Thread:Marvelous 345678/@comment-27496405-20180723185324/@comment-2112031-20180804235850

BEJT wrote:

Oh, right. Not living in the U.S., I didn't know much about these tournaments work, so from what I'd read on The Comic Board, I had just assumed it was that the season ends and then a few weeks later you have the "state finals" and that was just the one game, the final, shown in Episode 5-ish I think it was. So I assumed Episode 1 was the end of the season, but you're probably right. I'll have to take another look. I did wonder why the state finals dates on the calendars we looked at spanned several days rather than just one definitive date. I had assumed it was something to do with just a 6-day window in which the final could take place, but that the exact date would only be decided once they knew who was in the final.

Well, if it is just a quarter final or something in Episode 1, Mardi Gras kind of still overrules it. I don't think it's that big a deal to assume that the state finals are just a couple of weeks earlier in the MCU. But it would be evidence that basically tells us "This show should take place in a year where Mardi Gras is as late as possible," and 2017 is the latest it has been since 2014, with February 28th, so that would add to the 2017 evidence. Agreed. Having watched Episode 10, it's nice to have it be fully confirmed in dialogue to be Mardi Gras, so at least there's no doubt or ambiguity.

BEJT wrote:

I doubt it as well, but the rumours that Tom Holland will be in the film concern me. I really want it kept separate. I know a lot of people think Spider-Man showing up would be a great thing, but the difference for me is that I think they want Venom to be a good film and feel like Spider-Man is necessary for that. I think Spider-Man is indeed pretty necessary for a Venom film, but I don't approve of Venom the 2018 Sony film, and so rather than having Spider-Man show up in that and thus have Venom barge its way into the MCU unwanted, I'd honestly prefer for Venom to flop and for us to get Venom done properly by Marvel in the MCU. Then you can have Spider-Man with Venom.

I'm kind of anti-this film. I'm not usually like that, but I think Sony are being shady (and idiots) in making this film. They've tried this "we'll make our own expanded universe using only one character's IP") before and it failed, but they're still trying. But also, I don't like the way they kind of seem to be trying to trick casual audiences into thinking it's a Marvel film and/or a spin-off of the Tom Holland Spider-Man to get people to come and see it. It feels kinda exploitative of the MCU, and also, if it's bad (which there's a very good chance it might be), then it tarnishes the Marvel brand for casual audiences who don't understand the distinction. And if they essentially canonise themselves into the MCU by putting Tom Holland in this, then that's really kind of exploitative of the deal. Because they probably could, since they own the character. They probably could put him in this, but to basically force your way into the MCU, a wholly Marvel Studios-made universe, so you get notoriety and more money is, in my opinion, really dodgy. And really annoying.

I think I'd have less bad will towards this film if we knew with 100% certainty that they are not putting Tom Holland in the film. I still think it's a bad idea and that Marvel would do a much better job with Venom than Sony will, because just in general, Marvel have shown that they are better. But I'd care less if Sony were making it very clear this was separate, with no question about it being a part of the MCU. Make your own dodgy decisions Sony, succeed or fail by your own hand, but if you're not letting Marvel be involved, don't get Marvel involved. Don't drag them down with you. Don't make your problems their problems.

Also maybe I'm hate-watching, but the latest trailer really made me think, "This looks bad." Some of the dialogue is incredibly wooden or clunky, and that "turd in the wind" line was just awful, I felt. It made me wince, finding it really cringey and awkward.

Sorry, not usually this negative about something! And I'm glad you seem to like the trailers, just personally, not working for me. I can definitely understand that. I'm a bit of two minds on the movie. On one hand, the possibility of a Venom fighting Spider-Man in the MCU is awesome, on the other hand, Sony is trying to at least partially ride the MCU's coattails in order to gain a bigger audience.

The ambiguous status of "Sony's Marvel Universe" will probably somewhat depend on whether the movie is any good or not. For now, the official statement given by Amy Pascal (and endorsed by Kevin Feige as the "perfect answer") is that the movie "is not a part of the MCU franchise" but is "set in the same reality".

Basically, it's kind of like how the shows reference the movies but not vice-versa, the Sony-produced movies might contain references and even characters from the Marvel Studios-produced movies, but will otherwise stay seperate. Or at least, that's how I interpret it.

The main reason why Sony's previous attempts at creating their own cinematic universe kept failing is because they kept making the same mistake, namely that they insisted on putting way too much stuff into their movies which only served the purpose of setting up future movies, which detracted from the movies themselves.

I believe that the best way going forward would be to co-produce with Marvel to ensure both quality and continuity, rather than trying to barge into the MCU and hope that everything works out fine.

In the end, I'm somewhat hopeful that the movie ends up being good and that Sony will negotiate some sort of deal after the third Spider-Man movie to work more closely with Marvel on these projects.

BEJT wrote:

Yeah, there's 3 mentions of "2 years" I believe. There's Jimmy Woo saying he was sentenced to 2 years, there's Scott saying he hasn't driven for 2 years (which isn't any sort of legal "2 years" it's just a general "2 years" so could easily be 21 months), and then there's Scott saying at the end something like "My 2 years is up already?" So 21 months works alright, I still don't think it's going to be the final solution, but it works for now, for all the evidence we currently have. Yeah, it'll ultimately depend on whether the later movies end up contradicting it in some way. As of right now, we're fine, which is good.

