is the only main character. Finn is a co-lead. Rey is the main character. Black Widow is a co-lead of TWS. Cap is the main character. Leia and Han are co-leads. Luke is the main character.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No, you could have had Sharon be a member of STRIKE who had the mission to steal the files.

The stuff with Fury which was nonexistent before. Also, non-important.

Non-important based on what? You are acting like the Russos made a terrible mistake and TWS didn't work. It did, beautifully imo. To the point that they got to make Civil War (there decision) and were handed the keys to the Avengers.

Also, using your own argument, if both characters work in the same role, is it not up to the directors to decide what direction they want to go in? And if the film succeeds, are they not right?

 

[Poppy]

The directors executed creative control!?

Of course the did. Because a film always belongs to the director, unless the studio interferes to a point of no return. Feige believed in the Russos and their vision, and they delivered what many considered to be the best Marvel film yet. And now people are saying they did it again. Looks like Feige made a great decision.

Personally I prefer the Russos to exercise their creative muscles, then having others making lesser films.

I love the "everyone said it was good so they were right!!1" argument.

If you think about it, if Sharon would have had Nat's part, it would have changed a thing. Except that they would have showed some respect towards the source material.
"Too much exposition for Sharon" ? Since when introducing new character is a waste of time? I guess replacing her with Natasha was lazy and lame move.

We would have a great new female character and the film still would have been a sucess.
It's really naive to think that Feige agreed with the changes only because he thought it would make a better story.

People were complaining,bashing Marvel for not giving BW a solo movie. So a good way to shut them up was giving her more to do, which worked btw.People been more quiet about that since TWS.
So yay for replacing female characters because they are so easily interchangeable in the MCU.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I love the "everyone said it was good so they were right!!1" argument.

If you think about it, if Sharon would have had Nat's part, it would have changed a thing. Except that they would have showed some respect towards the source material.
"Too much exposition for Sharon" ? Since when introducing new character is a waste of time? I guess replacing her with Natasha was lazy and lame move.

We would have a great new female character and the film still would have been a sucess.
It's really naive to think that Feige agreed with the changes only because he thought it would make a better story.

People were complaining,bashing Marvel for not giving BW a solo movie. So a good way to shut them up was giving her more to do, which worked btw.People been more quiet about that since TWS.
So yay for replacing female characters because they are so easily interchangeable in the MCU.

It is funny, as you see Nat and Cap's relationship come into play in Civil War, it clearly has a purpose. Also, there is a fundamental difference between Nat and Sharon. One is a love interest, the other isn't. That changes the dynamic quite a bit.

And nothing lame about TWS imo.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Non-important based on what?

Based on what's it matter if Fury sees Natasha as a daughter all of a sudden? What difference does it make to Steve?

You are acting like the Russos made a terrible mistake and TWS didn't work. It did, beautifully imo. To the point that they got to make Civil War (there decision) and were handed the keys to the Avengers.

Also, using your own argument, if both characters work in the same role, is it not up to the directors to decide what direction they want to go in? And if the film succeeds, are they not right?

Because I think Sharon works better for the Cap franchise, especially in the long run.

And sure, it's successful. It's working out great for the Russos' career, and the shareholders. It's working out great for Black Widow, and Black Widow fans, and Spider-Man fans, and Iron-Man fans, and Black Panther fans.

But I don't own stock in Marvel, nor do I care for most of those characters.

No matter how successful it is, if the directors's idea on making a Captain America movie successful is summed up by "other superheroes", maybe they should be doing that and leaving Cap to someone who actually likes Captain America mythos.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Based on what's it matter if Fury sees Natasha as a daughter all of a sudden? What difference does it make to Steve?

Not about Fury. It is about Nat, and how she feels about Fury and the situation as a whole. I know you like to dismiss her like she doesn't matter, but she does to the story being told. Beautiful shorthand.

Because I think Sharon works better for the Cap franchise, especially in the long run.

And sure, it's successful. It's working out great for the Russos' career, and the shareholders. It's working out great for Black Widow, and Black Widow fans, and Spider-Man fans, and Iron-Man fans, and Black Panther fans.

But I don't own stock in Marvel, nor do I care for most of those characters.

