Civil War Sharon carter A.K.A. Agent 13 - Part 3

[Capsfan]

I think, we will know for sure with the announcement of the IW's full cast. If Sharon is in there, then all this poor job and set up is really on them. If she isn't it would just mean that they knew she wasn't going to come back, so they didn't make an effort and used her only as a plot-device and fanservice.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

I don't see what benefit would they get from such attitude.

They've ended the directors of Avengers 3 and 4.

They're now universally so hyped, you can't say **** against them. This thread and past versions of it is proof. Their following is as devout as Joss Whedon's and Chris Nolan's.

You reminded me, that it's not only on them. Whedon could have had Sharon in AoU too, just like Sam. Hell, he even brought back the tech guy, who refused to launch ships in the same scene with Sharon in TWS! And no one told Whedon that he shouldn't bring up Peggy again. I think it's on Marvel really.

Sharon isn't an Avengers character, it isn't Whedon's responsibility to develop her.

Marvel isn't an amorphous entity, it is a group of people. People like the Russos, Feige, etc.

Is it Feige? Why haven't any other movies played host to other Avengers?

Is it M&M? They've always talked favorably of Sharon...

Who else could it be? Paul Rudd?

And still even Rhodey gets more time. And he is not a LI for Cap, they have no responsibility for him, he is already an established character.

He gets enough time to pad out scenes that needed padding out.

They have no responsibility to do a lot of things like develop Black Widow, or introduce Black Panther, or turn Scott into Giant Man. They do it because they'd rather do that than do Crossbones, Zemo, or Sharon justice. Or to give Sam scenes for his own sake. Or to have Bucky being anything more than a source of strife and put in another fridge when that's done.

Or, you know, to give Steve a character arc.

Hill has already been in the Avengers, why would they need to set her up for AoU? Just mention her being on some mission in another country or something.

Because she didn't really bond with any of the Avengers before, so why would Tony hire her? In CATWS she helped Cap, so her move to help the rest of the Avengers was more palpable.

Words mean very little without proper action. M&M could have written at least better scenes for Sharon.

I think they did, but the Russos have kept whittling away at her to service other parties.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

If she isn't it would just mean that they knew she wasn't going to come back, so they didn't make an effort and used her only as a plot-device and fanservice.

Which is up to them.

 

[Capsfan]

They've ended the directors of Avengers 3 and 4.

They're now universally so hyped, you can't say **** against them. This thread and past versions of it is proof. Their following is as devout as Joss Whedon's and Chris Nolan's.

And this happened because they have made good movies, not because they used only already popular characters (which they didn't).
Where is Whedon now with his love for the popular Black Widow?
And what do you want from fanboys? They can never stand any criticism of their beloved movies. It's not only the Russos' case.

Sharon isn't an Avengers character, it isn't Whedon's responsibility to develop her.

He had Hill and Dr. Cho at the party in the Tower. And he was the one, who made Falcon being an Avenger.

Is it Feige? Why haven't any other movies played host to other Avengers?

Because MCU is a constantly evolving thing? Look at Thor 3, Homecoming.
Crossovers are gradually replacing solo-movies.
Also, Cap1 wasn't really a win at the box-office.
Marvel gets money from it. Not the Russos. That's the point. Their responsibility is to make a good movie, that's all.

Also, very important note: it was the Russos, who made Cap's character popular and interesting. Before them not so many people really cared about him. They deserve this credit.

They have no responsibility to do a lot of things like develop Black Widow, or introduce Black Panther, or turn Scott into Giant Man. They do it because they'd rather do that than do Crossbones, Zemo, or Sharon justice. Or to give Sam scenes for his own sake. Or to have Bucky being anything more than a source of strife and put in another fridge when that's done.

Or, you know, to give Steve a character arc.

I'll give you Black Widow, she is obviously one of their beloved characters, but Black Panther was introduced because of the need to promote him before his solo-movie. It's on Marvel. Ant-Man was there only for the airport fight, very small role, and they made Zemo interesting, gave him a decent time and many people said he was one of the best marvel villains. What's wrong with him? That he is not like in the comics? I'm sorry, but MCU has long gone far from the comic-book's canon. And he was left alive in the end, maybe he will get his iconic look later.

Crossbones. I would say this falls under the general marvel problem with their villains. Remember Strucker? With 1 minute of screentime and killed off-screen? Whedon played him much worse.
Also, iirc, Grillo said recently that he asked to kill his character himself, or something like that.

I think you are a little too biased against the Russos. I'll give you Sharon, they've made a big mistake with her character and this is really a problem. But still the Russos were the ones who made Cap, Sam and Bucky really popular. Sam got his scenes in TWS. Bucky this time around has got TWS!Black Widow-sized role. It's very obvious, that they are very fond of Sebastian Stan and his character, they constantly praise him, talk about Bucky being such an interesting and tragic character even more than Cap himself.
And gosh, Cap had his character arc in both their films. In TWS it was about letting go of his past, finding himself in the future, where he doesn't know who he can trust and staying true to his moral compass, no matter how dirty the world around him is now.
In CW there were many things too, but most importantly it's about him letting go his Captain America alter-ego and finding out who Steve Rogers is by his own.
I suppose it's not very obvious, because he is such a good guy, he can't fight with his demons like Iron Man, he doesn't have much of them anyway. But still we found out his flaws in CW, that he is human, not a saint angel. I think, it's a quite interesting development.

Because she didn't really bond with any of the Avengers before, so why would Tony hire her? In CATWS she helped Cap, so her move to help the rest of the Avengers was more palpable.

Why would Tony need her bonding with anyone? He hired her for a job, not to be anyone's friend. He already knew she is competent from the Avengers.
Really, Marvel usually don't bother to explain much more important things than such a little detail. They didn't even bother to explain properly how team Cap was found in the airport and everyone was cool with it.

I think they did, but the Russos have kept whittling away at her to service other parties.

The Russos ordered them to write her scenes, which were included in the movie, so poorly? Or did they rewrite them on purpose? Or did they cut all the best scenes for some reason? It's not only about time. Look at Ant-Man, Spidey. They have little time, but still what they have became fan-favorite bits. It's that her scenes are boring and uninteresting and make her look bad.

I've already described one example with the kiss scene. With the same amount of time this scene could have been written MUCH better.
Instead of showing her own personality the writers go out of their way to ensure that the audience will mentally slot in Peggy's personality, her time spent building trust in TFA. Sharon offers Cap a from beyond the grave talk from Peggy. She doesn't have anything to say from her own. The time of her dialogs and monologs is spent talking with Steve about Peggy Carter, specifically about how Peggy encouraged Sharon to enlist, bought her a thigh holster, and how Sharon didn't want to force Peggy to keep secrets from Steve. Instead of spending time building up the imagined chemistry between the two they use Peggy Conversation. And after that they blame the audience for suddenly wondering if Steve's become confused as to who he thinks he's kissing – Sharon or her aunt?

In SteveSam dialogs in TWS we can see why they've became friends, what they have in common, the bond between them. About what exactly are the dialogs between Steve and Sharon when they are not talking about Peggy or how Bucky almost killed her? About lies.

