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

[Capsfan]

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.

Maybe this is why this scene was deleted, IIRC? Deleted scenes are not canon.

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

No, as I've said before Scarlett is one the most entertaining actresses in the industry. I'm not saying anything about VanCamp, I just haven't seen her much to make any foregone conclusions. (I've only seen her crazy and pretty large fanbase on twitter, some of her fans are even threatening to find and kill the Russos if she isn't in IW. And you were saying something about Mackie being more popular, his fans are not that loud, even though he is still not confirmed for IW either.) I've said that it's pretty hard to find someone like Scarlett, having the same amount off-the-charts chemistry with Evans. You know, even Olsen, the second current female-avenger, is no match for her.

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.

Limits? It's more like she has far less limits, since she's an Avenger, not the other way around. Sharon is just a love interest and they are obligated to make her a love interest in the end. They couldn't have treated her as they treated BW in TWS being just a female friend, because Sharon's ultimate goal is to be a love interest, even if not in TWS but definitely going forward.

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.

TBH, I don't watch AoS and I don't care much about it, it's not like the greatest show out there.

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

Then why Bucky's fans are not mad they were lead on by giving the boy the name "Bucky Barnes"? Why IM's fans are not mad that Pepper is not married Happy? Why Dr. Strange fans are not mad for Dr. Palmer?

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.

At least wait until IW's cast announcement. I doubt they gave Cap a love interest just for a one movie, although I've to admit, that this LI was so badly executed that at this point I'd like them to leave Steve alone on screen. But it's not like they are gonna listen to me. Also, there is still a big chance of Cap 4 happening, Evans said that he is ready to be there as long as Marvel wants him. This is why I'm so sad that they've screwed up the very foundation of Steve/Sharon.

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

Okay, I don't have such a good knowledge of comic-books, but you know, it was just one of many examples. As I've said, look at Happy being in SM, Falcon being in AM, it's not a problem for the MCU at this point.

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

We all start with something, but Community was actually pretty great and in the MCU specifically they have made only two good movies, while M&M's MCU record before the Russos isn't actually so great. Also, yes, obviously Feige helped a lot, credit to him too. But at the same time Feige didn't manage to salvage many bad MCU flicks either.

 

[MarvelMayhem]

Not a huge Sharon fan but there seems to be a following. I'm unsure why she has not been seen on Agents of Shield, that seems like the logical place for her. Tired of the BW blaming. BW has grown on me throughout the films. I liked her in the TWS and I absolutely love that Evans and her have so much chemistry but on a platonic level. Sharon feels like nothing but a love interest in the MCU, maybe in Agents she will feel dimensional for her fanbase.

 

[Zant]

Sharon - Cap stuff may the forced and may only exist to dash the hopes of Cap-Bucky shippers, but its still better than the Nat-Bruce stuff.

Also it seems like Marvel actually listens to fans on what they dislike and get rid of it. Unpopular stuff like Jane-Thor is finished. I expect the Nat-Bruce stuff to follow. I wonder if the Cap-Sharon stuff will survive.

 

[Capsfan]

Sharon - Cap stuff may the forced and may only exist to dash the hopes of Cap-Bucky shippers, but its still better than the Nat-Bruce stuff.

Also it seems like Marvel actually listens to fans on what they dislike and get rid of it. Unpopular stuff like Jane-Thor is finished. I expect the Nat-Bruce stuff to follow. I wonder if the Cap-Sharon stuff will survive.

NatBruce is worse for the mere reason or having much more time. But surprisingly, I remember critics loving it more, than Steve/Sharon. At least there was a bunch of articles actually praising BW/Hulk. When it comes to SS it's either nothing or bashing for very different reasons, including the proximity to Peggy's funeral and even, yes, accusations of being homophobic of Steve/Bucky shippers.

But I don't know about marvel listening to fans. Portman didn't want to continue herself and we still don't know if they are gonna drop BruceNat. But it was Whedon's idea, while SteveSharon comes from the Russos. I don't think they expected it to be popular a one bit in the first place. They knew that many people would be against it, hence Sharon was initially in the airport even though she isn't supposed to have a proper fighting skills, hence the reshot scene after the funeral, hence the attempt to salvage the kiss with Sam and Bucky reactions, because without it that scene was entirely superfluous and falls flat. So I bet the Russos knew all along how bad they were playing SS. But they still forced it in there.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Maybe this is why this scene was deleted, IIRC? Deleted scenes are not canon.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Call it Schroidinger's canon.

The scene implying the same in The Avenger defintely wasn't deleted.

No, as I've said before Scarlett is one the most entertaining actresses in the industry. I'm not saying anything about VanCamp, I just haven't seen her much to make any foregone conclusions. (I've only seen her crazy and pretty large fanbase on twitter, some of her fans are even threatening to find and kill the Russos if she isn't in IW. And you were saying something about Mackie being more popular, his fans are not that loud, even though he is still not confirmed for IW either.) I've said that it's pretty hard to find someone like Scarlett, having the same amount off-the-charts chemistry with Evans. You know, even Olsen, the second current female-avenger, is no match for her.

All this claims of Scarjo being top of the game, off the charts, etc, is extremely debatable. Just off the top of my head, I think Jennifer Lawrence has much more success.

Let us assume that is true, just because Evans and Scarjo have maximum peak ultra supercaliflageristic chemistry doesn't mean Evans can't have enough chemistry with someone else.

