Thread:Elledy92/@comment-26838855-20190425183005/@comment-26838855-20190522215527

MJLogan95 wrote: The writers aren't sure of it entirely + have zero explanation for the shield. Yeah, I know you headcannoned that the Wakandans fixed it, but that's you filling in a blank. The Russos are surefire & steadfast in their explanations & even explain how come Cap's shield is fixed again.

For the time being, it seems the Russo explanation is the canon one here. Like you said, it depends on a third party. Someone informed Feige about Markus-McFeely & Russo brother contradictions during his AMA Reddit and asked him to weigh in, and all he said was "Yes."

As in it basically went like "the writers and directors have completely different explanations for time travel and the film's ending! Which explanation do you think is the most true?" and then Feige replies "Yes." and then moves on to the next question. Answering the question without really answering the question. 'Cause let's face it, whichever one Feige agreed with would be the canon explanation. To be clear, I wasn't seeing the shield thing as a theory and then headcannoning an answer. Honestly, what happened was I felt it was clear in the film that it had to be the same timeline, so I just didn't even consider the shield being pulled from time, and thought they were just leaving it up to us to fill in the blank that it got fixed, presumably by Wakanda.

I admit that with the way the film retrieves Mjolnir and the items holding stones from time, plucking it from time would be a more satisfying answer that feels more like the film's sort of approach, for lack of a better way of putting it, but I really don't think the shield is an important sway factor here.

It's too early to say what the "canon" explanation is because there are pros and cons either way and there is no way of objectively choosing. Markus and McFeely don't explain the shield, but that's far from universe-breaking, but the Russos' way doesn't explain how the fixing of timelines could possibly work, how Steve could possibly get back without using the platform, or what the talk of Infinity Stones causing splits is all about. There are flaws either way (personally I feel many more flaws with the Russos than Markus and McFeely, but I accept that it's debatable, and hence my point - there is no factual canon answer yet).

And to also be clear, my comment was not me saying, "No, Markus and McFeely is canon." That's what I was trying to say when I mentioned "even if it's not what's going to end up as the explanation" and "but the people involved with the film have decided to make it much more complicated". The comment was me saying that in rewatching, I feel reaffirmed in my initial understanding of the film and still believe - even more so now - that this is what the film says. And that it's a shame the writers and directors haven't coordinated to just make sure that everyone's on the same page and in line with the film.

I'm fully aware of the AM(A)A comment, which I found both funny and annoying. Yes, I want a third party to weigh in and was hoping it would be Feige, but apparently he's not going to any time soon,

As for "let's face it, whichever one Feige agreed with would be the canon explanation", I don't need to "face it", I agree. I don't think his word is always gospel on its own - his comments about Baby Groot were overruled by James Gunn, and his comments about what definition of life was susceptible to the Snap were overruled by Markus and McFeely (and what the film shows). But in this circumstance, it would've been a deciding factor from someone of sufficient authority.

Marvelus wrote: I respectfully disagree. I don't know how or when we decided that the Russos' comments overrule the writers'. Just because they don't know how to answer some questions their answers shouldn't be ignored.

To my knowledge, in this wikia, if two main sources contradict each other, then none of them should be taken into consideration until Feige or a future film explains it otherwise... Like Shuri's age.

The Russos being surefire? Pfff. If they explained something in the movie, where it is established the new realities will be erased once the Stones are returned, because Loki escaping with the Tesseract and potentially giving it to Thanos would affect the entire cosmos in its entirety. The Bifrost would stay destroyed, the Marauders' war would reign on the Nine Realms for who knows how long, Thor wouldn't have a way to return to Asgard unless Dark Magic is used, Thanos would have a Stone in advantage and his plans could fulfill fully. HYDRA would believe Cap is from them and when they realize he is not, the HYDRA's revelation would be a lot before and the Avengers could be killed. Thor losing his hammer in 2013 can led to the Destruction of Asgard at the hands of the Dark Elves... Wow. The Avengers are so big heroes. They literally doomed all the realities but the 2014 one. It wouldn't make sense to return the Stones if those realities are literally heading to a worst aftermath.

The Russos contradicted themselves with the movie, which IS the main piece of information that we should considerate. So I think the whole alternatie timeline from Captain America page should be put aside until Feige explains it or a movie talks about it... But no. The movie established it otherwise and they blew it. If I were an admin, and I haven't checked what's being used because I don't want the stress of dealing with any of that but I'm guessing that once the Russos got there first, it was locked in as the way things are working for now unfortunately, I would just have things with Steve and Peggy say "possible alternate timeline" for now.