Which is up to them.

I mean, as I've said, something happened in pre-production. Initially she had a bigger role, she was in the airport. What happened? I don't know. Maybe VanCamp had got some illness and couldn't have filmed much? Maybe the reason why they cut her role in CW will affect her possible role in IW? Maybe it's not all up to them.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

And this happened because they have made good movies

Others have made good movies without moving on to direct the Avengers. Or being hailed as gods. Literally.

Where is Whedon now with his love for the popular Black Widow?

Whedon was similarly untouchable until he put Black Widow with Banner, at which point fandom turned on him and started calling him out on stuff he did before that never bothered them.

Because MCU is a constantly evolving thing? Look at Thor 3, Homecoming.
Crossovers are gradually replacing solo-movies.

A trend started by TWS.

Also, very important note: it was the Russos, who made Cap's character popular and interesting. Before them not so many people really cared about him. They deserve this credit.

I'll give you them making him more formidable, action-wise. But interesting? They have actually moved away from focusing on him in his own movies. His character arc in TWS is tied to help Widow achieve her's. Even more so in CW with Tony in particular.

but Black Panther was introduced because of the need to promote him before his solo-movie.

They've got marketing campaigns and trailers for that. Not every character needs to appear somewhere else before they get their own movie.

and they made Zemo interesting, gave him a decent time and many people said he was one of the best marvel villains. What's wrong with him? That he is not like in the comics? I'm sorry, but MCU has long gone far from the comic-book's canon. And he was left alive in the end, maybe he will get his iconic look later.

Opinions are actually fairly divided on Zemo. Plus, if a character is unrecognizable aside from the name, is it still the same character?

But still the Russos were the ones who made Cap, Sam and Bucky really popular. Sam got his scenes in TWS. Bucky this time around has got TWS!Black Widow-sized role. It's very obvious, that they are very fond of Sebastian Stan and his character, they constantly praise him, talk about Bucky being such an interesting and tragic character even more than Cap himself.

Bucky and Sam get their share of action scenes and screentime, but character wise they're lighweight. Per the Russos Steve's most important friendship is with Black Widow.

And gosh, Cap had his character arc in both their films. In TWS it was about letting go of his past, finding himself in the future, where he doesn't know who he can trust and staying true to his moral compass, no matter how dirty the world around him is now.

He didn't let go of his past, in CW he's so desperate to save Bucky because Peggy is dead and Bucky is all that is left of his past. The Russos said so.

Whatever moral ambiguity there was in the world evaporates when he finds out that HYDRA (a group of actual Nazis) is around and he fights them.

In CW there were many things too, but most importantly it's about him letting go his Captain America alter-ego and finding out who Steve Rogers is by his own.

We had to be told that Steve in so longer Captain America in interviews.

Why would Tony need her bonding with anyone? He hired her for a job, not to be anyone's friend. He already knew she is competent from the Avengers.

But he didn't trust her. With Cap vouching for her, he might.

It's not only about time. Look at Ant-Man, Spidey. They have little time, but still what they have became fan-favorite bits. It's that her scenes are boring and uninteresting and make her look bad.

With Ant-Man they were building on form his own movie. With Spider-Man, they were backed by the character's pop culture stardom.

With Sharon, there is nothing to build in because they never bothered.

I mean, as I've said, something happened in pre-production. Initially she had a bigger role, she was in the airport. What happened? I don't know. Maybe VanCamp had got some illness and couldn't have filmed much? Maybe the reason why they cut her role in CW will affect her possible role in IW?

During CW's filming she was active on social media, tweeting from visits to Canada and festivals.

 

[Capsfan]

Others have made good movies without moving on to direct the Avengers. Or being hailed as gods. Literally.

TWS and CW are not just good movies. It's one of the best of MCU.
Well, after GoTG2 Gunn will be hailed as god too. Fanboys being fanboys, no surprises.

Whedon was similarly untouchable until he put Black Widow with Banner, at which point fandom turned on him and started calling him out on stuff he did before that never bothered them.

That's the point. How easily gods can be dethroned.

A trend started by TWS.

You are talking like it was the Russos' decision. It wasn't. Black Widow, Hawkeye and Fury were all there in the script from the start. All they did is the expansion of BW's role. And Hawkeye was dropped, no matter that the movie is about SHIELD.

I'll give you them making him more formidable, action-wise. But interesting? They have actually moved away from focusing on him in his own movies. His character arc in TWS is tied to help Widow achieve her's. Even more so in CW with Tony in particular.

Yes, interesting. No one really cared about Cap before them except a bunch of fanboys of comic-books, but it was the Russos who made Cap universally beloved character. Even Whedon failed at that. Before the Russos many people considered Cap as the most boring Avenger along with Hawkeye. I remember that very distinctly. Many people acknowledge it.

Once again, Cap is an internally good character. He doesn't have demons to fight within himself as BW or Stark, so his arcs might be not so obvious.
I'll give you Tony stealing too much attention, but it's just what he always does everywhere. This is the collateral damage of doing Civil War.

They've got marketing campaigns and trailers for that. Not every character needs to appear somewhere else before they get their own movie.

But it's still on Marvel. BP is their first black superhero having solo-movie. They needed more than just marketing campaigns and trailers for that.

Opinions are actually fairly divided on Zemo. Plus, if a character is unrecognizable aside from the name, is it still the same character?

They are rather divided on Zemo's plan.
Okay, you might have a point, but remember Mandarin? That falls again under the same issue with all Marvel's villains. I think the situation with Zemo is MUCH better than with the majority of others.

Bucky and Sam get their share of action scenes and screentime, but character wise they're lighweight. Per the Russos Steve's most important friendship is with Black Widow.

WHAT? I remember them constantly saying about how Bucky is the most important person in Steve's life and how Steve is choosing Bucky over his Avengers family, which obviously includes BW.

Bucky at least has got his character arcs in both of Russos movies. Remember how Marvel treated him in TFA? Less time, than Erskin. Nobody cared about him that time. Development of the character is not only about long dialogs. That's about what we see about him and what he does.
Falcon is treated as a usual sidekick in Marvel. Does Rhodey get it better anywhere? Marvel doesn't care about developing their sidekicks. Even Peggy in TFA. What do we know about her just from that movie? That she understood Cap because once she was treated like him. After that she is all about her feelings for Cap and serving as his boost. Nothing about Peggy herself.

He didn't let go of his past, in CW he's so desperate to save Bucky because Peggy is dead and Bucky is all that is left of his past. The Russos said so.

Whatever moral ambiguity there was in the world evaporates when he finds out that HYDRA (a group of actual Nazis) is around and he fights them.

Well, letting go of your past doesn't mean that you stop caring about people from your past. And I actually remember something from them about how Bucky is like Steve's family how they spent all their lives together, that's why they have such a strong bond and so on.
Russos can say whatever they want, I prefer to judge their movies by what I actually see in their movies. In CW even before Peggy died Steve refused to tell Tony about his parents and actually wasn't very upset about Peggy's death. He is smiling already right after her funeral.