But poor Chris Evans, devoid of sufficient chemistry with anyone but Scarjo. It is all downhill for him from here.

Then why Bucky's fans are not mad they were lead on by giving the boy the name "Bucky Barnes"?

Was Bucky not Steve's best friend during WWII? Did he not fight alongside him? Was he not turned into a brainwashed assassin?

There's a difference between reworking a character for adaptation and and the treatment Sharon got.

Also, there is still a big chance of Cap 4 happening, Evans said that he is ready to be there as long as Marvel wants him. This is why I'm so sad that they've screwed up the very foundation of Steve/Sharon.

Why would Cap 4 be anymore accommodating to Sharon, though? Considering Cap3's subject matter, I doubt they can up the ante anyway. So I doubt it happens at all.

We all start with something, but Community was actually pretty great

Community, the show created and ran by Dan Harmon. Perhaps you'll say they're responsible for Arrested Development, too?

Limits? It's more like she has far less limits, since she's an Avenger, not the other way around.

Exactly, she's an Avenger. She's constrained in what can happen with her in order to remain an Avenger.

Sharon has less limits to what can happen to her because she's not tied to anything else.

She could become a love interest. She could sacrifice herself. Hell, she could turn evil.

No one doubted BW being a good guy in TWS. And BW ending up helping Steve in CW was so painfully obvious it was insulting.

Sharon is just a love interest and they are obligated to make her a love interest in the end. They couldn't have treated her as they treated BW in TWS being just a female friend, because Sharon's ultimate goal is to be a love interest, even if not in TWS but definitely going forward.

Actually a lot of folks, most, even, consider their romantic partner a friend. Some people even start out as friends before dating.

In fact, Steve and Natasha being "platonic friends" didn't stop loads of people from wanting the two to pair up, including Mr. Evans, Entertainment Weekly, and a huge and loud online following that took to harassing EVC.

 

[Capsfan]

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Call it Schroidinger's canon.

The scene implying the same in The Avenger defintely wasn't deleted.

Can't remember what line in the Avengers you are referring to, but I've got you point, okay, even though I can't really agree with you. I don't consider that as some sort of competition like Wanda being more innocent and forgivable because she "just" helped Ultron and "just" unleashed the Hulk on the living town, which also obviously included children, you know.
I don't know, man, agree to disagree, I suppose.

All this claims of Scarjo being top of the game, off the charts, etc, is extremely debatable. Just off the top of my head, I think Jennifer Lawrence has much more success.

Let us assume that is true, just because Evans and Scarjo have maximum peak ultra supercaliflageristic chemistry doesn't mean Evans can't have enough chemistry with someone else.

But poor Chris Evans, devoid of sufficient chemistry with anyone but Scarjo. It is all downhill for him from here.

I don't think that Lawrence would have agreed to play the role of Sharon Carter, just a Cap's love interest. That's the point, that's what I'm talking about. It's like when Emily Blunt refused to play Peggy Carter, IIRC.

Evans having enough chemistry with someone else isn't the point. The point is that the Russos wanted to make the best movie they could, so, I suppose, they chose the best available female co-lead for Evans they managed to get. It's not about Evans lacking chemistry with anyone else, it's about the best possible dynamic between lead characters and actors.

Was Bucky not Steve's best friend during WWII? Did he not fight alongside him? Was he not turned into a brainwashed assassin?

There's a difference between reworking a character for adaptation and and the treatment Sharon got.

Yes, I've already said multiple times, that I agree about very poor treatment of Sharon as Cap's LI. But in this case I was talking about MCU totally changing comics' characters. Yes, Bucky's narrative bits are still there (just like Sharon's: being related to Peggy, being Cap's love interest, being agent of SHIELD), but essentially he is different person in the MCU. Comic-books' Bucky doesn't exist in the MCU. So is it all about names and narratives only? Heck, even Tony Stark himself, the flagship, is not the same person in the MCU, what are we even talking about? Why people put so much importance into names?

Why would Cap 4 be anymore accommodating to Sharon, though? Considering Cap3's subject matter, I doubt they can up the ante anyway. So I doubt it happens at all.

Why not? Civil War was a single event, I very much doubt they would repeat that in any foreseeable future, especially with a new director. There were already talks about IM4, for now RDJ preferred to make CW instead, but that means they actually consider such things and Evans is much younger, than RDJ.

Community, the show created and ran by Dan Harmon. Perhaps you'll say they're responsible for Arrested Development, too?

Well, Community was enough for Feige to hire the Russos. It was actually the very reason he did that.

Exactly, she's an Avenger. She's constrained in what can happen with her in order to remain an Avenger.

Sharon has less limits to what can happen to her because she's not tied to anything else.

She could become a love interest. She could sacrifice herself. Hell, she could turn evil.

No one doubted BW being a good guy in TWS. And BW ending up helping Steve in CW was so painfully obvious it was insulting.

Why she needs to remain an Avenger? Or, at least, why would the general audience know, that she is supposed to remain an Avenger? Why couldn't she eventually become evil like Mordo in Dr. Strange?
YOU know it, because you're a comic-books' fan. But you also know, who Agent 13 is supposed to be. You know, that she will definitely become a love interest in the future. And GA would expect it to be so even without much knowledge of her origin. And anyway, it's actually very rare when female lead would suddenly turn out to be evil or dead. It's Marvel, nobody really believes in permanent deaths anymore. So I don't see how Sharon could have added a much greater sense of suspense, than BW. BW is still suspicious because we already know from the Avengers, that she was a traitor.

