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

[BullMcGiveny]

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.

More screentime doesn't always correspond to plot importance, precisely.

Falcon and BP have roughly the same amount of screentime, but while T'Challa has his own arc and character trajectory, Falcon is only sort of there.

BW was the one being whose court hearing we've seen, and the one for whom the leaking of SHIELD's secrets was supposed to be a huge character beat.

TWS was less obvious about it, but the same mentality produced both.

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.

Steve who is romantically inexperienced? Who kept hearing Natasha pestering him to date random girls?

Not a surprise, really.

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

Or perhaps, again, it wasn't Whedon's responsibility to tie up the Russo's loose ends. It wasn't his job to develop Sharon when the Russos neglected to reveal her last name, and if he didn't feel like expounding on those consequences, maybe the Russos shouldn't have left that thread dangling.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

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.

Well BW's involvement in TWS may have inspired every other Avenger being in CW, plus Spider-Man, BP, etc.

Hell, go check out some old threads. Fans weren't talking about what interesting direction for Cap there should be, they were talking about what Avenger should be in Cap 3.

So was TWS really what was best for Cap, overall?

It definitely was great for the the Russos' careers and their prestige.

 

[Capsfan]

BW was the one being whose court hearing we've seen, and the one for whom the leaking of SHIELD's secrets was supposed to be a huge character beat.

TWS was less obvious about it, but the same mentality produced both.

Tony Stark has got much more in terms of a character development meat than BW in TWS. And I still don't understand what kind of an arc you want for Cap. He has very strong moral compass. It would have been out of character for him to drastically change like BW or BP. He had much in terms of character development in TWS, though. We've got to know him much better than in TFA or TA. His arc with Bucky was very compelling. TWS made him one of the most beloved characters in MCU. Thor has got much worse treatment.

Steve who is romantically inexperienced? Who kept hearing Natasha pestering him to date random girls?

Not a surprise, really.

I still don't see your point. Steve did ask the nurse Kate out. So he was open to experience romantic relationship. And when Widow asked him who he wanted her to be for him his answer was: "Friend".

Or perhaps, again, it wasn't Whedon's responsibility to tie up the Russo's loose ends. It wasn't his job to develop Sharon

Deadpool managed to develop the relationship between Wade and Vanessa in like 10 minutes. And it looked believable. Because the movie implied that it had been quite a long time they'd known each other before their ILYs to each other. So it wasn't Whedon's job to develop Sharon, he should have shown her at the Stark's party with Steve along with Sam, who was basically a cameo, but still there. It would have been much better if Steve and Sharon were implied as being dating and knowing each other waaaay before Peggy's funeral. As it is, we've got no explanation whatsoever why Steve didn't call Sharon after TWS. Especially considering his words to Bruce that he has learned his lesson about waiting too long.

when the Russos neglected to reveal her last name, and if he didn't feel like expounding on those consequences, maybe the Russos shouldn't have left that thread dangling.

I don't see why it's such a big deal - revealing her last name in TWS. It was obviously left dangling on purpose: they wanted a big reveal that she is CARTER in Cap 3. Which ultimately сaused more harm than good.

plus Spider-Man, BP, etc.

The studio wanted SM and BP, whatever the Russos wanted themselves, one way or another it would have been forced on them no matter what.

Fans weren't talking about what interesting direction for Cap there should be, they were talking about what Avenger should be in Cap 3.

I see the discussion of Sharon Carter here in 3 whole parts. No other Avenger has got the same. And you are still saying that people are not interested in Cap or his supporting characters. Fans are still constantly fighting who is right - Steve or Tony - everywhere.

Before CW I saw many talking about SM. Which is totally understandable, because it's SM, for God's sake! The most popular comic-book character of all time.

It definitely was great for the the Russos' careers and their prestige.

It was great for the Russos' careers and their prestige because it was a good movie, not because there were BW and Fury. For the umpteenth time, did BW's and Fury's inclusion help IM2? It was the Russos who made Cap a popular and beloved character. As well as Bucky and Falcon.

 

[Xeno]

I see the discussion of Sharon Carter here in 3 whole parts.

This thread has only reached 3 parts because the same 2-3 posters keep rehashing the same gripes about the character's role in CW. That fills up dozens of pages but ultimately goes nowhere.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Tony Stark has got much more in terms of a character development meat than BW in TWS. And I still don't understand what kind of an arc you want for Cap. He has very strong moral compass. It would have been out of character for him to drastically change like BW or BP. He had much in terms of character development in TWS, though. We've got to know him much better than in TFA or TA. His arc with Bucky was very compelling. TWS made him one of the most beloved characters in MCU. Thor has got much worse treatment.