No need to simplify it all to the HYDRA. It was also about what to do with the Winter Soldier, whom to trust and whether modern HYDRA might be even right about freedom.

We had to be told that Steve in so longer Captain America in interviews.

That's the problem of people who don't pay attention to what they are watching. The whole movie was all about Steve becoming fugitive and rogue and about his choices. He dropped his shield, in his last scene he is no longer wearing his uniform. For me that was rather obvious.

But he didn't trust her. With Cap vouching for her, he might.

And still she was checked on a lie detector=))

With Ant-Man they were building on form his own movie. With Spider-Man, they were backed by the character's pop culture stardom.

With Sharon, there is nothing to build in because they never bothered.

Good writing, directing and acting can make memorable even a small role, introducing a character for the first time. Wonder Woman in BvS (even with arguably pretty bad directing), Thranduil in Desolation of Smaug, Luis in Ant-Man, Wong and Christine Palmer in Dr. Strange.

This is the problem really, yes: Russos and M&M just have never bothered. Black Widow having a decent role in CW somehow didn't prevent Wanda having a decent role too. It's not like only one female steals all the attention.

During CW's filming she was active on social media, tweeting from visits to Canada and festivals.

Well, I don't know really. Maybe Evans wasn't there for a full-blown romance. He's a big star now. We just don't really know, what happened. But something definitely happened shortly before filming. They had already even made promo-arts and merch with Sharon being in the airport fight. Something changed at the eleventh hour. As someone has pointed out already here, her name even had pretty high billing at first.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

TWS and CW are not just good movies. It's one of the best of MCU.
Well, after GoTG2 Gunn will be hailed as god too. Fanboys being fanboys, no surprises.

Well he already made a movie and people reacted positively without going overboard. GotG doesn't have Carol Danvers shoehorned in it so I'm guessing that won't change.

Black Widow, Hawkeye and Fury were all there in the script from the start. All they did is the expansion of BW's role. And Hawkeye was dropped, no matter that the movie is about SHIELD.

Them making Black Widow's role large enough to almost equal Cap was all it took.

Also, we don't know that Hawkeye was there from the beginning, or if they added him in themselves before taking him back out.

But it's still on Marvel. BP is their first black superhero having solo-movie. They needed more than just marketing campaigns and trailers for that.

... Do you realize how that sounds?

Also, Blade was released 18 years ago. And in fact set the cbm genre in motion.

[qupte]Well, I don't know really. Maybe Evans wasn't there for a full-blown romance.[/quote]

Did he want them to cut down her role, too? He sounded open to it in initial interviews.

No one really cared about Cap before them except a bunch of fanboys of comic-books, but it was the Russos who made Cap universally beloved character. Even Whedon failed at that. Before the Russos many people considered Cap as the most boring Avenger along with Hawkeye. I remember that very distinctly. Many people acknowledge it.

As I said before, I'll grant that they've improved him action wise. But just because TWS and CW gross more doesn't mean people are there for Steve.

Hell, ever since TWS, the #1 question has been When is Cap gonna die?

Maybe TFA wasn't a smash hit, but those who liked it honestly liked it for Cap.

 

[Capsfan]

Well he already made a movie and people reacted positively without going overboard.

I guess, "going overboard" is a subjective thing.
GotG has a higher rating than TWS or CW on imdb, for example, and people very often consider GotG being their favorite MCU movie.

Them making Black Widow's role large enough to almost equal Cap was all it took.

Also, we don't know that Hawkeye was there from the beginning, or if they added him in themselves before taking him back out.

Really? Bucky's and Sam's decent roles mean nothing?
Once again, look at TFA. Among Cap's supporting characters only Peggy Carter has a decent role. Bucky and HC got pushed into the background.

But still they took him out.

... Do you realize how that sounds?

Also, Blade was released 18 years ago. And in fact set the cbm genre in motion.

Pelmutter didn't want to make BP, because he didn't believe it would make money.

Did he want them to cut down her role, too? He sounded open to it in initial interviews.

To be fair and honest, Sharon's sole function in MCU is to give Cap a love interest. Otherwise, she can't do anything that Black Widow hasn't done already. So if Evans suddenly changed his mind or wasn't happy with what he saw in the script, they might have cut down her role to the simple plot-function with a kiss as a fanservice element.

As I said before, I'll grant that they've improved him action wise. But just because TWS and CW gross more doesn't mean people are there for Steve.

Hell, ever since TWS, the #1 question has been When is Cap gonna die?

Maybe TFA wasn't a smash hit, but those who liked it honestly liked it for Cap.

I don't know, where did you get it from. For example, I read reddit and Cap is more loved there now than even Iron Man himself.
MANY people are saying now that Cap is their favorite character. This is what I see. And I can say for myself that it was the Russos who made Cap one of my favorites, before them I didn't care about him too.

As for the Q "When is Cap gonna die?" - it's stupid fanboys who constantly expect that MCU will follow comic-books. I see many people even saying that Iron Man will die in IW or that they want him to die in IW.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

I guess, "going overboard" is a subjective thing.
GotG has a higher rating than TWS or CW on imdb, for example, and people very often consider GotG being their favorite MCU movie.

But do they call Gunn a "based god"? That's the going overboard I'm referring to.

Once again, look at TFA. Among Cap's supporting characters only Peggy Carter has a decent role. Bucky and HC got pushed into the background.

I thought Bucky got a good role, myself. Coulda been better, coulda spent more time with the two between the rescue and the train mission. But fine.

Who are these people that couldn't remember Bucky? What do they think the rescue mission was about? That was a pretty large sequence, so I'm not sure the fault was in the film.

I thought Erskine got a pretty good role, as did Tommy Lee Jones. The HC aren't really Cap support characters, and at any rate they aptly demonstrate what they needed to, how Steve earns the loyalty of those who follow him. Red Skull was pretty faithful, and placed as an enemy for Cap.
Compare Zemo and Pierce (who isn't even a Cap villain) have enmity with the Avengers as a whole, and Fury, respectively.

And hell, no matter how you judge Bucky's role, he wasn't sidelined for the sake of non-Captain America supporting characters.

Sam gets some action scenes, alright, they're cool, but why is he doing all that? What happened to him counselling veterans?

Bucky was a plot device in both later movies. If he was a woman we'd be calling him a damsel in distress.

To be fair and honest, Sharon's sole function in MCU is to give Cap a love interest. Otherwise, she can't do anything that Black Widow hasn't done already. So if Evans suddenly changed his mind or wasn't happy with what he saw in the script, they might have cut down her role to the simple plot-function with a kiss as a fanservice element.

So it was their choice after all.

I don't know, where did you get it from. For example, I read reddit and Cap is more loved there now than even Iron Man himself.
MANY people are saying now that Cap is their favorite character. This is what I see. And I can say for myself that it was the Russos who made Cap one of my favorites, before them I didn't care about him too.

I want to know what quality of Cap is it that wasn't present in TFA, aside from being surrounded by the Avengers.

As for the Q "When is Cap gonna die?" - it's stupid fanboys who constantly expect that MCU will follow comic-books. I see many people even saying that Iron Man will die in IW or that they want him to die in IW.