Actually a lot of folks, most, even, consider their romantic partner a friend. Some people even start out as friends before dating.

Yeah, this is exactly why I'm so sad of SteveSharon's execution in the MCU. Romantic partner needs to be meaningful, kisses and making out sessions only mean something when there is a deep relationship going on along with it and before it. The idea that platonic friendship is somehow a "purer" and "better" relationship undermines the whole notion of romantic love. Ideally your partner is your best friend first and foremost. So I'm really irritated, when people ask: "Why can't they just be friends?" Why they need to be? Why friendship is a better love, than a romantic one?
But that would be a good talk IF female co-leads being love interests haven't already been SO cliched in so many movies since like 1950s. People are tired of this already to nausea. THAT'S why Natasha being "just a friend" was so fresh and well-received. And this is actually a very legitimate reason, why people like it that way so much. But that doesn't mean that Cap's actual love interest needs to be just a girl for kisses after this.

In fact, Steve and Natasha being "platonic friends" didn't stop loads of people from wanting the two to pair up, including Mr. Evans, Entertainment Weekly, and a huge and loud online following that took to harassing EVC.

Once again, why should we care about these people? In fact, there are much more people, who praise the Russos EXACTLY for allowing Nat to be just a female friend. It's not about SteveNat or people wanting them together, it's about poor execution of SteveSharon. This is the reason why people want Steve with someone else, with someone, he has actual care and feelings for (even if they are only platonic, but at least it's there as opposed to Sharon) and more interesting dynamic. If SS were great, that wouldn't be the case. At this point it's very understandable why Evans considers his relationship with BW being more intriguing.

I don't remember people harassing VanCamp. What are you even talking about? Even if some crazy fans did it (and everyone who is popular has some haters, it's inevitable anyway), as I've said, her own fans are no better, promising to kill the Russos in case she's not in IW.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

I don't think that Lawrence would have agreed to play the role of Sharon Carter, just a Cap's love interest. That's the point, that's what I'm talking about. It's like when Emily Blunt refused to play Peggy Carter, IIRC.

I mentioned Lawrence as someone with clearly greater success to counter your claim that Scarjo was the best in the business.

You keep talking about "just" a love interest.

Why people put so much importance into names?

That's it. Nothing is up for critique, no one should blame Whedon for wasting Strucker. No one should bash Fox for Doctor Doom.

Why not? Civil War was a single event, I very much doubt they would repeat that in any foreseeable future, especially with a new director.

Because Civil War was a huge event involving most of the Avengers, plus Black Panther, plus Spider-Man. Would they go from that to Cap with only Sam and Sharon busting bad guys? They won't.

Besides, who is to say the new director isn't going to keep making Cap 4 into Avengers 5.5 in the hopes of getting a promotion like the Russos did?

Why she needs to remain an Avenger? Or, at least, why would the general audience know, that she is supposed to remain an Avenger? Why couldn't she eventually become evil like Mordo in Dr. Strange?

Because she's the only female Avenger. It is pretty obvious.

YOU know it, because you're a comic-books' fan. But you also know, who Agent 13 is supposed to be. You know, that she will definitely become a love interest in the future. And GA would expect it to be so even without much knowledge of her origin.

But they don't expect the same of Natasha?

So I don't see how Sharon could have added a much greater sense of suspense, than BW. BW is still suspicious because we already know from the Avengers, that she was a traitor.

No she wasn't. Are you talking about her KGB days? That's not being a traitor. She was a KGB agent, by then she was the one and only Avenger.

People didn't believe she could possibly be a traitor because she was the one and only female Avenger. Give the GA a little credit.

Sharon would have been an unknown quantity, being seen for the first time.

Once again, why should we care about these people?

Why should we care about what Chris Evans think?t:

I don't remember people harassing VanCamp. What are you even talking about? Even if some crazy fans did it (and everyone who is popular has some haters, it's inevitable anyway), as I've said, her own fans are no better, promising to kill the Russos in case she's not in IW.

SteveNatasha, BuckySteve, PeggySteve shippers. Wanda fans, too, incidentally.

Evans having enough chemistry with someone else isn't the point. The point is that the Russos wanted to make the best movie they could, so, I suppose, they chose the best available female co-lead for Evans they managed to get.

So they placed all importance on "chemistry" and disregarded anything else.

It isn't even about Sharon, that's an entire aspect of Steve and his relationships they threw away for good just in the name of maximum "chemistry".

How do measure chemistry? How do even quantify it? Is it measured by percentage? Do Evansson have 97% chemistry? Is it measured in units so there is no upper limit?

I think you either have or you don't.

 

[BoredGuy]

Holy crap, I can't believe this thread is still going

 

[TheVileOne]

Holy crap, I can't believe this thread is still going

From my point of view, Sharon Carter is evil.

 

[Voltron]

From my point of view, Sharon Carter is evil.

Surprise, surprise, TheVileOne is vile.

 

[Voltron]

Chemistry is utterly subjective. I saw meh chemistry between Evans and scarjo while I saw sufficient chemistry between EVC and Evans. Also hoping that EVC-Sharon shows up in Infinity War.

 

[Voltron]

http://quigonejinn.tumblr.com/post/82622101515/c0oma-cap-ts

 

[Capsfan]

Chemistry is utterly subjective. I saw meh chemistry between Evans and scarjo while I saw sufficient chemistry between EVC and Evans. Also hoping that EVC-Sharon shows up in Infinity War.

