Thread:CirUmeUela/@comment-27496405-20180307074410/@comment-2112031-20180717121246

BEJT wrote:

I got that impression of a positive reaction too. Although the critic I was talking about, who works for Empire and discussed this on the Empire podcast, said he still hated Danny in this. Maybe it was just his opinion that threw me a bit because he was so assured on it like it was the general consensus, and maybe he's actually one of only a few people who are so down on the last 2½ years of Marvel Netflix and Luke Cage: Season 2 and Danny's appearance in the season. There are definitely a couple of people who still dislike Danny, but the current reception to him in general is much more positive. If you were to go watch a youtube clip of Luke Cage: Season 2 in which Danny appears, most of the comment section will consist of people cheering about Danny's portrayal.

BEJT wrote:

I think they might just bury it. It's a bit of a shame because there's a lot of potential for great stuff from some of the Inhuman Royal Family characters, but they messed it up, and short of declaring it non-canon and restarting I can't really see them returning to the characters. I did find it kinda funny when, in Infinity War, Hulk's Bifrost beam flies past the Moon and I turned to the friend I was seeing it with and went, "Say hi to Maximus!" Yeah, I don't expect them to return to the Inhumans any time soon, especially since the X-Men are now a possibility. I don't think a restart would be necessary, since the events of the season could easily be glossed over. The only thing they might need to address is Maximus and, if they do, I hope they can improve him. But again. it would depend on whether or not they ever feel like addressing it again.

BEJT wrote:

No I know people are aware it's connected, I just think that it doesn't get thought of as much when people are talking about the Marvel Netflix shows in general, because it's outside of the main set of Defenders and feels a little bit more disconnected. Yeah, I can understand that. I'm personally still hoping that they'll do another crossover and feature Punisher alongside the others, it would certainly make for an interesting dynamic.

BEJT wrote:

Yeah I did like that, that it wasn't as seemingly-scared about being a part of the Defenders universe as Jessica Jones: Season 2 was. I don't know if that was because Jessica Jones: Season 2 began production so soon after The Defenders: Season 1 and so maybe they were writing at the same time, or just for whatever reason they wanted to keep it separate, but it all-but acted as if The Defenders didn't happen. I suspect that it's also partially because it fits Jessica's character. She's more of a loner type and has trouble asking for help from those who are already in her life, let alone from those whom she met on a crazy adventure involving semi-immortal ninjas. Although it appears that she does maintain at least some contact with Luke and Danny, since Danny mentioned that she was also there for Luke if he needed any help.

BEJT wrote:

OK thanks. U.S. laws being different in different states gets confusing. I'll make sure to bear the possibility of number plates giving evidence in mind when I start rewatching for my major project. Glad I could help, I don't think it will make too much of difference to your earlier work, but hey, it's always good to be thorough just in case.

BEJT wrote:

The clothing was more me looking for "If all their clothes are the same, that suggests it's only hours later", which isn't the case, and that perhaps supports a gap of anything from a day upwards. It doesn't really suggest any specific gap other than that maybe it isn't merely hours. The few of them with the same clothes I wasn't saying supported the episodes being close together.

I'm not massively sure what to do because you do make good points about how it could be weeks later, but it does involve making a tonne of assumptions. I do think that with everything else it can't be more than like 6 days or so, but then with Deke's arm it can't be less than a few weeks or so. I think 9 days, giving Deke 10 days of healing, might still just have to be the maximum, but it's possible to push it a few more days, maybe. Very tough. I think that whether or not proposed timespan could work is kind of dependant on whether or not the assumption are within reason. In this case, the agents have been slowly falling apart and growing more distant from each other from Episode 11 onwards due to a combination of stress, trauma, betrayal and, in some cases, a foreboding sense that they can't change the future and are doomed to fail no matter what.

Factoring all of this, it's perfectly plausable that, after returning to the Lighthouse, the team pretty much buried themselves in their respective tasks for several weeks in order to maintain some semblance of cohesion and productivity.

That being said, assuming that we go with your proposed 9 days, that might need some revision. If we're going with my proposed timeline, Deke gets injured on February 15, which, if we assume a 10 day recovery period, would put his recovery on February 25, which is a Sunday.