No matter how successful it is, if the directors's idea on making a Captain America movie successful is summed up by "other superheroes", maybe they should be doing that and leaving Cap to someone who actually likes Captain America mythos.

Isn't that disingenuous? They clearly like Cap, and honored him with a fantastic flick, and possibly now two.

What is funny is that thinking about it, Sharon clearly changes the dynamic, because she is a love interest for Cap, while Nat clearly is a brother in arms, a bit like Bucky.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Not about Fury. It is about Nat, and how she feels about Fury and the situation as a whole.

Exactly. Nat. Not Steve.

Isn't that disingenuous? They clearly like Cap, and honored him with a fantastic flick, and possibly now two.

They like Cap, maybe. Not his own mythos.

There is two types of Cap fans; Cap fans by way of his own adventures, and Cap fans by way of the Avengers.

Sounds M&M are the first, but the Russos are the latter.

What is funny is that thinking about it, Sharon clearly changes the dynamic, because she is a love interest for Cap, while Nat clearly is a brother in arms, a bit like Bucky.

Or they could have not made her a love interest right away.

 

[Poppy]

It is funny, as you see Nat and Cap's relationship come into play in Civil War, it clearly has a purpose. Also, there is a fundamental difference between Nat and Sharon. One is a love interest, the other isn't. That changes the dynamic quite a bit.

They could have introduced Sharon as a spy first instead of a love interest.

You can be a love interest and still have a purpose behond that.
Shocker I know.
And if they had developped Sharon porperly her relationship with Cap would be even more crucial since she's also on Tony side at first.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

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?

The part where the writers repeatedly express a desire to write her as a prominent character, but she isn't because of the Russos' creative decision.

I mean I know the Russos get to do that, but let's not pretend M&M couldn't do their job without them.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

For how little everyone thinks of Sharon and her potential, it is astounding that people still feel the need to defend the Russos when it is pointed out that they clearly have no love for her.

 

[Voltron]

The directors executed creative control!?

Of course the did. Because a film always belongs to the director, unless the studio interferes to a point of no return. Feige believed in the Russos and their vision, and they delivered what many considered to be the best Marvel film yet. And now people are saying they did it again. Looks like Feige made a great decision.

Personally I prefer the Russos to exercise their creative muscles, then having others making lesser films.

Yes, and that creative control didn't do justice to Cap's mythos. Here I thought this was a Cap movie, and not another Avengers movie. What Jean Grey is to Cyclops is what Sharon is to Cap. And it's also like having Catwoman be in a Superman movie instead of Lois Lane.

Also Sharon Carter is more than a love interest. Cap and her worked together first before dating in the comics. TWS was the perfect movie to have her and Cap working together first becoming friends.

 

[Voltron]

The part where the writers repeatedly express a desire to write her as a prominent character, but she isn't because of the Russos' creative decision.

I mean I know the Russos get to do that, but let's not pretend M&M couldn't do their job without them.

Exactly. M&M have shown to be capable writers and true Cap comics fanboys. I'm sure they were capable of making Sharon work in TWS like they happily planned way back in 2011 or further.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Exactly. Nat. Not Steve.

That Cap trust here where Fury doesn't, also plays into his character. Namely how his nature changes people and brings out the best in them.

They like Cap, maybe. Not his own mythos.

There is two types of Cap fans; Cap fans by way of his own adventures, and Cap fans by way of the Avengers.

Sounds M&M are the first, but the Russos are the latter.

They made The Winter Soldier. So un-Avengers, I am still shocked it exist.

Or they could have not made her a love interest right away.

Doesn't matter. The point is the relationship at the end of the film. You would have been fine with Cap and Sharon never having those feelings? Because it is clearly not there with Cap and Nat, who work on a different level. If Steve and Nat decided to become a couple in the future, it hurts the story of TWS, which is why we will never see that. Because that was never the intention of the relationship.

 

[Poppy]

The part where the writers repeatedly express a desire to write her as a prominent character, but she isn't because of the Russos' creative decision.

I mean I know the Russos get to do that, but let's not pretend M&M couldn't do their job without them.