An arc that actually challenges him? An arc that sees him branch out in the modern era?

In TWS, Steve is uncomfortable with SHIELD and how they operate. Oh wait, nevermind, SHIELD is actually HYDRA/actual Nazis. Whose morality no one is confused about.

In TWS, Steve is asked what makes him happy. Nothing comes out of the question. Unless you go with the AoU interpretation that war and conflict is what makes Steve happy. That goes nicely with Steve's moral compass.

In TWS and CW, much is made about how Steve clings to the remains of his past vis Peggy and Bucky, but is he ever shown letting the past go in a healthy way? No, he doesn't.

Cap is supposed to be the character whose goodness is supposed to be a strength, Marvel's Superman basically, but the Russo's Cap is an MMA fighter with unaddressed mental issues.

I don't see why it's such a big deal - revealing her last name in TWS. It was obviously left dangling on purpose: they wanted a big reveal that she is CARTER in Cap 3. Which ultimately сaused more harm than good.

My main point is about if Whedon didn't want to devote a storythread to the consequences of BW's info-leak, then they should have had those consequences in TWS.

As it is, one of the reasons you cite for BW's heavy involvement requires a specific storyline to have happen later. Which ultimately didn't.

As for Sharon's name, yeah, it ended up doing more harm than good. Establishing a character's name is the most basic thing about a character, and they didn't even give her that.

And to link to another of your points, since Steve didn't know her name, then that meant if Whedon had him date her, he would have done so without knowledge of who she was related to. Which would mean Sharon would have been hiding it from him.

The studio wanted SM and BP, whatever the Russos wanted themselves, one way or another it would have been forced on them no matter what.[/quote]

Fans always blame the amorphous figure of "the studio" for whatever potentially inconvenient thing about fanfavorite creators.

The Russos have repeatedly talked up how they labored to get Spider-Man in the movie, about how they couldn't imagine it without him, about how he was always in the script.

Before CW I saw many talking about SM. Which is totally understandable, because it's SM, for God's sake! The most popular comic-book character of all time.

I'm talking before the movie even being known to be CW. There was A LOT of talking about how the movie should be about Black Panther. Or Captain Marvel, because, uh, Carol and Steve are both in the military.

It was great for the Russos' careers and their prestige because it was a good movie, not because there were BW and Fury. For the umpteenth time, did BW's and Fury's inclusion help IM2? It was the Russos who made Cap a popular and beloved character. As well as Bucky and Falcon.

And Whedon was who made Black Widow and Fury popular, before TWS featured them heavily.

Many make great movies, some even greater, though without already characters, without getting the same meteoric rise in success prestige.

I see the discussion of Sharon Carter here in 3 whole parts. No other Avenger has got the same. And you are still saying that people are not interested in Cap or his supporting characters.

This thread has only reached 3 parts because the same 2-3 posters keep rehashing the same gripes about the character's role in CW. That fills up dozens of pages but ultimately goes nowhere.

This thread made it to 3 parts because of constant Sharon-bashing, put-downs directed at Sharon fans, and rabid defense of the Russos at even the slightest criticism.

If people knew well enough to leave alone it would have barely made 2.

 

[Voltron]

This thread has only reached 3 parts because the same 2-3 posters keep rehashing the same gripes about the character's role in CW. That fills up dozens of pages but ultimately goes nowhere.

This thread made it to 3 parts because of constant Sharon-bashing, put-downs directed at Sharon fans, and rabid defense of the Russos at even the slightest criticism.

If people knew well enough to leave alone it would have barely made 2.

So in a way, thanks xeno for your contribution in pushing this thread to 3 parts t:.

 

[Samuron]

this thread has only reached 3 parts because the same 2-3 posters keep rehashing the same gripes about the character's role in cw. That fills up dozens of pages but ultimately goes nowhere.

Dormammu, I've come to argue!

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I'm not even joking... This thread is exhibit A of a near mania or sickness in this, the fanboy community in particular but also of the wider culture of the Internet as it's developed. Something is terribly wrong.

Take time out and explain that this is something you've chosen to devote this much time towards to someone. Explain that this is what a fraction of your limited time on Earth is going to.