BEJT wrote:

Thanks. It's very very hard to make out, but I'll have a very close look at these two pages of HD screencaps: 1, 2. I assume these are what Marvelous was referring to It's honestly way too blurry for me to make any kind of confident statement on the matter. It might be "2018", but it could also be "2017", it's just too blurry to tell.

BEJT wrote:

Well Okoye could still have a major part to play 5 years down the line. But we'll see, I don't know if it's as simple as a 5-year jump, but I do think there's something going on involving the future.

21 months does work nicely. I started doing more California legal research and saw some stuff suggesting there might not be good behaviour reduction options in house arrest, but it wasn't clear. I'll keep researching and keep thinking about the issue, because I'm sure there will be more contradictory evidence to come later on, but for now... for now, we're good. I've done a big edit of the 2018 page to correct the dates and rewrite the reference.

The "12-06-2017" isn't super clear, but it is legible. If it were just the one date, I would agree that it could be ignored. However, it lines up perfectly with:

Being soon after Rewind, which is November 25-26, 2017. Being "months" after they left in May 2017, as mentioned by Hale in Episode 12. Being soon after Thor: Ragnarok, with the Episode 11 reference suggesting the events were recent, and that film is in late 2017. Being only a little time before Christmas, which seems to be when Episode 13 - Principia is set. Agreed, there's no reason to ignore the date unless absolutely necessary. The current timeline works for now and may very well still work after Avengers 4 and Spider-Man: Far From Home are released. There's no need to correct a problem that doesn't exist yet and may very well not even end up existing at all.

As for the house arrest reduction laws, we could perhaps assume that laws enforced by the Sokovia Accords allow for such reductions even if local state laws do not.

BEJT wrote:

I'd be interested in a prequel, definitely. I'd love to see more of the MCU history fleshed out. If they have the confidence to deage Samuel L. Jackson and Clark Gregg for the whole of Captain Marvel, then maybe they would have the confidence to do it for Hank and Janet for a whole film in a few years' time - obviously they would be the main characters when Fury and Coulson are just supporting characters, but it could probably work in a few years. I don't think they will do it, but still, I'd be interested in seeing it.

If they do a further sequel to Ant-Man and Ant-Man and the Wasp to complete the trilogy, I'd like to see it be called The Wasp. Because you can't really call it something like Ant-Man, the Wasp, and Stature" or something like that - you can't just keep listing characters. As well as this, I think Wasp is as deserving as Ant-Man to be the lead character, so in the way she was a secondary character in his film, he could be a secondary character in hers. And also, it would create a nice symmetry in the trilogy's titles that is quite unique, and Marvel haven't really followed the same pattern for sequel titles for any of their series so it would be another fun way of doing the title progression. But I'd love to see some parallels between the 1980s Ant-Man and Wasp and the 2010s Ant-Man and Wasp, I was hoping for a little more of that in Ant-Man and the Wasp because it would have been the perfect time, to kind of have two parallel pairs of Ant-Man and Wasp in different decades. It's an interesting idea. Although, as far as future titles go, I think they could just add a subtitle to it. Something like Ant-Man and the Wasp: Into the Microverse or something along those lines.

However, since the next Wonder Woman movie is going to be about her fighting Soviets in the '80s, I'd imagine that Marvel would prefer to avoid making a superhero set around that same time period to avoid comparisons.

BEJT wrote:

Not necessarily, there could have been heroes back then. It would just make it difficult if you want to have them interact with the characters in the present day, but the '60s era could fit their character style really well. People talk about how The Incredibles would make a great Fantastic Four film, and The Incredibles is set in the 1960s, with a lot of '60s design and style. It could definitely work. The argument of "why haven't we heard of them before" could just as easily be made about Captain Marvel and even Black Panther, the former having been active in the '90s and the latter having opened up Wakanda to the rest of the world and yet having gone unmentioned in chronologically later movies and shows (until Infinity War).

The easiest explanation is that the Fantastic Four could have operated as a covert group, perhaps under S.H.I.E.L.D.'s supervision. As for how they could interact with the characters inb the present day, the simplest way to have them have some kind of mishap that results in them getting displaced somehow and not reemerging until present day, thus explaining what happened to them.

Also, slight correction, I'm pretty sure The Incredibles takes place in 1970. The opening occurs in 1955 and the rest of the movie occurs "15 Years Later", placing it in 1970.

Deadpooled123 wrote:

It would be too over-the-top because you would have to include history that has never been foreshadowed at the slightest of even indicated briefly. It makes sense to start first with turning down of the Avengers Tower in NYC before ANYTHING. With the last episode of C&D, l meant to edit the first message you quoted BEJT and say 'the last episode goes over 3 days' which would place Episode 9 starting on February 25 (which can accomodate that mobile error reporting 'October 5' of Billy's anniversary). Again, you could make the same argument regarding how Ant-Man, the Wasp and Captain Marvel have all never been mentioned despite having been active in the '80s and '90s respectively. It all depends on how such a hypothetical movie would handle their activities.

As for the 3 days, Episode 10 starts the night before Mardi Gras, then the main events occur on the day of Mardi Gras, and then the epilogue occurs the following day. As such, Episode 9 probably occurs on February 27, with Episode 10 covering February 27, February 28 and March 1.