It's funny how everyone is praising the Russo for making "an amazing movie" but completely ignored the writers

It was a great movie because they wrote it and thinking that they couldn't have fit Sharon properly even though they've been teasing her since the first movie ? I mean,come on .

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The part where the writers repeatedly express a desire to write her as a prominent character, but she isn't because of the Russos' creative decision.

I mean I know the Russos get to do that, but let's not pretend M&M couldn't do their job without them.

Again, how is this indecent? That isn't indecent. That is creative wrestling between the directors (captain of the ship) and the writers (second in command).

You act like they pulled a Juassic World, and fed her to the big water dino or something. That hasn't happened. They put her in play, probably for others to use in the future if they wish.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

For how little everyone thinks of Sharon and her potential, it is astounding that people still feel the need to defend the Russos when it is pointed out that they clearly have no love for her.

Who said they had to have love for her? Seemingly Sharon fans. Because you are accusing them of things they have no done.

Yes, and that creative control didn't do justice to Cap's mythos. Here I thought this was a Cap movie, and not another Avengers movie. What Jean Grey is to Cyclops is what Sharon is to Cap. And it's also like having Catwoman be in a Superman movie instead of Lois Lane.

Also Sharon Carter is more than a love interest. Cap and her worked together first before dating in the comics. TWS was the perfect movie to have her and Cap working together first becoming friends.

Jean Grey is arugably a greater character then Cyclops. There is no comparison with Sharon. She is a lesser figure, even in the Cap books. Lets not get crazy here.

It's funny how everyone is praising the Russo for making "an amazing movie" but completely ignored the writers

It was a great movie because they wrote it and thinking that they couldn't have fit Sharon properly even though they've been teasing her since the first movie ? I mean,come on .

TWS is a better film then TFA, which I love, but also has clear writing problems, that hurt the flow of the film in specific spots. That the Russos showed up and those things have apparently got better, is not really a coincidence. They work better as a team.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Who said they had to have love for her? Seemingly Sharon fans. Because you are accusing them of things they have no done.

And yet, here you are. Denying that the Russos have ever done anything to harm Sharon's prospects.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

They made The Winter Soldier. So un-Avengers, I am still shocked it exist.

The Winter Soldier, the movie about the fall of SHIELD, with arcs devoted to SHIELD agents Black Widow and Nick Fury, with a SHIELD official as the villain. Where the Russos still didn't let Sharon do much.

Doesn't matter. The point is the relationship at the end of the film. You would have been fine with Cap and Sharon never having those feelings? Because it is clearly not there with Cap and Nat, who work on a different level. If Steve and Nat decided to become a couple in the future, it hurts the story of TWS, which is why we will never see that. Because that was never the intention of the relationship.

They never has those feelings and she's a prominent character vs. they never have those feelings and she's a bit character?

I guess so.

I also disagree with the opinion that it would ruin the movie, retroactively or not. It'd be different, is all, and not in a way that matters.

The Russos like to bring how they were platonic and chaste, but they still had them looking at each other tenderly, share heart to hearts and kiss for cliche unconvincing reasons. They were so platonic and chaste that EW ran an article about how they should be a couple. ScarJo also talked about how the door was left open for them.

 

[Voltron]

Jean Grey is arugably a greater character then Cyclops. There is no comparison with Sharon. She is a lesser figure, even in the Cap books. Lets not get crazy here.

Which doesn't change the fact that Jean/Cyclops are important to one another just like how Cap/Sharon are important to one another and are also canon. How can Sharon be a lesser figure in the Cap books when she has been in it since 1966, 50 years! Following your logic about lesser figures, why didn't that stop Peggy who is much more of a lesser figure than Sharon in the comics from playing a prominent role in TFA?

TWS is a better film then TFA, which I love, but also has clear writing problems, that hurt the flow of the film in specific spots. That the Russos showed up and those things have apparently got better, is not really a coincidence. They work better as a team.

This is subjective because I prefer TFA to TWS.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Some more tweets about Sharon, and the best they can do is that her role is better than TWS.

Which is subjective since her role in TWS might as well have been a one shot character.

 

[Voltron]

Great to read that she plays a vital/active role, but disappointing to read she only has 15 mins of screen time.