Take some time off. Seriously. Choose not to post for like a three weeks straight. If you can't do that... You may have a problem.

 

[Mike5575]

Rumor has ir rhat Sharon dies off screen between Civil War and Infinity War.

 

[Capsfan]

An arc that actually challenges him? An arc that sees him branch out in the modern era?

In TWS, Steve is uncomfortable with SHIELD and how they operate. Oh wait, nevermind, SHIELD is actually HYDRA/actual Nazis. Whose morality no one is confused about.
...
Cap is supposed to be the character whose goodness is supposed to be a strength, Marvel's Superman basically, but the Russo's Cap is an MMA fighter with unaddressed mental issues.

Okay, I think we will never fully agree on this. But you reminded me of something. I think this is a great article about why TWS is a good Cap's movie. While I can't say I agree with all of that, it has some spot-on points regarding this conversation.

In TWS, Steve is asked what makes him happy. Nothing comes out of the question. Unless you go with the AoU interpretation that war and conflict is what makes Steve happy. That goes nicely with Steve's moral compass.

If it wasn't said out loud, doesn't mean it wasn't there at all. I think it's obvious from TWS, AoU and CW, that friends and his job make Steve happy. Especially Bucky. There is the footage in TWS where we see Steve with Bucky being extremely happy like he had never been after defrosting.

Also no, I don't think that having an addiction means that it is what makes you happy. Do drugs make a junkie happy?

In TWS and CW, much is made about how Steve clings to the remains of his past vis Peggy and Bucky, but is he ever shown letting the past go in a healthy way? No, he doesn't.

I know that it's an unpopular opinion, but I don't see it like that so much. Is he sad sometimes due to loosing his past? Yes. But desperately clinging to it? No, I don't see any evidence of it, at least in TWS. At the very beginning of TWS he takes the initiative at getting to know Sam, he asks Kate for a date. He is already open to his future. It's just that his past is pursuing him.
And I totally don't think that friends could have some expiration date. He visits Peggy and he doesn't give up on Bucky because they are his friends, he would do the same in any case, even still being in the 40s.

But that being said, I suspect that Sharon was meant to be this ultimate sign of him "letting the past go in a healthy way". She was supposed to be his future. Unfortunately, they've played it wrong and instead of 'Steve is moving on' made it seem for quite many people like the opposite is the case. So yes, I agree, that they've made a pretty big mistake here.

My main point is about if Whedon didn't want to devote a storythread to the consequences of BW's info-leak, then they should have had those consequences in TWS.

Well, they've only had so much screentime in the movie. And it's still a shared universe. I don't understand why Whedon was allowed to act like previous films didn't happen. It shouldn't have been something for him to decide.

As it is, one of the reasons you cite for BW's heavy involvement requires a specific storyline to have happen later. Which ultimately didn't.

Um.. No. I was just trying to explain why the Russos might have considered BW being more interesting and compelling option for their movie. Of course we all have different notions about what is interesting. Also, ultimately it did play a big part in Zemo's plan. An in Natasha's motivation to choose team Tony.

As for Sharon's name, yeah, it ended up doing more harm than good. Establishing a character's name is the most basic thing about a character, and they didn't even give her that.

Em, actually her name was established. BW did say that her name is Sharon.
The problem is that it's a lose-lose situation. If Steve found out she's related to Peggy in TWS, then he would have had no time to get to know her before that either way. To avoid it, I think they shouldn't have revealed her relation to Peggy in CW as well.

And to link to another of your points, since Steve didn't know her name, then that meant if Whedon had him date her, he would have done so without knowledge of who she was related to. Which would mean Sharon would have been hiding it from him.

No. Does only Peggy's family have the surname "Carter" in this universe? Steve could have known that she is Sharon Carter, but had no clue she's related to Peggy.
And as I've said, it's already a lose-lose situation in any case. They shouldn't have made her lying to him from the very start of their meeting. That was another mistake. But at least in this case Steve would have gotten to know her as her own person before the funeral.

The Russos have repeatedly talked up how they labored to get Spider-Man in the movie, about how they couldn't imagine it without him, about how he was always in the script.

Unfortunately, it's how the business works. I don't think we should believe everything the filmmakers or actors say. In this case I do believe they couldn't imagine the airport battle without him, since that would have meant basically rewriting it from the bones. And the airport battle is the main selling point of the movie.

I'm talking before the movie even being known to be CW. There was A LOT of talking about how the movie should be about Black Panther. Or Captain Marvel, because, uh, Carol and Steve are both in the military.