I don't see people wondering "When is Scarlet Witch going to kill Vision, Hawkeye, and Ant-Man" or "When is Black Widow going to kill Clint's family"

And people want Stark to die in IW because they're sick of him.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Bringing it back to Sharon, I'm not claiming to have insider knowledge. But with all the information available, there is not a hint of any interest from the Russos in doing her justice.

I'm pleading Occam's razor.

 

[Capsfan]

But do they call Gunn a "based god"? That's the going overboard I'm referring to.

I don't know, man, I haven't seen anyone calling the Russos "based gods" either. Not very interested in fanboys' nonsense.

Who are these people that couldn't remember Bucky? What do they think the rescue mission was about? That was a pretty large sequence, so I'm not sure the fault was in the film.

People from the general audience. I saw many-many examples of such. And I was one of them. Watching TWS for the first time I actually wanted to ask "Who the hell is Bucky?" along with the Winter Soldier.
Rescue mission was about Steve infiltrating the HYDRA's base, Bucky appeared late in the process and didn't do much.
They could have added at least one scene about Zola experimenting on him. And include the deleted scene with battlefield.

Red Skull was pretty faithful, and placed as an enemy for Cap.

Red Skull was awful, ridiculous and clown-like cliche villain. Very one-dimensional. One of the worst in the MCU. My friends laughed so hard at his "Hail Hydra!".

And hell, no matter how you judge Bucky's role, he wasn't sidelined for the sake of non-Captain America supporting characters.

What's so good in this fact if he had a small and rather thankless role nevertheless? At least Falcon is constantly depicted as very cool guy every time. I don't think that if Sharon weren't replaced with BW in TWS, Falcon's or Bucky's roles would have been bigger.

Sam gets some action scenes, alright, they're cool, but why is he doing all that? What happened to him counselling veterans?

Why is Rhodey doing all that in IM's movies? Because he is a friend of Tony Stark. It's the same issue all over the place.

Bucky was a plot device in both later movies. If he was a woman we'd be calling him a damsel in distress.

What's SO BAD in being relevant to the plot? Falcon is completely irrelevant in CW and I think it's much worse. And shoehorned Spidey is even worse than that.
But he is not a woman, so thank god, it's not so formulaic.

So it was their choice after all.

Well, of course, but the main question is WHY?

I want to know what quality of Cap is it that wasn't present in TFA, aside from being surrounded by the Avengers.

I can't name one quality, it's just the whole feeling. Cap from the Russos is much more interesting to watch and he feels like a real person not a cliche moral compass wearing american flag. I don't care if he's with the Avengers or not. I would watch many hours of just a Cap/Sam/Bucky road movie.

I don't see people wondering "When is Scarlet Witch going to kill Vision, Hawkeye, and Ant-Man" or "When is Black Widow going to kill Clint's family"
And people want Stark to die in IW because they're sick of him.

Because it's ridiculous. They talk about how Wanda or Vision will die in IW all the same though.
Oh, yeah, people are so sick of him, that Marvel pays RDJ 50 mil.$ for just a one movie.

Bringing it back to Sharon, I'm not claiming to have insider knowledge. But with all the information available, there is not a hint of any interest from the Russos in doing her justice.

I'm pleading Occam's razor.

As I've said the lack of any interest hadn't prevented them from giving Sam a decent role in both movies.
And I remember them talking about how Bucky, Falcon and Agent 13 are all Cap's supporting characters, so their priority is Cap interacting with them. (And IIRC Evans said something like that too.) And it was around the same time when Civil War was announced. And it fits with the known fact, that at first Sharon had a bigger role. It's not like they've never wanted to do that.

BUT.

As I've said, something happened. It's not only about the lack of interest, it's about them actually sabotaging maybe not Sharon herself but SteveSharon for sure. I don't believe that they didn't understand how bad that kiss was presented and how much harm it did to the audience's acceptance of this relationship. They are too good filmmakers for that. It wasn't hard at all to make it much better: just wait with a kiss till IW, that's all. They don't rush with Wanda and Vision for a good reason, although not having much time for them either. That's why WandaVision was received so much better, no matter that this relationship also have a creepy element of Vision being non-human. You know, no one really complained about SteveSharon in TWS.
But instead of a sensible continuation they ruined so much with that ill-timed kiss. It doesn't seem like the Russos at all, the Russos, who talked about how in TWS they had no time for a romance. They totally understand such things, I'm sure. But this time around they suddenly rushed and made a poorly written relationship with a foundation in lies and deception that they tried to kickstart at his former flame's funeral. It's like they made it weird and creepy on purpose. Very incomprehensible and strange situation, if they actually had any intentions to continue this relationship moving forward.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

What's so good in this fact if he had a small and rather thankless role nevertheless? At least Falcon is constantly depicted as very cool guy every time. I don't think that if Sharon weren't replaced with BW in TWS, Falcon's or Bucky's roles would have been bigger.

The point with, even if Bucky had a small role (I disagree, myself - plus, it is WW2 Bucky) the one with the big role was Peggy, who at least happens to be a Captain America character.

If Sharon wasn't replaced by BW, then Agent 13, a Captain America character, would have had a big role in the movie. And maybe Sam and Bucky would have bigger role, or maybe not. Even if not, though, then the female lead would at least be a Captain America character.

And I'd have been fine, too, if Sam was the co-lead, or if it was Bucky, while Sharon had the same 3 minute role.

Hell, I'd have been undrstanding if if they dropped Sharon and used on Rachel, or Bernie, even though I'm not really into them.

Why is Rhodey doing all that in IM's movies? Because he is a friend of Tony Stark. It's the same issue all over the place.

Rhodey never leaves the Air Force to devote his time to Tony. His job is a big part of the characters' actions in all three Iron Man movies. Even in CW, it informs his own position.

What's SO BAD in being relevant to the plot? Falcon is completely irrelevant in CW and I think it's much worse. And shoehorned Spidey is even worse than that.

Some characters are served by the story, while others serve it.

Bucky was present so that discord could arise around him. He gets framed, he get triggered, he's taken to Siberia where Tony and Steve fight about him.

As I've said the lack of any interest hadn't prevented them from giving Sam a decent role in both movies.

As I said before, Anthony Mackie was cast several months before the Russos were, so perhaps he already had an idea of what his role would be?

Maybe if the Russos were hired earlier than Mackie, we'd have had a lot less Sam.

 

[Capsfan]

The point with, even if Bucky had a small role (I disagree, myself - plus, it is WW2 Bucky) the one with the big role was Peggy, who at least happens to be a Captain America character.

If Sharon wasn't replaced by BW, then Agent 13, a Captain America character, would have had a big role in the movie. And maybe Sam and Bucky would have bigger role, or maybe not. Even if not, though, then the female lead would at least be a Captain America character.
Hell, I'd have been undrstanding if if they dropped Sharon and used on Rachel, or Bernie, even though I'm not really into them.