Since Episodes 19-22 run concurrently with Infinity War, they take place on Wednesday-Thursday. The next Wednesday after February 25 is February 28. As such, it would mean that the season finale and Infinity War occured on February 28-March 1. It could work, but I would personally prefer to add a week or two to it in order to have it be more in the middle of the month rather than at the start.

BEJT wrote: You're a lot more measured and fair in your criticisms than many people out there, I appreciate that. I tried to avoid giving my opinion in the previous post, but I am actually quite a big fan of The Last Jedi for the bold storytelling steps it took and the richness of its themes and expansion of the universe. I love all the Rey and Luke stuff and the direction they took Kylo Ren, and I just think the final hour of the film is sensational and beautiful, gorgeous to watch with fantastic and epic action and some of Mark Hamill's best acting ever, with a subversion of expectations with his character that still delivers massive effect (for me at least) - and yeah, just everything in Snoke's throne room and with the Holdo manoeuvre and the Battle of Crait I just think is some of the best stuff in Star Wars ever.

I understand some of the legitimate criticisms levelled against it for its disconnection from The Force Awakens and how that perhaps isn't a good form of storytelling, and that it did too much subversion of expectations, had some plot holes, some cringey moments, and that many people feel it was not faithful to the character of Luke Skywalker or respectful enough to the Original Trilogy. Personally, I didn't mind the disconnect from The Force Awakens because I liked the new flavour to the film. I also thought Rian Johnson did the best possible thing for J.J.'s mystery boxes - which I don't think he really had satisfactory answers for. Rey being no-one of significance makes her more of a self-made character and distances us from the midichlorian "the Force is genetic" idea and more back into the idea of the Force binding us all and being found by people who seek it through a mix of strength of person and only some of it being genetics. I also didn't mind Snoke just being killed off, because it set the table very differently for Episode IX instead of just building to him being the Emperor of the new trilogy and things going all Return of the Jedi in the next one - it allows the more interesting Kylo Ren to become our primary antagonist which is really interesting. Sure, it might have been nice to get a lore reveal about his history, but it's not really that meaningful to anyone's characters. The subversion of expectations excited me after the main criticism of The Force Awakens being its familiarity. I think there are indeed plot holes, as there are with most films, but they've been exaggerated. I agree there's some cringey parts (some of the humour and some Canto Bight stuff), although again, less than a lot of people feel there are - personally, I liked Rose Tico as a character, for example. I felt Luke's actions were perfectly in keeping with his character, or at least the expectations I had of him following the changes apparent from The Force Awakens to have happened in the interim 30 years, but I did feel that the film didn't give enough time to soak in Luke's death - although I think it is also trying in a way to tell us that it's not supposed to be sad, when Rey talks to Leia about how content they feel about it.

Obviously, there's been a lot of messy arguing around the film (well, that's a massive understatement), and there's an impression that all people who dislike the film are sexist or racist or entitled, which isn't the case, it's just that those kinds of people are more vocal. There are indeed legitimate reasons that many don't like the film - personally, I do like it a lot, and I'm also fine with people not liking it so long as they have an actual discussion, but it saddens me to see the state of the Star Wars fanbase these days, and also that discussion about Star Wars is no longer fun.

Didn't mean to start a conversation about The Last Jedi - I've had so many discussions about the film in the last 7 months and of course this is the MCU Wiki. But oh well. Yeah, I have a lot of thoughts about the reasons behind the extreme reactions and about the misconceptions about both sides of the debate/argument and what the real picture is, the mistakes that were made by people on both sides, etc.. But I'm not going to really get into it because it'll take too long and I won't stop and this is the MCU Wiki. It's been very interesting, but sadly, for mostly bad reasons. Yeah, discussions on the matter are not the best. It's always important to remember that the most vocal people don't always represent the majority. I don't hate the Sequel Trilogy and I actually do like the characters. I just wish that it didn't have this context of wiping away decades of books, comics, etc. in order to make these stories happen, especially since the first of these stories was basically just a retread of A New Hope.