I must have been reading all the wrong places. I wouldn't say it was the main conversation about Cap 3 in the internet. But I think it happens with all Marvel movies one way or another.

And Whedon was who made Black Widow and Fury popular, before TWS featured them heavily.

So by that logic people should have begun to like IM2 much more after Whedon than they did before the Avengers. Which never happened.

Many make great movies, some even greater, though without already characters, without getting the same meteoric rise in success prestige.

In the MCU? Not so many. The only ones who made good movies in Phase 2 were the Russos and Gunn.

This thread made it to 3 parts because of constant Sharon-bashing, put-downs directed at Sharon fans, and rabid defense of the Russos at even the slightest criticism.

If people knew well enough to leave alone it would have barely made 2.

Maybe, but 2 parts are already much more than what many other characters get and would it have been the case at all if people didn't care about Sharon as Steve's LI?

 

[Capsfan]

Rumor has ir rhat Sharon dies off screen between Civil War and Infinity War.

Where did you get it from? Is that because of what Mackie recently said?

“If it was given to me. I feel like Chris Evans is the perfect Captain America. I can’t think of another actor who would be able to play that role as well as he does – and I love the idea of me, Chris and Sebastian and Scarlet just living forever in the Captain America franchise. It’s just fun.”

TBH, I don't think we should take his words so seriously. So far Sharon has been a minor character, that's why Mackie doesn't take her into consideration.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

this is a great article about why TWS is a good Cap's movie. While I can't say I agree with all of that, it has some spot-on points regarding this conversation.

Okay, I read the article in the link and it reads most like a criticism of MoS.

The writer also points to Steve refusing to kill Bucky as a testament to his morality which is... weird.

If it wasn't said out loud, doesn't mean it wasn't there at all. I think it's obvious from TWS, AoU and CW, that friends and his job make Steve happy.

His friends, who are Avengers, and his job, which is being an Avenger. Which involves a lot of combat.

Well, they've only had so much screentime in the movie. And it's still a shared universe. I don't understand why Whedon was allowed to act like previous films didn't happen. It shouldn't have been something for him to decide.

The Avengers had Steve denounce Nick Fury and by implication, SHIELD. Yet in TWS Steve has forgot all about that, so it is nothing the Russos haven't done themselves.

Um.. No. I was just trying to explain why the Russos might have considered BW being more interesting and compelling option for their movie.

Yeah, and I was trying to explain how it didn't pan out that way.

Leaking the files cost Natasha absolutely nothing, so her action wasn't all that compelling.

So by that logic people should have begun to like IM2 much more after Whedon than they did before the Avengers. Which never happened.

In a way, they have. Pre-The Avengers, BW was derided as one of the worst parts of the worst MCU movie, and most fans think she should have been left out.

Post-The Avengers, the criticism was that they Feige/Marvel/Favreau didn't give her enough screntime or a good enough role.

 

[Capsfan]

After watching GotG2 I began to think that CW really should have had at least third post-credit scene showing what happened to Sharon. It definitely wouldn't have hurt them in any way to do that. Gunn managed to give a proper time and development to three women simultaneously in an already quite overstuffed movie.

The writer also points to Steve refusing to kill Bucky as a testament to his morality which is... weird.

Why exactly?

His friends, who are Avengers, and his job, which is being an Avenger. Which involves a lot of combat.

So? Different people have different life purposes. Maybe Steve's vocation is fighting bad guys. He had been searching for fight his whole life even before the serum. Maybe it's just his thing. Why it has to be bad by itself?

The Avengers had Steve denounce Nick Fury and by implication, SHIELD. Yet in TWS Steve has forgot all about that, so it is nothing the Russos haven't done themselves.

He hasn't forgot actually. He even told Peggy that he stayed because of her. He had always been questioning SHIELD's methods.

Yeah, and I was trying to explain how it didn't pan out that way.

Leaking the files cost Natasha absolutely nothing, so her action wasn't all that compelling.

Maybe it did pan out that way, maybe it didn't. Different people see this differently. That's not the point. The point is why the Russos might have found it being more compelling and interesting story. Their opinion doesn't have to be like yours. And nobody is ever safe from making mistakes.
And you can't deny that Natasha has a strong connection with Fury.

In a way, they have. Pre-The Avengers, BW was derided as one of the worst parts of the worst MCU movie, and most fans think she should have been left out.