Well, yeah, man, YOUR take on chemistry in CA movies, judging by this thread, is totally subjective and biased, since you are such a big fan of comic-books' Sharon and such a hater of Scarlett. I'd be SHOCKED to hear something else from you, dude

 

[Capsfan]

Sorry, missed the right point to answer.

I mentioned Lawrence as someone with clearly greater success to counter your claim that Scarjo was the best in the business.

Did I say THE best of the best? Well, might be my mistake, but I was actually talking about the top list of actresses. And I'm not sure, that Lawrence is clearly more successful, IIRC Scarlett topped the rating of the most highly payed actresses. Anyway, it doesn't matter. The point is, she is one of the best in the industry.

You keep talking about "just" a love interest.

And why should we pretend otherwise? Well, yeah, Pepper, Peggy (I don't count her own show), Jane, Betty, Sharon, etc are all just love interests.

That's it. Nothing is up for critique, no one should blame Whedon for wasting Strucker. No one should bash Fox for Doctor Doom.

No, my point is that the comics are not THAT important. What is much more important is making a great creative movie.
If they tried to make Civil War similar to its comic-book version, it'd have been a total mess. I don't even want to start about Hydra!Cap.

Because Civil War was a huge event involving most of the Avengers, plus Black Panther, plus Spider-Man. Would they go from that to Cap with only Sam and Sharon busting bad guys? They won't.

Well, they can go to Cap with Sam, Sharon and Bucky busting bad guys t:
IDK, it's like to say that we don't need any solo-movies after the Avengers. But nothing so far has stopped them going from IM, Cap, BW, Hulk, Thor, Hawkeye busting bad guys to only Cap, Sam and BW busting bad guys.

Besides, who is to say the new director isn't going to keep making Cap 4 into Avengers 5.5 in the hopes of getting a promotion like the Russos did?

Once again, the Russos got a promotion, because they've made great movies. The new director is a new director.

Because she's the only female Avenger. It is pretty obvious.

Avengers were irrelevant in TWS and right in the next movie we've already got the second female Avenger.

But they don't expect the same of Natasha?

Yes, they pretty much do. This is why there is actually no real difference in this aspect.

No she wasn't. Are you talking about her KGB days? That's not being a traitor. She was a KGB agent, by then she was the one and only Avenger.

Well, she betrayed KGB and Russia.

Sharon would have been an unknown quantity, being seen for the first time.

Oh, please, people saw Pierce for the first time and from the trailers alone already guessed he was the big bad. Give GA a little credit, all these "puzzles" are just for kids. There is no big difference between them really. People would have guessed from the start, that Agent 13 is his new love interest. Even from the synopsis already.

Why should we care about what Chris Evans think?

Where did I say so?

SteveNatasha, BuckySteve, PeggySteve shippers. Wanda fans, too, incidentally.

Why do you care about shippers? And why would Wanda's fans be resentful to her? Wanda's got more screentime, development and spotlight.

So they placed all importance on "chemistry" and disregarded anything else.

When did I say so? I've said its about all components: chemistry, charisma, potential of a character, acting chops, sexiness and so on.

It isn't even about Sharon, that's an entire aspect of Steve and his relationships they threw away for good just in the name of maximum "chemistry".

Why it's considered being so important to give EVERYONE a love interest? What's the point? It's comicbook movies, not romantic comedies. Even if character is single on screen, it doesn't mean he will be alone for the rest of his life, it's ridiculous. Steve doesn't really have any lack in intimate and close relationships already.

How do measure chemistry? How do even quantify it? Is it measured by percentage? Do Evansson have 97% chemistry? Is it measured in units so there is no upper limit?

I think you either have or you don't.

How do we measure acting chops? All the same questions. And still the Academy gives Oscars for it. And still we measure actors by being "genius", "great", "good", "decent" or "poor". It's just the feeling, that the majority of people share.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

And why should we pretend otherwise? Well, yeah, Pepper, Peggy (I don't count her own show), Jane, Betty, Sharon, etc are all just love interests.

All those characters are as involved in the movie as the premise and character allowed.

Because Sharon is a SHIELD agent and the movie heavily involved SHIELD. She could have been a character that's not "just" a love interest.

No, my point is that the comics are not THAT important. What is much more important is making a great creative movie.

As if those two are mutually exclusive.

Well, they can go to Cap with Sam, Sharon and Bucky busting bad guys t:
IDK, it's like to say that we don't need any solo-movies after the Avengers. But nothing so far has stopped them going from IM, Cap, BW, Hulk, Thor, Hawkeye busting bad guys to only Cap, Sam and BW busting bad guys.

Unless you argue that TWS was a sequel more to TFA than it was The Avengers.

Avengers were irrelevant in TWS and right in the next movie we've already got the second female Avenger.

But no one was fooled for a second she wasn't going to be back.

Yes, they pretty much do. This is why there is actually no real difference in this aspect.

Exactly. So maybe stop pretending Natasha being "platonic" is a big deal.

Why do you care about shippers? And why would Wanda's fans be resentful to her? Wanda's got more screentime, development and spotlight.

Because Sharon was in the concept art while Wanda wasn't. So they thought that Wanda was being in the movie at "Wanda's" expense.

When did I say so? I've said its about all components: chemistry, charisma, potential of a character, acting chops, sexiness and so on.