I agree that like with Shuri, the policy would appear to be to just go with neither until there's more evidence.

I'm not personally steadfast in this idea of timelines being erased because it seems like Markus and McFeely have no particular stance on that and so that in general, comments and many people's Loki assumptions seem to be heading that way. All I'm saying when it comes to erasing or at least "clipping" (if there's a difference) timelines is that that's what the film says, regardless of whether it's what the people want to say it actually is now.

I'm not 100% sure what you're saying with the bad timelines - is that because of what I said about how by the Russo rules, there are still dark timelines? Because obviously Mjolnir and the stones were returned so only the Loki ramifications would be bad (apart from the fact that 2014 doesn't have the Guardians ever meet, which could cause problems with Ego) if you return the stones. But yeah, by the Russo rules you'd only then create a new branch from each branch which is good, without actually stopping those bad timelines from playing out.

By the Markus and McFeely rules, you either get to return the stones to these branch timelines safely to at least make those timelines better (apart form Loki and Ego) because you're not removing a stone so you're not creating a branch, or you erase those branch timelines. Either way, it makes more sense, and fits with what the film says.

Also another weird thing the Russos said was their phrasing about Loki saying specifically that him taking the stone creates a new timeline, not the time travel. I assume they just meant that the time travel created a new timeline but Loki's actions meant it couldn't be fully fixed and so is more of an alternate timeline than the others, but they just don't really make much sense in what they're saying. I love the guys, but they're just massively over-complicating things, whereas Markus and McFeely are being more cautious in what they say.

MJLogan95 wrote: When it comes to the movie itself, the contradiction is still there. Because Cap didn't reappear on the platform. When it comes to those alternate timelines, putting the Stones back doesn't eradicate those timelines. Well, exactly... the contradiction to the Russos' statement is still there because Cap didn't appear on the platform.

Whether or not returning stones erases timelines is mostly an unrelated point to the Cap thing, apart from the question of whether removing Infinity Stones is what causes splits. As I say, none of the comments seem particularly like they're going to talk about that aspect of the time travel rules of the film, but the Russos talking about alternate timelines seems to just be the way the conversation is going despite the comments the film makes about erasing timelines. All I'm saying is the film says that.

Marvelus wrote: Cap did not reappear in the platform because the movie established that he was ALWAYS Carter's husband. And why return them anyway? Cap himself says: I'll clip all those timelines... The branch was meant to be erased. So the Russos should not be taken into considerstion as they contradict the film itself. Well they didn't directly establish that he was always her husband, only indirectly through the explanation of the time travel and the implication that he went back pre-1953.

MJLogan95 wrote: The film never ESTABLISHED that he was ALWAYS Carter's husband. Yeah, except for the Time Stone I didn't see the need to return the other Stones. In any case, Cap is clipping the branched timelines emanating from the alternate timelines. Those timelines themselves still exist.

If Cap went to the prime timeline past, and was always Peg's husband, that means he didn't change anything. I know, he can't change anything. You can't change your timeline; only create an alternate one. But how did Cap know that he was always her husband? He didn't. As far as he knew, he was creating an alternate timeline. Anyways, that wouldn't explain how the shield was fixed to give it to Sam. if the writers said: "Oh, so and so fixed it, etc." then there we go.

But they had zero explanation, while the Russos said it was because it came from an alternate timeline & that Cap did in fact change his alternate timeline.

You can't compare this situation to Shuri's age. Shuri's age isn't required. However, we have to have some sort of explanation for the rules of time travel and the ending of the film, and of Cap's arc. We can't wait for a third party; we choose one explanation.

I guess those in charge chose the Russos; and from what I gleaned, it might have been the explanation of the shield that pushed it ahead. Feige and the other producers are now aware of the contradictory statements & I don't see them explaining or co-signing any of this. The idea of erasing branched timelines on the branched timelines was just my way of trying to reconcile the film's comments with the Russo comments. The film just says that they create a new, dark timeline that they will "erase"/"clip" when they take Infinity Stones, never establishing the idea of any other way of creating a new timeline.