Post-The Avengers, the criticism was that they Feige/Marvel/Favreau didn't give her enough screntime or a good enough role.

Maybe, but Iron Man 2 by itself hasn't become a better movie in the eyes of the audience just because of that. You are talking about Natasha's character, I'm talking about IM2's appeal as a whole movie.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Why exactly?

Because Steve's refusal to kill Bucky doesn't have anything to do with morality. 99.999% of everyone don't kill their friends.

So? Different people have different life purposes. Maybe Steve's vocation is fighting bad guys. He had been searching for fight his whole life even before the serum. Maybe it's just his thing. Why it has to be bad by itself?

Because that shouldn't be Captain America, that's the Punisher.

Are you seriously asking what's wrong with Cap being a combat junkie?

Jesus, no wonder Hydra Cap is a thing.

The point is why the Russos might have found it being more compelling and interesting story. Their opinion doesn't have to be like yours. And nobody is ever safe from making mistakes.

It isn't a matter of opinion. BW got off scott free, there is no other way about it.

You can't claim Natasha is more compelling for the impact of her past when her past had no impact. That's not a mistake, either.

And you can't deny that Natasha has a strong connection with Fury.

I'm not sure what difference that makes.

 

[Capsfan]

Because Steve's refusal to kill Bucky doesn't have anything to do with morality. 99.999% of everyone don't kill their friends.

Not when your former friend has become a monster who kills innocent people. Because of Steve's refusal to kill Bucky he almost lost the fight for Project Insight. As Sam pointed out, teh Winter Soldier isn't the guy he used to be in 1945.

Because that shouldn't be Captain America, that's the Punisher.

Are you seriously asking what's wrong with Cap being a combat junkie?

Jesus, no wonder Hydra Cap is a thing.

Because apparently people want to see Cap as this shining ideal who can't do anything wrong, who can't be selfish and who is basically an angel descended to this sinful Earth. Steve is a human being. It's normal for him to have some flaws. Combat junkie =/= one who likes killing people. It's different things. All people are junkies in something. Some of us are movie junkies, chocolate junkies, cleaning junkies and so on and so forth. Maybe Steve suffers from PTSD and this is a side effect.

Hydra Cap is completely different thing and is totally irrelevant here. Personally I really hate this concept.

It isn't a matter of opinion. BW got off scott free, there is no other way about it.

You can't claim Natasha is more compelling for the impact of her past when her past had no impact. That's not a mistake, either.

It is a matter of opinion. By that logic the majority of heroes get off scott free every time without any major impact. Evaluation of an impact is a really subjective thing. Also, it was Whedon's choice to ignor this subplot. As well as he ignored many other subplots from the other movies like IM3. In the Russo's movie BW is actually going in hiding to lay low in the end. So, please, don't blame the Russos for Whedon's mistakes.

I think we are running in circles. Once again, I totally agree that the Russos are to blame for mishandling Sharon. But with all due respect, I also think that you are offended by the Russos, so you want to shift too much blame on them for everything. Did they make a huge mistake with Sharon? Yes. Do they like BW more than Sharon? Yes. Does it mean they are obsessed with the Avengers? Not really. We can't deduce a tendency based on the only one example. Because there is only Sharon's example. All the others you mentioned are a big stretch. (Fans of the other characters are not complaining.) Bucky is not even an Avenger like Falcon is. But for me their huge love for him and Sebastian Stan has been very obvious since TWS. They constantly talked about WS and Stan and I knew they were gonna give him a bigger role in Cap 3. You may not like his treatment in CW, but it's just your opinion which is subjective as well. It's the Russos who made Bucky and Falcon popular. No one really cared about Bucky in TFA.
Otherwise let's blame Gunn for making Mantis different from her comic-book counterpart and giving Ayesha a small and thankless role. Cause the likes of Crossbones, Ayesha (and Zemo to some extent) just fall under the famous Marvel villains' problem. It's not exclusively on the Russos.
Being an Avenger is not the point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Sharon happened to be an Avenger in the comics at least once. They could have made her one, had they wanted. Just like Falcon.