You emphasized chemistry, so I addressed that.

Again, you bring up sexiness. Why should Steve's "platonic friend" be sexy?

Why it's considered being so important to give EVERYONE a love interest? What's the point? It's comicbook movies, not romantic comedies.

By that logic, this isn't a comedy, so there should be no jokes.

 

[Capsfan]

All those characters are as involved in the movie as the premise and character allowed.

Because Sharon is a SHIELD agent and the movie heavily involved SHIELD. She could have been a character that's not "just" a love interest.

I really don't think it's the difference that would have made Lawrence being interested in Sharon Carter role, which is too little bite of a cake for her. And I'm not sure Marvel was ready to pay so much money for this one role too. Or maybe they wanted to avoid the same problems they were having with Portman and Paltrow.

As if those two are mutually exclusive.

No, but I'm trying to explain why it's understandable, that the Russos, in order to make the best possible movie, considered BW played by Scarlett being a better option as a female lead in TWS. But yes, that was a bad excuse for giving Sharon such a small role. Two and even three females can have decent roles in the same movie. I'm pretty sure that in IW BW, Wanda, Carol, Gamora, Mantis, Nebula each will have more screentime, than Sharon has in CW. IDK, maybe the Russos didn't like Sharon in the comics and they are biased. We will never know. It's strange, as I've said.
I still think that Sharon should have been on BW's place in Civil War. And BW could have been on hers. I also would have liked to see the stakes raised between Steve and Sharon: to develop a romance properly between two characters, you need to see what happens to them when they're under significant pressure. Sharon saw the devastation of the Winter Soldier firsthand, and many of her colleagues were killed. She would have every reason to believe that arresting Bucky, or simply having Bucky in protective custody, even if she believes he wasn’t responsible for his actions, would be the right thing. Instead of it she risks her freedom and career for them JUST BECAUSE Steve told her Bucky told him he was triggered?? It's not even funny anymore. Zemo being a terrorist doesn't automatically mean Bucky is innocent, there is NO proof of triggers whatsoever, so it can't be proved that she wasn't helping a wanted terrorist, if she's arrested. How could she not be aware of that? I don't understand why people still praise the Russos and the screenwriters for doing ALL the characters justice, when it's obviously not the case. They turned Sharon into some kind of Steve's crazy fangirl, which is pretty infuriating by itself.

Unless you argue that TWS was a sequel more to TFA than it was The Avengers.

It doesn't matter, which is sequel to which. The audience had already seen the Avengers, so by your logic they shouldn't have been interested after that in any solo-movies.

But no one was fooled for a second she wasn't going to be back.

It's really very hard to fool the audience these days. And it's because Marvel takes no risks. BW as a complex female villain would be very interesting twist instead of predictable Mordo.

Exactly. So maybe stop pretending Natasha being "platonic" is a big deal.

Because THIS was breaking the mold. (Not extremely predictable "Sharon could be a traitor, but she turned out to be a love interest". Come-on, female lead usually never goes bad, and even if she does, she redeems herself in the end. Remember TDKR? Cat-woman was exactly that.) Everyone, who hasn't read comic-books, thought Cap and Nat would get together. But that didn't happen and it's not gonna happen. That was a really refreshing move for the comicbook flick.

Because Sharon was in the concept art while Wanda wasn't. So they thought that Wanda was being in the movie at "Wanda's" expense.

It's crazy. It's called "Captain America: Civil War", not "The Avengers: Civil War". Sharon being in the movie, should have had a bigger role, than Wanda. And women are not interchangeable. Why it's not Ant-Man, for example, who took Wanda's place?
You mean promo-art, right? I remember Wanda being on concept arts along with Sharon. Wanda's fans need to come to terms that her character being shared with FOX might still have problems with promo/merch materials going forward. Wanda and her brother were absent from AoU promo/merch-arts as well. Why did everyone forget that? We should expect the same with IW. We might need a disclaimer for this, so everyone would stop asking: "Where is Wanda?". Anyway, that was BEFORE the movie. After the movie Wanda's fans should be good.

And tbh, Steggy's fans too. This is why there is no point in being a shipper. Your ship can be broken at ANY second as the situations with Pepper/Tony and Thor/Jane showed. It's not like where was any chance for Steve and Peggy to get back together ever again and CW made it seem like he's interestred in Sharon because of Peggy. And while I did get some kind of attraction from Steve ever since TWS, it wasn't a "I'm falling in love with you", it was more of a feeling he'd like to do her, but falling in love with her? No. This contrast just shows how special was Peggy in his life.

And even BuckySteve fans, what they are angry for? One chaste kiss? Ridiculous. It's not like LGBT couple could ever happen in this kind of movie. People put WAY TOO MUCH importance in the romantic relationships. All the emotional buildup in Civil War (in fact the 2 previous Captain America films as well) occur between Steve and Bucky, not Steve and Sharon. In the entire CA trilogy, Bucky is the damsel in distress, Bucky is the one that put the Cap off-guard, Bucky is the one that causes Cap to become Captain America and give up that same identity (by dropping his shield twice). Bucky is in fact the romantic lead, the cause of Steve's life-changing decisions, not Sharon Carter. BuckySteve fans should be over the moon and stars with happiness. But if they are angry, because the kiss looked like a no-homo outing, then, well, it's hard to accuse them and say they don't have a point, since it was really too rushed for no visible reason, it's like someone panicked. But they should be mad at studio, Marvel, the Russos, the writers, and so on. And maybe even at Evans. Doesn't he have some input in his character, unlike many other actors with less significant roles? IDK, it's strange for him to film this first and only then to say 'it was icky'. What were you thinking, while shooting all this, dude? It's YOUR character, after all.