Why should it be the ultimate goal - to give all the big roles to the Cap's comic-book characters? Who promised you that? MCU is it's own universe. Sorry, comic-book fans, but it's not THAT important. What is really important is to make great movies. And in order to achieve that you need to focus on the right characters. Peggy was a female lead, so yes, she needed to have a decent role to balance things, but in overall perspective her function was meant to be just a light crush of the main protagonist and a setup for Sharon. They overdid her arc with Steve. Instead of "just a crush" they've made one of the greatest love stories in the MCU and that is one of the things which now is screwing up Steve and Sharon.
Bucky, on the other hand, in overall perspective is the most important supporting character in the Cap's trilogy, so his setup should have been BIG. But of course, they hadn't foreseen his importance going forward, so they did what they did.

Cap's friends and love interests should have big roles because they are his introduced most beloved people or are currently moving towards this direction, not because they've huge roles in the comics. If the Russos thought that they couldn't have found better actress than Scarlett, so they gave the female lead role to Nat, I'm not blaming the Russos, because they've made a great movie, what's the matter which name the female lead has? Almost all of the MCU characters are not like their comic-book's counterparts all the same. MCU Sharon is nothing like comic-book's Sharon, it's two very different characters. But in that case they should have given Sharon a decent role too if she was meant to be the main love interest of the protagonist going forward. Or they shouldn't have introduced her at all.

Rhodey never leaves the Air Force to devote his time to Tony. His job is a big part of the characters' actions in all three Iron Man movies. Even in CW, it informs his own position.

Do we know for sure that Sam abandoned his veterans before becoming an Avenger? Looking for Bucky wasn't taking much time, they had no leads. It's not like Sam dedicated all his free time for that. He was just helping his friend because you know. Friends. And Bucky is very dangerous.

Some characters are served by the story, while others serve it.

Bucky was present so that discord could arise around him. He gets framed, he get triggered, he's taken to Siberia where Tony and Steve fight about him.

Well, Bucky had a good arc in CW and a character development. What did you want his arc to be overwise? He overcame his shady and mistrustful behaviors and in the end he started to act like a real hero sacrificing himself. It's even referenced in his clothes in the end: all white. It's a great juxtaposition to his usual black uniform. Do all the characters need to say it all out loud like TChalla did? Tony didn't say anything about his personal changes in the end of the movie, but it's still obvious that he had a negative character arc.

You know, by your logic all Natasha did was also only serving Steve's subplot, Panther's subplot, Tony's subplot and the general plot. We don't even know, what happened with her in the end. And this is the Russos' beloved character.

As I said before, Anthony Mackie was cast several months before the Russos were, so perhaps he already had an idea of what his role would be?

Maybe if the Russos were hired earlier than Mackie, we'd have had a lot less Sam.

Sorry, but I don't get your logic here. If Mackie wasn't Russo's choice but VanCamp was, then why should they favor him instead of her? It makes no sense.
He already had an idea of what his role would be? Even so, it's not for Mackie to decide the ultimate size of his role and VanCamp was casted at first for the female lead role.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

"Overdoing" Peggy wasn't on TFA, but everyone since, who keep bringing it up and treating it as more than it was.

Yeah, things are different in an adaptation, but the point is still to draw major characters and influence from the source. While still telling a good story.

If they don't know how to make a great movie without bringing in outsider characters as a major part of the movie then maybe they were the wrong choice for the Cap films.

Bucky starts and ends the movie exactly the same. The only arguable change occurs in an aftercredits scene.

Sorry, but I don't get your logic here. If Mackie wasn't Russo's choice but VanCamp was, then why should they favor him instead of her? It makes no sense.
He already had an idea of what his role would be? Even so, it's not for Mackie to decide the ultimate size of his role and VanCamp was casted at first for the female lead role.

By an idea of what his role would be, I also mean the size.

Downsizing Mackie's role after his contract was no doubt already signed might have been a breach of contract.

Even if it wasn't, Marvel would be stuck paying him the same amount for much less.

Or he'd walk out, and it might cause negative press for Marvel.

 

[Capsfan]

"Overdoing" Peggy wasn't on TFA, but everyone since, who keep bringing it up and treating it as more than it was.

The problem here is that almost all the other MCU romances are so bad, that StevePeggy compared to them comes out as the best along with TonyPepper. They knew each other for quite a long time, had a great chemistry, Atwell delivered charismatic performance and their tragic story was very sad.

Peggy's popularity originates from TFA. She is one of the best female leads in the MCU. This is the reason she was given her own show. After TFA in the films she basically had only cameos.

Yeah, things are different in an adaptation, but the point is still to draw major characters and influence from the source. While still telling a good story.

I don't see, how this is THE point. Nobody has ever declared this as a rule of the MCU.

If they don't know how to make a great movie without bringing in outsider characters as a major part of the movie then maybe they were the wrong choice for the Cap films.

Like the director of Thor 3, who is making "a road movie" with Hulk and Dr. Strange?
Once again, why is it SO wrong as a concept? This is not a comic-book universe, but its own. Scarlett is one of the best in the industry now and she has a great chemistry with Evans. It's understandable why they chose her over everybody else including VanCamp, with all due respect to the latter. Them reducing VanCamp's role to a small amount is another issue. Two females can have decent roles in the same movie, as was demonstrated in AoU and CW.

Bucky starts and ends the movie exactly the same. The only arguable change occurs in an aftercredits scene.

Really? I guess you just want to have more things you can accuse the Russos of, so you prefer to interpret all of it in the certain way.
Bucky starts as someone, who, by his own confession, knew it all along that he's very dangerous due to the triggers, but still he was in hiding even from Steve. He wasn't ready to sacrifice his freedom for the sake of other people, he didn't trust Steve, he didn't care throwing a peaceful driver off a motorcycle, he almost killed one of the task force.

By your logic, Tony, Steve and Natasha also start and end the movie exactly the same people.

Downsizing Mackie's role after his contract was no doubt already signed might have been a breach of contract.

Even if it wasn't, Marvel would be stuck paying him the same amount for much less.

Or he'd walk out, and it might cause negative press for Marvel.

Why would they sign Mackie so early for the certain amount of role, when they know how much script is constantly changing?
Then why didn't VanCamp walk out after being reduced from the female lead role? Really, VanCamp is more known actress, than Mackie was before TWS. And maybe even now.
She was supposed to have a decent role in CW but was reduced again. They even moved down her already negotiated billing. Why your logic applies only to Mackie?

 

[Rote]

EVC has enough in this movie, she has much more dialogs and lines than Olsen. The only reason Wanda has more screentime is the action scenes.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Peggy's popularity originates from TFA. She is one of the best female leads in the MCU. This is the reason she was given her own show. After TFA in the films she basically had only cameos.

The problem was that each subsequent movie overemphasized Peggy well beyond the point they needed to, so she's always on his mind apparently, to the point of him dreaming about her.

You can see it in how some have described Steve as dating Sharon after having dated her aunt. Even though he's never dated her aunt.

I don't see, how this is THE point. Nobody has ever declared this as a rule of the MCU.

It isn't a rule of the MCU, it is a rule of all adaptations.