I think the most realistic explanation is the simplest one. No one makes all the art and merch with a certain character and only after that cuts their role at the last minute just because they don't care. It's ridiculous. It's a significant amount of work and time being wasted for nothing. Have you ever seen the same anywhere in 15 Marvel movies? Have you seen a promo or concept art with Sharon as a female lead for TWS? They could have cut her role in CW much earlier as they did in TWS.
The most likely explanation is that something happened late in the pre-production right before the beginning of filming. Something we will never truly know, which made them scale down her role and cut her from the airport battle. Maybe it was the backlash Brutasha received, so they've become afraid to do another full-blown romance in one movie, while knowing there will be no time for this in IW either. The release of AoU and the first reactions happened to be around the same time as the start of CW's shooting. And maybe without a proper romance they didn't see much purpose to waste time on developing another character who isn't going to stick around, cause Cap already has too many friends to interact with. We just don't know. This case is really suspicious. We need to see first if Sharon is in IW to judge.

I'm not sure what difference that makes.

It's more relevant to the story due to Fury having a big role in it. Fury and BW work better as a team than Sharon and Fury.

 

[Rote]

The most likely explanation is that something happened late in the pre-production right before the beginning of filming. Something we will never truly know

And the most simple explanation is "EVC is not a good enough actress for a big role". That's all. Look at her career. No decent projects after Civil War. Other actors have been riding waves of success after this movie (see also: Sebastian Stan), but EVC hasn't got many offers, aside from a supporting character in some FOX medical cliche drama. This is after EVC's interview about not wanting to do TV anymore. She is just unable to get a better job, as it seems.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

And the most simple explanation is "EVC is not a good enough actress for a big role". That's all. Look at her career. No decent projects after Civil War. Other actors have been riding waves of success after this movie (see also: Sebastian Stan), but EVC hasn't got many offers, aside from a supporting character in some FOX medical cliche drama. This is after EVC's interview about not wanting to do TV anymore. She is just unable to get a better job, as it seems.

Was it Gifted that was a smash hit in your opinion or was it Ghost in the Shell?

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Not when your former friend has become a monster who kills innocent people. Because of Steve's refusal to kill Bucky he almost lost the fight for Project Insight. As Sam pointed out, teh Winter Soldier isn't the guy he used to be in 1945.

Still not about morality. Actually, it is the opposite.

Cersei on Game of Thrones called Joffrey a monster, but she'd never kill him and was shattered by his death. Does that make her moral?

Because apparently people want to see Cap as this shining ideal who can't do anything wrong, who can't be selfish and who is basically an angel descended to this sinful Earth. Steve is a human being. It's normal for him to have some flaws. Combat junkie =/= one who likes killing people. It's different things. All people are junkies in something. Some of us are movie junkies, chocolate junkies, cleaning junkies and so on and so forth. Maybe Steve suffers from PTSD and this is a side effect.

Cap as a paragon style character is what the character is supposed to be, son.

Cap has PTSD. alright. Do the movies ever address it? Will he recover?

It is a matter of opinion. By that logic the majority of heroes get off scott free every time without any major impact. Evaluation of an impact is a really subjective thing. Also, it was Whedon's choice to ignor this subplot. As well as he ignored many other subplots from the other movies like IM3. In the Russo's movie BW is actually going in hiding to lay low in the end. So, please, don't blame the Russos for Whedon's mistakes.

Black Widow either gets arrested or she doesn't. She is convicted or she isn't. She is sentenced or she isn't. None of that is subjective.

You can argue whether what happens to her is bad or not, but all that happens to her is sitting through an inquest.

Did the Russos check with Whedon if he wanted to do a subplot about Natasha being on the run before deciding that her past made her better than Sharon?

Scott Lang spent a lot of his own movie trying to go straight and avoid going back to prison, wanting to stay in his daughter's life. Did Whedon ignore that, or was it the Russos?

Otherwise let's blame Gunn for making Mantis different from her comic-book counterpart and giving Ayesha a small and thankless role.

I haven't seen GotGv2, but

1) The main characters are still Starlord, Gamora, Drax, etc. Right? Gunn didn't put Captain Marvel front and center at their expense.

and 2)

Why not? I don't know a thing about those characters, but if their fans feel like they were squandered/mistreated and want to call Gunn out, they should go for it.

It's more relevant to the story due to Fury having a big role in it. Fury and BW work better as a team than Sharon and Fury.

....Fury has a connection with BW because that's how the final draft had it.

They weren't depicted as close in The Avengers (I'm not sure they even talked to one another). Or Iron Man 2.

Why is it that the concept of scripts not being naturally-occurring things so alien?

 

[Rote]

Was it Gifted that was a smash hit in your opinion or was it Ghost in the Shell?