Again, you bring up sexiness. Why should Steve's "platonic friend" be sexy?

It's not like she SHOULD BE. It's about "why not"? It's not for Steve, it's for the audience. The point is, with all due respect to VanCamp, Scarlett is more entertaining actress because she has all these different traits at the very-very high and extraordinary quality. It doesn't mean, that VanCamp is bad or something, I really haven't seen her much to judge (although her delivery of one line in CW came out being so rushed for me, that I couldn't understand the proper meaning of it for quite long), but it's just that it's very hard to be on the same level with Johansson for like 90-95% of actresses. Add to this, that unlike Sharon, BW has a dark past and grey area to explore, she has more potential as a character.

By that logic, this isn't a comedy, so there should be no jokes.

Did I say there should be NO romances at all? No, I've said that not every single hero needs an obligatory love-interest. It's becoming too repetitive and formulaic, especially when the majority of MCU romances are underdeveloped. It's obvious, that this isn't where their priorities are. Which is fine, but then… don't include it at all, you know.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

No, but I'm trying to explain why it's understandable, that the Russos, in order to make the best possible movie, considered BW played by Scarlett being a better option as a female lead in TWS

And ignoring, or not caring, about the very obvious ramifications of that longterm.

It doesn't matter, which is sequel to which. The audience had already seen the Avengers, so by your logic they shouldn't have been interested after that in any solo-movies.

Yeah, but there used to be rules. The Avengers was the teamup movies while the solos were supposed to be solos, with some distinctly supporting characters. Solo and event movies were recognized and accepted as two different propositions.

TWS and CW broke the rules, so the solo movies are now on decline. Hope y'all are ready for less Shuri and more The Sentry in Black Panther 2.

To put it another way, Chris Evans can't hope to make 1B in Cap 4 on his own.

Because THIS was breaking the mold.

Yeah, but people still expected her to become his love interest later. Some expecting it in AoU, or what eventually became Civil War.

It's not like she SHOULD BE. It's about "why not"? It's not for Steve, it's for the audience.

I feel like this cancels out their alleged 'breaking of the mold'. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.

 

[Voltron]

Well, yeah, man, YOUR take on chemistry in CA movies, judging by this thread, is totally subjective and biased, since you are such a big fan of comic-books' Sharon and such a hater of Scarlett. I'd be SHOCKED to hear something else from you, dude

Likewise, it's like you only mainly joined this forum to bash Sharon you so called "Capsfan". I do not hate scarjo, I just hate her as Black Widow - there's a massive difference .

 

[Capsfan]

Likewise, it's like you only mainly joined this forum to bash Sharon you so called "Capsfan". I do not hate scarjo, I just hate her as Black Widow - there's a massive difference .

Not a very big difference, tbh. You still hate the actress in this role, as if it's her fault that the directors decided to give Sharon's role to her. You're no better, than the fans of Steve/Peggy, Steve/Bucky, Steve/Nat or Wanda, who hate VanCamp just for being casted as Sharon.

Dude, quote me, where I bash Sharon? I bash the writing and directing, exactly what you are doing in this thread too. Sharon is not a real person, it's obvious, that it can't be her fault if the writing for her is bad. And it's not like Cap hasn't suffered from that same writing too. So, do you really think, that I bash my favorite Cap too, when I'm saying that the filmmakers made him look like a creep? Your accusations are not making any sense. The difference between me and you is that I don't hate the Russos or Scarlett just for this one mistake, though, yes, it's pretty big, IMHO. I still acknowledge, that the Russos make GREAT films in the MCU and they deserve their credit. Although I'm still pretty pissed off, so yes, I've joined partially to rant here and blow some steam and also because I'm very curious, what happened, why Sharon's role was shortened twice. And I want to talk about it. But that doesn't mean we should invent some ridiculous excuses to bash on the Russos or Johansson, where they were doing their best.

 

[Capsfan]

And ignoring, or not caring, about the very obvious ramifications of that longterm.

What ramifications? You know, Sharon was supposed to have a decent role in CW, no matter BW or not. It's not BW's fault that Sharon's role was cut down after TWS once again. For the umpteenth time, BW's role has't prevented Wanda to have decent roles in both AoU and CW. It has't prevented Wanda to be shown being like a sister to Cap as well. It has't prevented Wanda to have some decent development with Vision. It's not because the Russos love BW, it's because they don't care about Sharon's character. THAT's the problem. Not their love for Natasha in itself. Peggy and Steve were made in one movie, so IN THEORY they could have made Steve and Sharon in Cap 3 alone. You know, in early storyboards for Civil War, Sharon had a bigger role, she had an actual development. I still can't wrap my head on why they've cut these scenes. It's not like they would have taken much more time, than it was. But they've changed the romantic scenes to being unromantic. I still don't understand for what purpose, it would have taken just the same screentime as it takes in the final cut.

Yeah, but there used to be rules. The Avengers was the teamup movies while the solos were supposed to be solos, with some distinctly supporting characters. Solo and event movies were recognized and accepted as two different propositions.

It's not like those rules were some kind of law... Nobody has ever promised us anything. Tbh, I'm grateful, that Cap's movies were at least that good in general. Thor's movies or IM2,3 don't have that. I would rather have a good Civil War, although I'm not very happy, that Tony took so much time for himself, than Cap's version of Thor/IM 2.

