Thread:Elledy92/@comment-26838855-20190425183005/@comment-25521424-20190430151829

BEJT wrote: Elledy92 wrote: But the time split wherever the stones are moved or not. Most of time branches created in the movie are not caused by the Stones, but from action of the Avengers in the past. Which I addressed above is a) one of the only things I think the film isn't perfect with its rules for but b) can have two different explanations, and those are just the ones I can think of. It doesn't change the fact that the only way that the film gives us precedent for for Steve being around as an old man on that bench is if he lived through the normal timeline, meaning his arrival in the 1940s did not create a branched timeline, and that this also actually makes since in accordance with what the film tells you about what creates branch timelines.

Elledy92 wrote: ''Thor recovers his hammer, Mjolnir, by taking it from an earlier timeline. So that raises the question — '' McFEELY Does that screw that other Thor? MARKUS Is he killed by Dark Elves? McFEELY I think we’re leaning on, when you just take a baseball mitt, you didn’t ruin that kid’s life. When you took Mjolnir, we accept that that movie happened. Because time is irrefutable. MARKUS You can make any number of what ifs. The Dark Elves would have arrived, intending to get the Aether. It’s what they came for and it was no longer there. McFEELY So they build a paradise together. MARKUS They all got married. - from Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely interview.

Altough they are clearly joking, the still underline the fact that the 2013 timeline will still not affect the present even if changed, because of the laws of time stated by Banner.

Yeah I read the interview, because it was called like "All your questions answered" and yet, of course, didn't answer our question unfortunately!

The bits where they did touch on time travel were very confusing, because they are a) joking, b) seem to act like Mjolnir wasn't returned, when it was, and c) the way they talk about things ("we accept that that movie happened. Because time is irrefutable" and some other quotes from the article) imply that the whole thing is meant to be a predestination paradox, which we agree can't be true, and yet they simultaneously speculate about what would happen in the hypothetical future of each timeline.

Regardless, as I said earlier, if they do in fact say that those timelines continued and weren't cut off, sure - that wasn't worded well when they say "erase" in the film, but sure. It doesn't make much difference.

The main point is whether Steve lived in an alternate timeline or the main timeline.

If they say it's an alternate timeline, they need to provide an explanation that's not provided in the film. If they say it's the same timeline, they don't because the precedent is in the film. Very well, i think we have an undestandment here.