Scarlett is one of the best in the industry now and she has a great chemistry with Evans. It's understandable why they chose her over everybody else

I understand she's famous, and I understand Whedon had done plenty of the work on BW before TWS.

I also understand why Marvel hasn't made a female lead movie so far and why Spider-Man was put into this movie. There's a difference between understanding something and appreciating it.

Two females can have decent roles in the same movie, as was demonstrated in AoU and CW.

Only if both are Avengers.

Why would they sign Mackie so early for the certain amount of role, when they know how much script is constantly changing?
Then why didn't VanCamp walk out after being reduced from the female lead role? Really, VanCamp is more known actress, than Mackie was before TWS. And maybe even now.
She was supposed to have a decent role in CW but was reduced again. They even moved down her already negotiated billing. Why your logic applies only to Mackie?

I think she was previously much bigger in the script, due to M&M's comments and the subject matter, and early casting news. And even the page you linked.

By the point she was hired (last month before shooting) I don't think Sharon was the female lead anymore.

Also I wouldn't call EVC more famous than Mackie at all.

 

[Capsfan]

The problem was that each subsequent movie overemphasized Peggy well beyond the point they needed to

How did Avengers, AoU or TWS emphasize Peggy in any way? She was barely there.

so she's always on his mind apparently, to the point of him dreaming about her.

If you're referring to Steve's nightmare, induced by Scarlet Witch, then I should note: Whedon confirmed that Steve's fear wasn't about loosing Peggy, it was about his inability to live without a war.
It's not about Peggy in AoU, it's about Sharon being totally absent at the Stark's party and in Steve's thoughts. That's why I've said that it's not only on the Russos.

You can see it in how some have described Steve as dating Sharon after having dated her aunt. Even though he's never dated her aunt.

This is the problem: he had never dated Peggy, so he doesn't know how it feels like, he lost his chance forever, so he might try to find a close replacement. Not intentionally even, but subconsciously.

It would have been a lot easier if he had dated Peggy, but for some reason broke up with her. Instead of it, we know that Steve was in love with Peggy, knowing her for quite a long time. Compare it with his relationship with Sharon so far. This is why I blame the writers, not only the Russos. He doesn't know her at all as a person! He hasn't even done any attempts to just be friends with her before Peggy's funeral! There is only some physical attraction from Steve and this is TOO shallow and superficial to mean anything. Even the girl, he asked out in TWS wasn't genuine Sharon, she was a nurse who worked in the infection disease ward like his mother.
It wouldn’t have taken anything to write them as being in touch between TWS and CW. Instead of the line "Where are you working now?" say "So you enjoy living in Berlin?" This is all it takes. Like when Wanda said "Vision, we've talked about this". We immediately know after this that they are close already and that Vision constantly phase into her bedroom.
So, I would say, it's not Peggy, it's a very bad writing of Steve and Sharon contraposed to Steve and Peggy in TFA being one of the best romances in the MCU.

It isn't a rule of the MCU, it is a rule of all adaptations.

Like when Peter Jackson invented Tauriel and brought back Legolas from the LotR, who had never been in the Hobbit book?
It's not even a strict rule of books' adaptations, comic-books' ones have never been respected anywhere as something requiring such a rule. Look at what they've done with Civil War.

I understand she's famous, and I understand Whedon had done plenty of the work on BW before TWS.

It's not just about her being famous. In this case she is famous because she is THAT good. And her character is an interesting and reach one, very conflicted.

Only if both are Avengers.

Pepper and Natasha in IM2, for example.

I think she was previously much bigger in the script, due to M&M's comments and the subject matter, and early casting news. And even the page you linked.

By the point she was hired (last month before shooting) I don't think Sharon was the female lead anymore.

Casting is not a quick process at all, you know.
I believe Deadline, it's a legit source. It has actual insiders in production, which tell the info producers want to be published specifically. If VanCamp was casted for a small role from the start, they wouldn't have written anything about her casting for a female lead. Just some girl in an undisclosed role.

And it's not even that important, because she was supposed to have a big role in Cap 3 after that anyway.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

If you're referring to Steve's nightmare, induced by Scarlet Witch, then I should note: Whedon confirmed that Steve's fear wasn't about loosing Peggy, it was about his inability to live without a war.

Unfortunately that is not how people saw it.

As for Whedon, again, that wasn't really his place, or job. Though considering Wanda and Natasha's trajectory, maybe they needed him to.

Her being there would have required revealing her identity. Which for some reason wasn't done in TWS.

Like when Peter Jackson invented Tauriel and brought back Legolas from the LotR, who had never been in the Hobbit book?

You may have me at a disadvantage as I never read the Hobbit and didn't see the movies more than once.

However,

Wasn't Tauriel invented because the book had no women? That's not a problem Cap books have.

Were any major characters original to the book shortchanged?

Weren't the additions the result of them wanting to stretch a story enough for one movie into three?

Don't plenty of people dislike Jackson's additions?

It's not even a strict rule of books' adaptations, comic-books' ones have never been respected anywhere as something requiring such a rule. Look at what they've done with Civil War.

I don't know, man. Say what you want about The Incredible Hulk, at least the characters in it are from the books.

Only comic adaptation liberally borrowing form another mythos at the expense of its own that comes to mind is Arrow.

It's not just about her being famous. In this case she is famous because she is THAT good.

I beg to disagree.

I wouldn't say she's a terrible actress, not at all, but she's Streep/Redgrave, either.

Pepper and Natasha in IM2, for example.

Not made by the Russos.

 

[Capsfan]

EVC has enough in this movie, she has much more dialogs and lines than Olsen. The only reason Wanda has more screentime is the action scenes.

The problem here is, as I've said before, that the writing for Sharon was pretty bad. Olsen has got it better, even if a less amount.

Unfortunately that is not how people saw it.

Personally I saw many people understanding it right. My friend got it from the start. The whole half of it was about war in the dance hall, not about Peggy.
Too bad that so many people don't pay attention to what they are watching. Although Steve's nightmare was rather ambiguous and maybe Whedon should be blamed for this, in the context of the whole movie it's obvious, that Steve's arc was about whether Ultron is right about him not being able to live without a war. It was pronounced clearly. And people forget that it's supposed to be his worst fear, NIGHTMARE, not his regrets or some kind of dream to distract him or make him nostalgic. If I were Steve, seeing my long-lost love would be sad, sure, but it would also be pretty awesome. These nightmares were all about Avengers' dark sides, what dark side or guilt can Steve have about loosing Peggy? Yeah, it was very sad, but he'd only lost her because he was acting like a true hero.

As for Whedon, again, that wasn't really his place, or job. Though considering Wanda and Natasha's trajectory, maybe they needed him to.

Her being there would have required revealing her identity. Which for some reason wasn't done in TWS.

But WHY? As she said in CW, she hadn't told anyone before, that she is related to Peggy. Nat told Steve to call her at the end of TWS. Steve's line to Bruce Banner: "Look, as maybe the world's leading authority on 'waiting too long', don't." It's more implausible that they haven't been on a date yet.

Were any major characters original to the book shortchanged?