Compared to EVC's career, yeah, it's quite a success. At least other actors have jobs. Stan's got a noticable career boost. Mackie's got some new projects. It's been three years since TWS. EVC can't move on from TV and doesn't have that much offers.

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Compared to EVC's career, yeah, it's quite a success. At least other actors have jobs. Stan's got a noticable career boost. Mackie's got some new projects. It's been three years since TWS. EVC can't move on from TV and doesn't have that much offers.

Everyone is doing better than someone else. Chris Evans is doing better than EVC, Dwayne Johnson is doing better than Chris Evans, EVC is arguably doing better than Hayley Atwell.

Taken on their own, those movies were nothing special (Gifted) and a flop (GITS).

Mackie has always been able to find work, as has Stan. By and large, everyone in the MCU has maintained their own level of success, no better nor worse.

 

[Capsfan]

Still not about morality. Actually, it is the opposite.

Cersei on Game of Thrones called Joffrey a monster, but she'd never kill him and was shattered by his death. Does that make her moral?

Well, I guess the notion of morality is subjective, so that writer is entitled to their own opinion on that matter.

Joffrey was their son, it's understandable. Bucky is not Steve's brother or another kind of blood relative. Also, you can't really compare Cersei with Captain America by their moralities. Too different characters.

Cap has PTSD. alright. Do the movies ever address it? Will he recover?

Well. AoU addressed it. It was Cap's arc during the whole movie.

And judging by the deleted scene with Sharon, they've tried to touch it, Sharon was supposed to be his hope for the future, but something gone wrong about this scene. I actually think, the other posters were right - it seems that the scene was reshot due to the reaction of test audiences.

Black Widow either gets arrested or she doesn't. She is convicted or she isn't. She is sentenced or she isn't. None of that is subjective.

You can argue whether what happens to her is bad or not, but all that happens to her is sitting through an inquest.

I'm not arguing that the Russos did it all as it should have been done. I stress about it once again. I just speculate, why BW might have been more compelling to them personally and subjectively. They are humans. Their opinion about what is interesting is different from yours or mine. If you don't agree with them, it's totally fine, but it still doesn't mean they couldn't have deemed BW more interesting as a female lead due to this reasons.

Did the Russos check with Whedon if he wanted to do a subplot about Natasha being on the run before deciding that her past made her better than Sharon?

Did Shane Black check with Whedon if he wanted to do a subplot about Tony coming back to the Avengers after destroying all his suits and promising Pepper to retire?

Scott Lang spent a lot of his own movie trying to go straight and avoid going back to prison, wanting to stay in his daughter's life. Did Whedon ignore that, or was it the Russos?

Yeah, of course, it was the Russos.
I think, that's because they had no other way around it. They needed Scott to be there for Civil War. They needed more people. So they had no over way than to screw up his motivation.

I haven't seen GotGv2, but

1) The main characters are still Starlord, Gamora, Drax, etc. Right? Gunn didn't put Captain Marvel front and center at their expense.

and 2)

Why not? I don't know a thing about those characters, but if their fans feel like they were squandered/mistreated and want to call Gunn out, they should go for it.

I haven't read GotG comics, but too many people are saying that not only Mantis, but basically the majority of the Guardians are nothing like their comic-book counterparts. Even the creator of Mantis complained about this out loud. Is it better than what the Russos are doing if it's actually just new characters?

The thing is, I'm not saying fans of Sharon shouldn't call Russos out. I just think that the reason people name in this thread - the Russos being obsessed with the headliners - is too shallow and superficial to be true concerning good filmmakers.
The point is, Cap is a headliner himself. So, even if they don't care much about Sharon herself they should care about the love interest of their most popular Avenger after IM. This is why I actually don't really believe your theory. They don't care much about Falcon, but it doesn't prevent them from at least depicting him properly and giving him screentime. They are not going out of their way to do it. They couldn't have been unaware that people would complain about Cap's LI not getting justice. This is why initially Sharon had a bigger role. They've perfectly understood why she needed to have a decent role.
So that's why I think there must be some other deeper reason, which is just not so obvious for us from the outside.

I've read a rumor on reddit that the original scene with Steve and T'Challa in Wakanda included Sharon too, but it she was eliminated from there. They cut her from this scene in reshoots. You can notice Sebastian's hair being a lot different in the movie and post credit scene. In the original version Bucky got his vibranium arm and not being put back on ice. And this is actually on par with what Minxie said about post-credit scene regarding Bucky.:

It's curious because the post-credit scene was actually originally gonna be Bucky getting a new arm courtesy of T'Challa (I am 100% certain of this, it's not just a vague rumor I heard lol), but they re-shot the scene in the January re-shoots to what it is now. Idk if that means they changed their minds about how (or from who) Bucky will get a new arm, or if they decided to just put that scene in a different film.