I do like plenty of things in The Last Jedi, particularly the interactions between Rey and Kylo Ren and, of course, seeing Mark Hamill as Luke. The use of symbolism is quite good, such as Luke's journey beginning and ending with him looking at twin suns and the fact that there is never any actual lightsaber duels in the entire movie.

But the actual context feels off, like having Luke die the way he did without actually fully fixing his past mistakes feels a bit premature. It's like if Tony Stark randomly died during the battle with Thanos by being hit by one of his own missiles. Symbolic? Sure. Appropriate? I'm not sure.

Anyway, opinions are divided across the board and I'm one of those people in the middle who likes some of it, dislikes some other parts of it and, in general, is just hoping that they'll manage to wrap it all up in a satisfactory manner.

BEJT wrote:

Yeah, honestly it could kind of just be nice for them to be a bit dismissive of the whole thing. They kind of are, especially since none of the characters have even noticed the predicted future destruction yet.

BEJT wrote:

Looks like March could work, as I'll explain in a minute. So for now at least, we might be off the hook. Really glad to hear that.

BEJT wrote:

Exactly, I too am not keen on June. And there could be some difficulty next year but we'll take every challenge as it comes. I'm confident that we'll manage.

BEJT wrote:

If it is snow, then agreed, like in The Devil Complex, it also points to it being earlier than June. And March just about works. Yeah, sounds good.

BEJT wrote:

Now, my relative replied, and you'll like the response. I do need confirmation from someone who has seen the film that the only mention of 2 years is from the one Jimmy Woo line. But if that is the case, here we go.

So I laid out the situation to my relative with an explanation of the Accords and what Scott did and how he was imprisoned and broken out and what the current problem we have is, and then I finished with 8 questions. These were her replies: This last point has been the hardest to answer, I think because U.K. law treats it differently than U.S. law and as you know each U.S. state can and does have different laws to each other. I seem to read that in the U.K. time in jail does not count if you then get a house arrest, although some U.S. states say it does. So it depends which jurisdiction is dealing with your character.
 * 1. Does "2 years under house arrest" literally mean 730 days (731 with leap years)? If so, is that always the case?
 * As far as I know it would be 2 full years (not counted in days specifically, but one full set of dates) - up to the day before the anniversary - see next question.
 * 2. If this is the case, what is the date that it ends? Is it 730 days later or is it on the 730th day - in other words, if it began on 16 July 2017, would it end on 16 July 2019 or 15 July 2019?
 * In your example, I'm fairly sure it would be 15 July 2019 i.e. the day before the actual anniversary.
 * 3. If it isn't the case, what sort of date would it end on?
 * N/A.
 * 4. Can such a sentence get shortened during the serving of the time, for example with good behaviour or a lawyer getting involved afterwards to improve the deal? I believe that Americans do more shortening of sentences due to good behaviour than we do in the U.K., at least with prison sentences, but I don't know if that's an option with house arrest as well. He does already have the motivation to behave due to the fact that if he violates his deal he gets 20 years in prison, but even so, is there still the option of a good behaviour shortening of the sentence?
 * Yes I believe there is an option of shortening the house arrest, but it would have to be a judge's decision i.e. he would need to apply to the judge and set out very specific circumstances and good behaviour etc..
 * 5. If there is some leniency to the exactness of the 2 years, some wiggle room could maybe be taken from the fact that the character technically only says that Scott agreed to 2 years to serve, but they don't actually say that he has actually done exactly 2 years. Is that possible, that his agreement didn't end up being the actual amount of time he has done?
 * Yes, I think it's technically possible that he agreed the 2 years but has not done the full 2 years.
 * 6. If there is a shortening of the sentence due to good behaviour or something like that, how does that work? Is it like it gets shortened by a month exactly or 2 months exactly or something like that, or is it like it's shortened to 80% or any other percentage? That kind of thing, how specifically would it be shortened?
 * I imagine it would be set out as a month or two, not so much in percentage terms. It's likely to be after say 18 months that an application is made, asking that instead of the remaining 6 months, he does only a further 3. So it might be specified as a number of months or it could be an uneven number of days, aiming for a particular date eg "the end of next month".
 * 7. When does the deal start? Is it from the moment the plea deal is made? Is it from the moment he returns home? Is there an arranged date after he returns home? Or, I've seem some discussion that it might actually be earlier than all of those and count from the moment he was initially imprisoned, would that be the case?
 * I'm really not an expert in this, but I thought it was the kind of thing you only ask for as time has gone on, not at the start of the time. i.e. once you have done 18 months you might issue an application to reduce the remaining time. With house arrest it's not a given that it will be reduced for good behaviour. As it's more lenient already to prison, you have to really earn any further time deducted (I think).
 * Her response here seems to have misunderstood my question, which was about the date on which the sentence would start. I'll follow up on this and respond soon once she's replied again.
 * 8. If it's the case that it counts from the moment of imprisonment, I've also seen some discussion that his 2 days in prison would count for double towards his sentence, so the 2 days in prison count as 4 days of his house arrest, essentially taking 2 days off his sentence. Is that also the case?
 * My understanding was that certainly time in prison is expected to be halved if there is good behaviour so you only expect to serve half the actual sentence in prison and the rest "on licence" i.e. if you stay out of trouble for the remaining time you are fine. If you get into trouble only once, you are sent straight back to prison to complete your sentence.