Weren't the additions the result of them wanting to stretch a story enough for one movie into three?

Don't plenty of people dislike Jackson's additions?

The problem is that Hobbit is a very childish tale. It's hard to say, who is a major character aside from Bilbo. But at least dwarfs are there, while Legolas and Tauriel are totally absent.

Personally, I like Jackson's version much more than original book, which is very childish, flat and boring. But of course many Tolkien's fans have been mad at PJ ever since LotR.

I don't know, man. Say what you want about The Incredible Hulk, at least the characters in it are from the books.

So what? Did it save TIH from being a very bad movie? After that crap what's the point in its similarity to comic-books?

I beg to disagree.

I wouldn't say she's a terrible actress, not at all, but she's Streep/Redgrave, either.

It's not only about her acting chops, but her looks, her charisma, her voice, her sexiness, self-confidence. And of course, her long friendship with Evans and therefore a great chemistry with him. It's near to impossible to find someone like her in this case. Add to this that the Russos find her character being one of the most interesting ones. With all due respect, Sharon doesn't have a rich past and her own demons to explore. She would have been just another love interest in TWS, which we have already seen so many times in many other films. I don't think that the Russos should be blamed for giving Widow a time to explore her character and be her own person. She is a woman, women so rarely get their own arcs. Even Pepper and Peggy were all about serving their men. What the Russos have done was so refreshing to see in a comic-book movie: female co-lead which isn't a love-interest and is not intended to be one in the future.
So they should be blamed not for giving Nat a big role, but for not giving Sharon a decent one as well.

Not made by the Russos.

The Russos have only made two movies so far. And if Feige really wanted, he would have told them to keep Sharon's role being decent at least in CW. And he would have told Whedon to mention Sharon somehow, like they mentioned Bucky. It's on Marvel, not on Russos exclusively.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

The problem is that Hobbit is a very childish tale. It's hard to say, who is a major character aside from Bilbo. But at least dwarfs are there, while Legolas and Tauriel are totally absent.

And in the movie, the dwarves are at the forefront of the story.

It's not only about her acting chops, but her looks, her charisma, her voice, her sexiness, self-confidence. And of course, her long friendship with Evans and therefore a great chemistry with him. It's near to impossible to find someone like her in this case.

It really, really, really isn't.

The overwhelming majority of actors have good looks and/or are "sexy" (which, if you're trying to challenge convention, why do you even need?). And Evans has demonstrated chemistry with a bunch of actors who he wasn't friends with beforehand.

It isn't anywhere near impossible. It isn't even that difficult.

Add to this that the Russos find her character being one of the most interesting ones.

Maybe they should have directed the Black Widow movie instead, then.

With all due respect, Sharon doesn't have a rich past and her own demons to explore.

With all due respect, neither does Natasha.

What influential storyline has she lead? What iconic archvilain has she squared off against? What part of this past was used in TWS?

She would have been just another love interest in TWS, which we have already seen so many times in many other films.

She'd have been the result of what effort they put into her character.

And she ended up being a much less developed love interest in CW.

I don't think that the Russos should be blamed for giving Widow a time to explore her character and be her own person.

Considering that they prioritized that over everything else, including Cap's own arc and other relationships, yeah, they should.

She is a woman, women so rarely get their own arcs. Even Pepper and Peggy were all about serving their men. What the Russos have done was so refreshing to see in a comic-book movie: female co-lead which isn't a love-interest and is not intended to be one in the future.

Sharon is a woman, too. But apparently, not the specifically "right" woman.

They've also spoken many times about possibly putting her with Steve, or more often with Bucky.

Also, they still felt obliged to include them kissing, for tired, old nonsensical reasons.

The Russos have only made two movies so far. And if Feige really wanted, he would have told them to keep Sharon's role being decent at least in CW. And he would have told Whedon to mention Sharon somehow, like they mentioned Bucky. It's on Marvel, not on Russos exclusively.

So it is everyone's fault for not micromanaging them?

People keep praising the Russos for what they like, so the blame should be theirs when something fails.

 

[Capsfan]

And in the movie, the dwarves are at the forefront of the story.

And near 70% of them are just extras with no personality or development whatsoever.

The overwhelming majority of actors have good looks and/or are "sexy" (which, if you're trying to challenge convention, why do you even need?). And Evans has demonstrated chemistry with a bunch of actors who he wasn't friends with beforehand.

It isn't anywhere near impossible. It isn't even that difficult.

Well, then I agree to disagree.
I can totally see, how it might have been difficult for the Russos to find an actress, which would have been a match for Scarlett and her BW. Evans has the best chemistry with her and she is at the top of the industry not for nothing.

Maybe they should have directed the Black Widow movie instead, then.

The movie which still isn't happening in any foreseeable future.

With all due respect, neither does Natasha.

What influential storyline has she lead? What iconic archvilain has she squared off against? What part of this past was used in TWS?

BW has a very traumatic and dark past, she has something interesting to explore, while Sharon is... just a love interest like Peggy before her.

She'd have been the result of what effort they put into her character.

And she ended up being a much less developed love interest in CW.

It's hard to do it, when you don't have much to chew on from the start. And yes, as I've said multiple times, I agree with you, they definitely should have spent much more time on her, but it's not like BW's development is the sole reason Sharon lacks time in MCU. Nobody is saying that Bucky having much screentime in CW stole something from Falcon. Once again, look at Wanda. BW's lead role hasn't prevented her to have a decent amount of time.
It's really not only on the Russos. That's the point. Whedon wanted and he brought back even the guy who refused to launch helicarriers in TWS. And now Black Panther's movie could've been a good opportunity to give Sharon a bit of much needed development, because she works/worked for CIA or Ross. But once again she is not there in the announced cast. Only the Russos are the ones, who bring her back.

Considering that they prioritized that over everything else, including Cap's own arc and other relationships, yeah, they should.

And Cap's relationship with Bucky is still far more popular.
I completely disagree. We have already discussed it.

They've also spoken many times about possibly putting her with Steve, or more often with Bucky.

They have said so themselves, that they considered that option and decided to avoid cliche: "We didn't want her to be there just to be a love interest". Also, they've said that there wasn't enough time in TWS for that.
As for the kiss, it meant nothing really and was just an excuse to start conversation about Cap's romantic life.

So it is everyone's fault for not micromanaging them?

People keep praising the Russos for what they like, so the blame should be theirs when something fails.

I don't know, man, personally I'm not the one who is constantly praising the Russos for everything and I've already said that they are to blame as well. But it's not like it's ALL on them alone.
As, I've said, if Fiege wanted, Sharon would have had a much bigger role, regardless of the Russos. If Fiege or someone else in charge of the MCU wanted, Sharon would have been in Black Panther helping E.Ross. The Russos obviously don't care for Maria Hill a one bit, but she still was in TWS.
We just don't know what happened, initially she WAS in the airport battle, she had a bigger role. Maybe it was Fiege himself who asked the Russos to exclude her from there, we just really don't have enough information to make any foregone conclusions.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

BW has a very traumatic and dark past, she has something interesting to explore, while Sharon is... just a love interest like Peggy before her.