TWS and CW broke the rules, so the solo movies are now on decline. Hope y'all are ready for less Shuri and more The Sentry in Black Panther 2.

Well, I still don't think that TWS broke that rule, when Bucky and Falcon both had decent roles too. The problem there was only with Sharon alone. Once again, I think that Nat having a big role doesn't mean Sharon should have such a small one. Women ARE NOT interchangeable, for God's sake. And Ant-Man, Strange, Panther all were or will be a proper solo-movies. I would say, that even Thor 3 too. I honestly don't think that just because Hulk is there and Jane is no more it necessarily will cease to be Thor's movie.

To put it another way, Chris Evans can't hope to make 1B in Cap 4 on his own.

That's the thing, we don't know that. We just don't know. But I think the Russos really boosted his popularity. People weren't very interested in him after TFA and TA, thought he's boring, but now he's everybody's favorite. Go to reddit, they love him even more, than Star-Lord or Iron Man.

Yeah, but people still expected her to become his love interest later. Some expecting it in AoU, or what eventually became Civil War.

I think now the majority is already aware it's not gonna happen. And well, it just means that breaking the mold stretches for all these films.t:

I feel like this cancels out their alleged 'breaking of the mold'. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too.

Why? I actually liked that Steve's seen and felt BW's sexiness and still wasn't interested in her more, than a friend.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

What ramifications? You know, Sharon was supposed to have a decent role in CW, no matter BW or not. It's not BW's fault that Sharon's role was cut down after TWS once again. For the umpteenth time, BW's role has't prevented Wanda to have decent roles in both AoU and CW.

Because Wanda and BW are very different. We've actually been over this before.

Well, I still don't think that TWS broke that rule, when Bucky and Falcon both had decent roles too.

Black Widow. Co-lead.

Bucky had less lines than even Sharon.

Falcon was clumsily inserted into the movie, and saved by how excellent Mackie's performance was.

Falcon was literally a guy Steve bumps into one morning, who JUST HAPPENS to be a highly trained airman with a unique skillset, who is willing to get involved in SHIELD infighting.

I think now the majority is already aware it's not gonna happen. And well, it just means that breaking the mold stretches for all these films.t:

So the mold wasn't truly broken until much later.

Why? I actually liked that Steve's seen and felt BW's sexiness and still wasn't interested in her more, than a friend.

I think having their cake and eating it too explains it quite well.

Add to this, that unlike Sharon, BW has a dark past and grey area to explore, she has more potential as a character.

Not really. BW isn't the first or last character to do morally questionable things.

Also, I'm not sure what it is about her past that so requires exploration and how it would enrich a Captain America story.

 

[Capsfan]

Because Wanda and BW are very different. We've actually been over this before.

This logic doesn't apply to men, why should for women? Why do we still have Rhodey in decent roles, when he is basically a second-rate Iron-Man? Isn't it the filmmakers' job to make all their characters different? I'd agree with you, that in TWS Sharon and Nat were pretty similar. Both were SHIELD agents, spies, who lied to Steve. But in CW they are different. I think that Nat's role in TWS set her up to help Steve and be on Sharon's place in CW. Yes, Nat isn't CIA, but she's a master spy, it wouldn't have been more unbelievable, than it's already with Sharon, if BW were against the Accords and got intel on Bucky and gave it to Steve, because they are such a good friends and Nat owes him after he's saved her life. Maybe she wouldn't have been totally supportive, but still could have helped, because she knew, Steve's gonna do it anyway (like when she changed her mind in the airport). And I'd have liked to see Sharon on BW's place. She is still initially supportive, maybe even still gives intel on Bucky to Steve at the start, but after the devastation of the Winter Soldier she joins team Tony, while Nat is on team Cap, but in the end lets Cap and Bucky go. That would have been some development for the character and a larger role.

Black Widow. Co-lead.

I think, you're constantly overestimating the size of her role. Tony in CW - YES, he is a co-lead. But Nat has got much less time in TWS, than Cap. BW shares with Steve one action scene at the beginning, yes, then she's in the hospital, but that's all, she hasn't joined Cap until like 50th minute of the movie. It's almost half of the film.

Bucky had less lines than even Sharon.

I don't understand, why should characters have lines just for the purpose of lines? He has a decent screentime, he is supposed to be a mindless killing machine in TWS, this is the tragedy of his character. What he was supposed to be talking about?

Falcon was clumsily inserted into the movie, and saved by how excellent Mackie's performance was.

Falcon was literally a guy Steve bumps into one morning, who JUST HAPPENS to be a highly trained airman with a unique skillset, who is willing to get involved in SHIELD infighting.

Well, I agree on this, but it's the script's failings. And as you said, Mackie managed to save it. Why it ceases to be a Cap's movie just because of it? Are Thor's movies not his own, just because of the awful writing of Jane Foster and Co? I think, that's how his role was written even before BW's got boosted. That's one of the examples, why I think these screenwriters are not that great without the Russos' direction.

So the mold wasn't truly broken until much later.

As I've said, the majority of people, including me, thought it was refreshing as soon as TWS goes. It's pretty obvious, actually, that was the intention, and the Russos confirmed it themselves. I even remember praises to Fiege from Sony in hacked letters exactly about it.

I think having their cake and eating it too explains it quite well.