That's not how a Bootstrap Paradox works. The idea of that paradox is a loop that just is, with no starting point or end point. The later thing came about because of the early thing which came about because of the later thing which came about the early thing etc.. In choosing to go back, he defined the fact that he was that husband. He knows that in going back, he can't change time, yet is going back anyway which by definition means that he always went back in this timeline. It's similar to the idea of how fourth-dimensional comprehension is potentially a problem with free will. Cosmically, did Steve go back because he chose to, or because it was predetermined? The answer is both. In going back, I hesitate to say he "made" it a loop, because he didn't. The loop exists, he's just playing that part of it. He goes back because cosmically speaking, he always was set to go back, but also because he makes the decision to do it. If he hadn't chosen to, there wouldn't be that loop, but there's no way he could've not chosen to because of the way time works, preestablished. In Steve's head though, from his personal 3-D perspective, he is going back in the knowledge that if Peggy accepts him, that means he always was her husband, and if Peggy rejects him, that means that someone else always was her husband, and never mind.

Kyle Reese chose to go back, but also (just speaking about The Terminator here and not the sequels, the first film on its own is a Bootstrap Paradox) there's no possibility from an objective 4-D perspective that he could have in fact ever chosen otherwise.

Again with the shield, sure you can consider that a question that needs answering, but there's no reason that that one question should be the deciding factor when the Russos also have plenty of questions to answer.

It's pretty similar to Shuri's age. Sure it needs to say something, because saying nothing is saying something, it's saying it's the same timeline. That is of course the difference from Shuri's age, but considering no extra pages are made for the alternate timeline versions of characters, you can just say "possible alternate timeline" in most places until otherwise confirmed.

Not sure how these decisions get made. It seems sometimes like just it's an admin choice when it should be more of a democracy (if it's necessary to make a decision, which I don't think it is). Same with The Cosmic Quest Volume Two which just suddenly got declared non-canon despite being official canon and not contradicting anything...

I would bring this sort of thing up but I just can't deal with the stress of having this conversation with an admin, especially since inevitably if I did start up a conversation, the next day Feige will support the Russos and it will be pointless. If I felt that the comments meant it is the same timeline, I might have to take it up with people, but since it's undecided and they've just for some reason gone way, it's just not worth the stress to inevitably make no difference.

Marvelus wrote: By showing Cap returning by the long journey to the present day and not using the platform... They established Cap always lived in our timeline. Cap says that he will erase all those branches. Well, exactly. That's why I came out of the film both times going, "Yup, the film tells us it's the same timeline."

Elledy92 wrote: You can't erase a timeline. That will be equivalent of erasing or changing time, something that according to Banner rule cannot happen.

Both Russo and the writers established that they changed the rules of time-travel after the first screening and the reshoots: what's happened in the final movie is what the Russo declared.

I'm sure that the writers never establishing the name of Carter's husband was a clue, a key to open up to the possibility that Rogers may have been Carter's time-traveling husband, but this just simply doesn't work according to the final story of the movie, and the directors themselves dismissed it. It's not like changing time. Banner's explanation is that you can't rewrite a timeline - either you create a new timeline, or you are in a Bootstrap Paradox. The Ancient One scene establishes that the Infinity Stones create the flow of time and so removing/replacing them messes with the timeline. Remove one and time becomes volatile and broken. Replace one and the flow of time corrects itself, erasing the break. Just it would appear that that discussion is being thrown out of the window to some degree.

They didn't say they changed the rules of time travel. They said they added further explanation to better explain to people that this isn't Back to the Future. There's nothing in those comments about how this in some way makes what happened in the final movie is what the Russos declared.

I just don't get the idea that "this just simply doesn't work according to the final story of the movie" - it's exactly what the final story of the film suggests. The idea of it being an alternate timeline is what does't fit. The film says, "You can't rewrite time - if you go back in time you are either stuck in the same timeline or you create a new timeline. Removing Infinity Stones is what causes a split into a new timeline." Hence, Steve did not create a new timeline. "When you return from the time travel, you are yanked back to where and when you left on the platform." Hence, Steve did not return from the time travel.

Also the Russos didn't directly dismiss that idea. They got their explanation in first so they weren't dismissing anything - Markus and McFeely getting in second was what caused them to be the ones to say "We reject the alternate timeline theory" - but also, it's just that their explanation goes against that idea logically.

Elledy92 wrote: What pisses me off if probably we won't have a specific answer to the situation, not in the near future. I wish we could get one. I understand the argument from people that it's open to interpretation which makes it artistic, but in this case I disagree - it's not really open to interpretation because it's about the rules the film establishes, it's just being debated because of some people misunderstanding the film first, and then the writers and directors causing a mess after.