Which never really figures into the story.

And I don't know man, just because she used to go around burning down children's hospitals doesn't really make her so unrelentingly interesting to many. It just makes me wonder how in hell are Steve and Clint friends with her.

I can totally see, how it might have been difficult for the Russos to find an actress, which would have been a match for Scarlett and her BW. Evans has the best chemistry with her and she is at the top of the industry not for nothing.

Well, then perhaps somebody else could. Perhaps somebody else would have been willing to take on a challenge.

The movie which still isn't happening in any foreseeable future.

So is that what the Captain America sequel should have hinged on? Black Widow's fate?

Nobody is saying that Bucky having much screentime in CW stole something from Falcon.

Arguably it did. Bucky happens to be a Captain America character, though, unlike Tony, BW, Black Panther, etc.

Once again, look at Wanda. BW's lead role hasn't prevented her to have a decent amount of time.

Wanda is a very different character from BW.

It's really not only on the Russos. That's the point. Whedon wanted and he brought back even the guy who refused to launch helicarriers in TWS. And now Black Panther's movie could've been a good opportunity to give Sharon a bit of much needed development, because she works/worked for CIA or Ross. But once again she is not there in the announced cast.

Sharon isn't a Black Panther character, while ERoss is. Plus, CW implies Sharon's days are numbered.

People say that the Russos created the best movies of the MCU, don't they? They don't say M&M did it, or that Feige did it. They don't say that some nebulous figure working at Marvel was responsible with it. They credit the Russos.

So if something if there is a fault, the blame should be theirs, before all else.

 

[Capsfan]

Which never really figures into the story.

And I don't know man, just because she used to go around burning down children's hospitals doesn't really make her so unrelentingly interesting to many. It just makes me wonder how in hell are Steve and Clint friends with her.

A large part of BW's motivations and actions comes from her past. She is like the WS, but she wasn't brainwashed to do all those things. At least she has her own interesting past. What does Sharon have, which BW doesn't?

Steve believes in people, he believes they deserve a chance for redemption. Wanda unleashed the Hulk on the living town, helped Ultron, but was forgiven too.

Well, then perhaps somebody else could. Perhaps somebody else would have been willing to take on a challenge.

And perhaps not. Many directors in the MCU have made much worse films, than the Russos. TWS and CW are among the best.

So is that what the Captain America sequel should have hinged on? Black Widow's fate?

But it didn't. Oh, please, BW didn't hijack all the movie as you like to see it. She just took the female lead role, that's all. All the others remained on their places. There was still much space for Fury, Falcon, Bucky, Hill, heck, even Rumlow has got much more time, than Sharon. I don't think that the Russos cared very much about CB either.

Arguably it did. Bucky happens to be a Captain America character, though, unlike Tony, BW, Black Panther, etc.

I was talking about the logistic of the time managment in the movie, not about it being truthful to Cap's comics. It's not like there is so much space for female characters and so much space for male ones. Women like men are not interchangeable.

Wanda is a very different character from BW.

Yeah, this is where the problem is, I think. BW is like Sharon but with richer past to explore and top-notch actress. They can't have Sharon as a second BW, right? It would have been too repetitive. I think it's part of the reason, they gave her role to BW: why would they try to make second-rate BW if they already have the original? And this is why they've changed Sharon's character so much and basically she's not the Sharon from the comics at all. So I don't even know, why her fans are so mad that some girl with the surname "Carter" doesn't have much time so far. Sharon Carter from the comics doesn't exist in the MCU, it's a very different character. Fans should be mad, that they gave Cap a love interest with such a minor role. That's the problem with the films. No one promised you that MCU will be truthful to their comics. Bucky is not the same character as his comics' counterpart too. He has shared past with Steve more like Arnie Roth, he had never been Cap's child side-kick, he doesn't have a past romance with BW. One could argue, that BW has lost a significant character from her mythos as well.

Sharon isn't a Black Panther character, while ERoss is. Plus, CW implies Sharon's days are numbered.

The problem with CW is that it doesn't care to show what happened with Sharon. She might be arrested or she might be forgiven due to apprehending of Zemo as partly a result of her actions. Panther is supposed to have some influence on E.Ross. They really have freedom, where to put her after CW. It was an opportunity. Natasha was in IM2, while she's not an IM's character either. Falcon and Peggy were in Ant-Man. Hulk will be in Thor. Hill was in TWS. Happy will be in Spider-Man. If it's okay to have BP and BW in Cap's movies, it's okay to have Cap's characters in other solo-films too.

People say that the Russos created the best movies of the MCU, don't they? They don't say M&M did it, or that Feige did it. They don't say that some nebulous figure working at Marvel was responsible with it. They credit the Russos.

People praise Feige A LOT. He is like a god of the MCU and so on. But M&M hadn't really shown anything great before the Russos. Before the Russos they wrote a mediocre script for Cap1 and didn't manage to fix poor Thor2 script as well. What else they've got... Narnia? The first movie was just decent, but others were awful, so nothing great there too really.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Steve believes in people, he believes they deserve a chance for redemption. Wanda unleashed the Hulk on the living town, helped Ultron, but was forgiven too.

Wanda willingly turned against Ultron and didn't burn down children's hospitals.

I feel like setting fire to children's hospitals would be a tough pill to swallow.

Yeah, this is where the problem is, I think. BW is like Sharon but with richer past to explore and top-notch actress. They can't have Sharon as a second BW, right? It would have been too repetitive. I think it's part of the reason, they gave her role to BW: why would they try to make second-rate BW if they already have the original?

I see you've come around to blaming it on the actress hired by the Russos not being good enough for the Russos.

Because "the second rate BW" would be tied to the franchise. They'd be free to pair her up with Cap with adequate development, and have free reign with plots they could with her.

With BW, there's a limit to what they can, since she's an Avenger.

Also, one might describe Mockingbird as a "second rate BW" and yet plenty wanted her and still want her in the movie. I suppose she's also a "second rate Melinda May", too, who is a "second rate BW" herself.

So I don't even know, why her fans are so mad that some girl with the surname "Carter" doesn't have much time so far.

Her fans are mad that they were lead on by giving the girl the name "Sharon Carter".

The problem with CW is that it doesn't care to show what happened with Sharon. She might be arrested or she might be forgiven due to apprehending of Zemo as partly a result of her actions. Panther is supposed to have some influence on E.Ross. They really have freedom, where to put her after CW.

I doubt they ever bother to address it. So I'm gonna assume that during the events of IW that while Steve and Natasha are having their heart to heart, that Sharon is rotting in a prison cell.

It was an opportunity. Natasha was in IM2, while she's not an IM's character either.

She actually debuted as an Iron Man villain, and later was his love interest.

People praise Fiege A LOT. He is like a god of the MCU and so on. But M&M hadn't really shown anything great before the Russos. Before the Russos they wrote a mediocre script for Cap1 and didn't manage to fix poor Thor2 script as well. What else they've got... Narnia? The first movie was just decent, but others were awful, so nothing great there too really.

As opposed to Welcome to Collinwood and You, Me and Dupree?