The point is that STEVE didn't want to get with her and be her boyfriend. And Marvel ALWAYS, in all cases, will try to have their cake and eat it, anyway. But it's not about them or the audience, it's about this relationship and Steve's character.

Not really. BW isn't the first or last character to do morally questionable things.

Also, I'm not sure what it is about her past that so requires exploration and how it would enrich a Captain America story.

The thing is, Sharon is inherently still a much better person. She's never killed innocent people, I suppose. She doesn't have so many serious sins to search redemption through the relationship with Steve or through help to him. She couldn't have had such dark secrets, that dumping SHIELD's files onto the Internet would have been such a great deal for her. She wouldn't have been such a striking contrast to Steve's moral compass as BW was.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

I think, you're constantly overestimating the size of her role. Tony in CW - YES, he is a co-lead. But Nat has got much less time in TWS, than Cap. BW shares with Steve one action scene at the beginning, yes, then she's in the hospital, but that's all, she hasn't joined Cap until like 50th minute of the movie. It's almost half of the film.

BW has been called the co-lead of TWS by her fans since 2014. She's been called that as a supposed justification for why she should have her own movie. Kevin Feige has described Evans and Scarjo as sharing the movie at comic-con.

Black Panther and Falcon have roughly equal screentime in CW, but one role is clearly meatier than the other.

Are Thor's movies not his own, just because of the awful writing of Jane Foster and Co?

Jane Foster wasn't playing second fiddle to non-Thor characters.

The point is that STEVE didn't want to get with her and be her boyfriend. And Marvel ALWAYS, in all cases, will try to have their cake and eat it, anyway. But it's not about them or the audience, it's about this relationship and Steve's character.

A) Marvel will always try to have their cake and eat it, too. People don't usually hail the respective filmmaker as the second coming.

B) You just said that the sexiness was for the audience a couple of posts back.

C) KINGSMAN came out the same year and it didn't have a romantic relationship between the male and female leads. They also didn't have them kiss for contrived reasons or talk about how one looks in a bikini, or how often do they kiss.

And yet, no one hails Kingsman for it.

The thing is, Sharon is inherently still a much better person. She's never killed innocent people, I suppose. She doesn't have so many serious sins to search redemption through the relationship with Steve or through help to him. She couldn't have had such dark secrets, that dumping SHIELD's files onto the Internet would have been such a great deal for her. She wouldn't have been such a striking contrast to Steve's moral compass as BW was.

Ultimately, it wasn't such a big deal for Natasha either, since she just said 'I'm an Avenger I won't go to jail' and she's at a cocktail party next movie and hobnobbing with T'Challa in the one after it.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

What Sharon could have been in TWS is Peggy great-niece, and a veteran agent who did plenty of pretty shady things for SHIELD, because she was loyal to SHIELD, the house her aunt built, but still ultimately decides to bring it down and let SHIELD go because she becomes inspired to idealism.

 

[Capsfan]

BW has been called the co-lead of TWS by her fans since 2014. She's been called that as a supposed justification for why she should have her own movie. Kevin Feige has described Evans and Scarjo as sharing the movie at comic-con.

Black Panther and Falcon have roughly equal screentime in CW, but one role is clearly meatier than the other.

Well, I saw some people saying that Sharon is a major character in CW. So?

BW objectively has much less time than Cap in TWS. And TWS is clearly a Cap's solo movie, unlike CW. So why is BW such a problem? It's Tony Stark in CW, not Natasha in TWS, who was a co-lead, no matter what fans or even Feige say.

Jane Foster wasn't playing second fiddle to non-Thor characters.

So, it's better to be an awfully written character with much useless screentime in a bad movie, then? I don't see a point in this conversation. Thor's 2 movies didn't pay justice to his characters or Thor himself.

B) You just said that the sexiness was for the audience a couple of posts back.

Yes. We are running in circles. And I still don't see any contradictions. At no point in the movie did Steve try to become romantic with BW.

C) KINGSMAN came out the same year and it didn't have a romantic relationship between the male and female leads. They also didn't have them kiss for contrived reasons or talk about how one looks in a bikini, or how often do they kiss.

And yet, no one hails Kingsman for it.

That's not true. I saw people praising Kingsman exactly for this. Maybe not as much as TWS, because Kingsman is a much bolder movie than TWS. It breaks down many clichés, so it's hard to point to only one. Also it's not so obvious comic-book movie as Marvel.

Ultimately, it wasn't such a big deal for Natasha either, since she just said 'I'm an Avenger I won't go to jail' and she's at a cocktail party next movie and hobnobbing with T'Challa in the one after it.

It was Whedon, who didn't care about the continuity. Going into jail is not the
only сonsequence that matter for the characters.

What Sharon could have been in TWS is Peggy great-niece, and a veteran agent who did plenty of pretty shady things for SHIELD, because she was loyal to SHIELD, the house her aunt built, but still ultimately decides to bring it down and let SHIELD go because she becomes inspired to idealism.

The thing is, I get your logic, I'm not saying you are not making sense, it's just that I've got the Russos' logic too. All I'm saying is that I can understand why they did what they did in TWS. They just did what they considered being more interesting and rich for the story. For you and for them it's just different things, that's the problem. And that's normal. No filmmaker can please everyone from his audience.

It wasn’t about their love for the Avengers or something like that. They are not kids, you know, to be obsessive about Avengers and nobody else. What I can't understand is why they did what they did in CW.