Thread:Twillight2/@comment-27496405-20190314174414/@comment-26838855-20190318175108

Twillight2 wrote: Ye, get to the cenzors. That's your only hope, Coward Of False Statements. Dude, calm down.

And consider that years of constant research and work have gone into this.

Twillight2 wrote: I see no contradictions within the movies themselves, thank you very much. Have another watch then, take a close look, or read the references on the wiki, or generally do more research. The films, especially Phase One, are riddled with mistakes even if you take everything else away.

Twillight2 wrote: The actual timeline stated within the movies for Iron Man1 is: 36 hours before kidnapping, 3 months captivity, than the whole of the movie happens in May. So that 9 month is gibberish nonsense, some comics-writer has to go to canon-camp. Assuming you mean "then the whole of the movie happens in May", would you like to explain where that is "stated"? There is nothing in the film tying it down to the same month, the end of the film could take place any number of months after Tony's return. Marvel confirmed it is 9 months after his kidnapping, so 6 months after his return, and this aligns perfectly with the fact that Iron Man 2 takes place 6 months later in May, 1 year after Tony's return, also in May.

Twillight2 wrote: Iron Man 2 is pretty much undefined when happens exactly, we only know it ends on Dec. 25 of some year, and it happens after Avengers 1, the chitori invasion. We only know the year is 2010+, from Captain America First Avenger. I think you mean Iron Man 3.

And sure, undefined. Other than the fact that it is stated twice that it's been "13 years" since December 1999 and also that if Maya and Tony had a child, the child would now be 12 (born September 2000).

Twillight2 wrote: especialy after the Right Handed Infinity Gauntlet, thank you very much. It's a right-handed, fake gauntlet. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say was wrong with that comment.

Twillight2 wrote: Agent's of Shield is a spinoff show from some non-Disney company, which isn't even allowed to reference the movies, thus it is like sourcing one of the Fantastic Four movies - nonsense. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is made by Marvel Television and ABC, both Disney subsidiaries.

It constantly references the films.

And that is ridiculous. An official canon (as canon as anything in the films) piece of content versus a film with no relation to anything in the MCU in terms of universe/canon...

Twillight2 wrote: Age of Ultron has a picture with a date - that implies when the picture was made, nothing else. Only proves, AoU happened at least that time, and we know thathappened in 2015 (most likely, it's a bit of a limbo there). For Battle of Gulmira YOUR OWN SOURCE CONTRADICTS YOU, as the picture is from 2010, while the wikia (falsly) states it happened in 2009 You contradict yourself here. It implies nothing other than that the picture was made in 2010, doesn't mean the event happened in 2010, only no later than 2010. You are correct. And then you go on to say that this provides a contradiction to 2009. How, if the picture means nothing other than that the event happened no later than 2010?

Also we literally agree with you here. That reference is not an explanation of "Here's every point for why it's 2009", it's an as-abbreviated-as-possible breakdown of the contradictory mess of the Phase One timeline, and then the conclusion drawn from it. That point is there as part of the argument against Iron Man taking place in 2010, and that is all.

Twillight2 wrote: (based on nothing, naturaly). Other than every piece of information out there.

Twillight2 wrote: Calling your attention that only the post-credit scene of Incredible Hulk happens where you claim the 2nd half of it happened. Try again. The second half of The Incredible Hulk takes place during Fury's Big Week, while the end scene (there is no post-credits scene in The Incredible Hulk) with Tony is a month later. It takes place after a scene where Bruce is shown to have had no incidents for a month.

Twillight2 wrote: Unfortunately for you, the rest of your argument here relies on some comicbook, what is secondary material, thus trumpeted by the movies, so I don't care. "Trumped", not "trumpeted". And again, this is not an argument for 2009, it is an unbiased full listed analysis with a conclusion drawn at the end.

Twillight2 wrote: Iron Man 2 actually starts in 1963 (Anton dissidates). It starts with the end moments of Iron Man...

Twillight2 wrote: Unfortunately for you, the Monaco Incident does not appear inside the movies, thus if a secondary source causes contraditcion, it is eliminated as source. What are you talking about? It's literally one of the main scenes of the film.

Twillight2 wrote: , and even some movies (starting with Spiderman Homecoming, but there are different problems in other movies too, like Thor Dark World vs Age of Ultron, Iron Man 3 vs Age of Ultron, Black Panther vs Civil War, Age of Ultron vs 3 other sources, Winter Soldier vs Captain Marvel) have their own problem, so we don't need more. Oh so the films do contain contradictions now?

Twillight2 wrote: Deleted scenes are NOT CANON, they are removed from the film, THEY ARE LIKE DO NOT EVEN EXIST. Refering a trashed element is nonsense.

Let's see what supports your theory: "Marvel's official timeline" is exo-canon source, thus irrelevant. Staff saying some nonsense in interviews: irrelevant, especialy after the Right Handed Infinity Gauntlet, thank you very much. Twillight2 wrote: The movies beat all other sources either way naturaly, so if anything contradicts the movies, that information is false. Twillight2 wrote: I don't think I have to go further, as your problem is clear: you don't watch the movies, and take secondary, or even tertiary sources as precedent, while the movies are the core of the MCU, not some garbage outside of them Twillight2 wrote: If the exo-source contradicts the movies, that source is useless. Got it? Twillight2 wrote: My postition is: the movies beat everything. Related Disney film materials are secondary sources. Disney-comics are tertiary sources. Licenced film products are fourth grade evidence. Licenced other materials are 5th degree evidence. Other "official" Disney-materials (like timeline) are 6th degree evidence. Anything other (like directors/actors/writers interviews) are only 7th degree evidence. Deleted scenes are NOTHING. We literally consider things in degrees like that...

But the timeline is not a case of lexical priority, just priority. Some things are worth much more than others, depending on a) source (film being top, comments/inspired canon comics/deleted scenes bottom), b) intention (written dialogue and on-screen title cards top, something like an accidental slip of a phone in a tiny corner showing a blurry date that was just the date of filming bottom), and c) leniency (the more specific the comment, the more valuable it is). We factor this into all our calculations, all the time.

And of course films are top priority.The list of a few things that support 2009 within the reference are not the things "chosen above all". They are part of an extensive breakdown, in which one finds that there is evidence for 2008, 2009, and 2010, and that overall the best solution is in the middle, which suits the 2009 evidence but also comes as close as possible to suiting both the 2008 and 2010 evidence sets.

And even if you were to take films as the be all and end all, the lexical top priority that nothing is allowed to contradict without being wrong (even though if, say, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. clearly showed on-screen text saying a certain scene was 2012, or had a character state it was 2012, but a film happened to say include an accidental phone slip-up from that same day in the timeline where if you look very closely you can see that a phone just had the date of filming on it which was 2011, obviously the scene is nonetheless 2012 - an example for why the concept of it not being lexical priority is important), 2009 still comes out as the best answer. Strip away the non-film parts, it's still 2009. The fact that general audiences out there who only watch the films and don't care outside of them still to this day argue about whether it's 2008 or 2010 proves that.

Have a good day, we're not going to respond any more unless it's civil and thought-through.