Hope you can make your timeline work! I'll reply to her with a few further questions just about finding exact specific dates, but especially the idea she mentions of 3 months being taken off the sentence works nicely. Sounds like we really might be able to do March 2018 after all, which fits so much better with everything. This is really good stuff. So, that makes a March 2018 placement rather ideal and also means that the movie can't too long before Infinity War, at least not "weeks" before as some people have suggested, since that would put the movie in February.
 * Again, the first half of the response seems to have misunderstood my question a little, but the second half is what I was asking about. I'll have to have a look about the specifics of San Francisco.

Anyway, assuming they're not in any way concurrent (aside from the post-credits scene), it would put the events of Ant-Man and the Wasp in early March and Infinity War in mid-March.

BEJT wrote:

Also don't really know where to put this but in this video, in the latter part where they talk to Emma Lahana, it is reaffirmed that Tandy is 9 during the flashbacks, and Emma also says that this is O'Reilly's first case in New Orleans. So she's very recently moved, meaning Cloak & Dagger should probably (unless we discard this piece of evidence) be before Luke Cage: Season 2. Looks like it will be anyway, so that's fine. It's always nice to have this kind of confirmation, since it decreases speculation.

Marvelous 345678 wrote:

Hey. No need to call anyone a troll. Cornstomper have a point but if you think about it seeing the MCU as a whole and reading comics and seeing how not every single character tries to do something Dr. Doom plans to take over the world then you don't have to think too much about why Hawkeye, the Defenders, s.H.I.E.L.D., Runaways, Cloak and Dagger or Ant-Man and the Wasp got involved during the Infinity War I think the main sticking point is that Scott's whereabouts are explicitly mentioned in Infinity War, whereas the non-involvement of characters like the Runaways and Cloak and Dagger is at least justifiable because none of the Avengers know them or even anything about them.

That being said, I agree that Scott's absence isn't really any kind insurmountable obstacle, there are plenty of plausable explanations for his absence.

Ben 1,000,911 wrote:

What I didn't consider was the Avengers might not even be fully aware as to the exact sentence of Scott Lang's house arrest and/or know when it ends. This might seem like a cop-out but it's true that they knew about Spider-Man yet didn't try to contact him, so rather than not mentioning trying to contact Ant-Man the characters in the movie say he's on house arrest. It'd be a good way to resolve the timeline issues, then Ant-Man and the Wasp doesn't have to run concurrently with Infinity War, only the Ant-Man and the Wasp aftercredit scenes do. I was planning to mention that as well. The Avengers might think that Scott has to serve the full 24 months sentence and remain under house arrest until June 2018.

Still, the trailers for the movie seem to suggest that he's operating somewhat openly as Ant-Man. However, I haven't actually seen the movie yet, so it might just be isolated incidents within the movie more than anything.