As those who read these threads back then know, Minxie had a legit source on the CW set.
So in case this rumor is true, it raises another whole problem: the Russos being not just "not caring about Sharon", but actively cutting her out. Sharon being in a post-credit in the background wouldn't have taken screentime from anybody and at least she wouldn't have completely vanished after the kiss.
You can't explain these actions by simple "They don't care about Sharon, they only care about the Avengers". This calls for some deeper reason we just don't know.

....Fury has a connection with BW because that's how the final draft had it.

They weren't depicted as close in The Avengers (I'm not sure they even talked to one another). Or Iron Man 2.

Why is it that the concept of scripts not being naturally-occurring things so alien?

Well, I actually thought they were in IM2. Might be my mistake, I haven't rewatched IM2 for quite a long time.

 

[Capsfan]

And the most simple explanation is "EVC is not a good enough actress for a big role". That's all. Look at her career. No decent projects after Civil War. Other actors have been riding waves of success after this movie (see also: Sebastian Stan), but EVC hasn't got many offers, aside from a supporting character in some FOX medical cliche drama. This is after EVC's interview about not wanting to do TV anymore. She is just unable to get a better job, as it seems.

I've read this theory here about Disney forcing them, but tbh, I can't say anything one way or another. I just haven't seen Emily in anything besides two Cap's movies and, frankly, it's too minor roles for me to judge her acting abilities.
I've seen people in IW's thread claiming the same about her being just a TV-actress and I'm confused. I thought Stan was also a TV-actor before the Cap's trilogy.

Everyone is doing better than someone else. Chris Evans is doing better than EVC, Dwayne Johnson is doing better than Chris Evans, EVC is arguably doing better than Hayley Atwell.

Taken on their own, those movies were nothing special (Gifted) and a flop (GITS).

Mackie has always been able to find work, as has Stan. By and large, everyone in the MCU has maintained their own level of success, no better nor worse.

To be fair, I'm not saying that Rote is right, without some proof it's all just an empty talk, but other actors have already been in big-budget films before, so it's nothing new for them. For Emily, as she rightfully pointed out in some interview, it was a window of new opportunities. I think there was a considerable amount of expectations from her fans that she should've gotten more offers to star in high profile movies after starring in the Captain America films and Revenge.
________
PS. And you know what, I could actually buy the theory that the studio mandated them to have the certain roles for BP, Spidey and maybe Vision/Wanda affair (just like they mandated a big role for Fury in TWS) and forbade them to cut out anything about the Avengers or future Avengers due to IW coming. So even if the Russos actually didn't want to, maybe they had no other choice and were forced to cut Sharon's role. Cause all this theory 'being obsessed with popular characters' stinks more like the studio's attitude. The studio ordered Whedon to keep Thor's pool scene, so the more believable and simple explanation is that it's the studio who is worried about popular characters, money and nothing else.
I know, you will say it was the Russos who hyped up Spidey, BP and Wanda, but it might be part of their job to hype up certain subplots and characters. I bet, they are told, what is allowed to be said in the interviews and what is not.

 

[Tg11]

I wonder if we will see her again in Infinity War

 

[Rote]

I've read this theory here about Disney forcing them, but tbh, I can't say anything one way or another. I just haven't seen Emily in anything besides two Cap's movies and, frankly, it's too minor roles for me to judge her acting abilities.
I've seen people in IW's thread claiming the same about her being just a TV-actress and I'm confused. I thought Stan was also a TV-actor before the Cap's trilogy.

To be fair, I'm not saying that Rote is right, without some proof it's all just an empty talk

You can always go on Youtube and watch some scenes from Revenge for yourself. She's CONSTANTLY whispering. To the point it's difficult to sort out, what she's saying. And even when she speaks up, in the end she still fades into the same whispering. Where H. Atwell pitched her voice to have authority, EVC is just breathy, wooden and annoying.

but other actors have already been in big-budget films before, so it's nothing new for them.

Exactly.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

How the heck is the thread about this one minor character up to its 3rd continuation now (and almost to its 4th) while the actual main stars of the film are only on one continuation?