Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26838855-20190803131136/@comment-26838855-20200118041120

Connections (ProBot1227)
ProBot1227 wrote: Dogs of Hell connects AoS with NF too. Ah yes, thank you. And I guess the Aryan Brotherhood in The Punisher, which I only recently realised was the same organisation from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., at least according to this wiki.

Morbius (Spider-Man on YouTube, Marvelus, Elledy92, ProBot1227, Deadpooled123, Mrmichaelt, A fan of many things, including the MCU, David Kaique, Edward Zachary Sunrose)
Spider-Man on YouTube wrote: Movie about Morbius at the MCU? Marvelus wrote: Nope. Well, it is clearly intended to be in that way, but it is not. Yeah, this. As things currently stand, it is officially in a separate universe catchingly called the Sony's Universe of Marvel Characters, which is allowed to reference events from the MCU, basically meaning that near-identical events to the MCU have occurred in that world as well, as well as identical-looking characters.

The effect of this being that Sony essentially get to exploit the partnership with Marvel to make it seem like their films are set in the MCU as well as following up on things set up in the MCU films, thus driving a bigger interest from general audiences - when in fact, they're not quite, not actually set in the MCU.

Elledy92 wrote: Until official confermation, it had to be considered a differen Adrian Toomes from a different continuity.

Is funny because, while they were their eager to put the Spider-Man graffiti that referenced Mysterio's death, they couldn't even use the actual MCU's costume design. Indeed. Shabook's edit here is a good example for how the wiki is treating this, given the current official status as separate universes.

Also, if you mean "couldn't" as in rights-wise they weren't able to, they were. They just made a mistake.

Steve993 wrote: Some people think the graffiti thing is due to copyright or they may change it later and can't right now. Or it was a legit mistake. I guess the loose way around it would be whoever created the art was creating it their own way and art doesn't always reflect the proper design but even then it's clear the Raimi design is different from the MCU design so if someone got that wrong in universe they probably didn't pay attention to the costume.

I think the thing with copyright though could be that they can't directly reference something from the MCU but their word is they will be able to reference things more then they did previously and they want Holland to crossover and that's the supposed claim that now he can. They made this while the contract was still up in the air so it's possible the reasons the references are so loose and still confusing is because they didn't know what was happening.

I didn't actually watch the trailer not because I don't want to but because I'm trying to avoid trailers now because I'll be seeing a lot of the movies anyway so I feel like now I don't need to watch it. Again only heard about this part because it was unexpected but again now it's confusing people which was probably deliberate on their part. Advertise this surprise cameo so people will now go watch a film I was kind of thinking wasn't going to do as well as Venom even though when I thought that there was no footage yet. I don't know how people are responding to footage only the Keaton thing which again now will probably bring more people in then before. It's not due to a rights thing, Homecoming and Far from Home are literally Sony films (as they so brazenly boast in the Morbius trailer) so they can use anything from them as much as they can use anything else Sony. It's just a mistake, which I find hilariously representative of Sony's incompetence at this kind of thing.

Morbius would have flopped, Venom only did well because that character is pretty popular in public consciousness (mainly, I believe, due to the design) and the China push, but no one knows Morbius. But with this gimmick, it might do a bit better. It's excited a lot of people. Not me.

ProBot1227 wrote: After FFH. Venom is either 18th October 2017 - April 2018, ignoring a 2018 date, 18th October 2018 - April 2019, fits the evidence in the film but ignores the snap which is considered canon towards the film, or 18th October 2024 - April 2025, after FFH.

It is not in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but the events of the Marvel Cinematic Universe are canon toward it, and it's inevitably going to get absorbed at some point. We don't know for sure the Snap is canon to that universe, as we don't know that every MCU event is canon to it. It seems more like "any MCU event can be canon to our universe if we choose it to be".

I don't think it's inevitable, I think this current situation was inevitable and that'll only be as far as it goes. I'm not sure the SUoMC will last much longer anyway.

Deadpooled123 wrote: I dont understand how Morbius will be canon to the MCU unless Fiege has given instructions of who he wants in his Sinister Six. Think about it because theres Vulture, Shocker, Scorpion, Dimitri, Mysterio and Morbius. Hard to say Venom because the character and whatever motive it would have wouldn’t be sufficient for that film to be good.

If Sony messed up the timeline with that cameo reveal, how can that be fixed? Mysterio's dead, sadly. I know people feel they could just say it was a trick, but the whole point of the ending with his character was that Peter is no longer tricked, and the whole impact of the mid-credits scene is that Mysterio gets his revenge even in death. Interested in if they do anything with Dimitri. But they'll also have whoever the villain is in Spider-Man 3, and possibly Carnage from Venom 2, if they want to do the Sinister Six instead of letting the MCU do them.

Anyway, no need to worry about the timeline of the SUoMC at the moment.

Mrmichaelt wrote: I must be crazy because to me all that looked like was Keaton playing an EMT who is the "typical jerk at work" in the story and he always targets Michael then something terrible happens to him later in the movie for karma's sake. A fan of many things, including the MCU wrote: @Mrmichaelt You aren't crazy, I didn't connect the dots at first, either. I still don't know how we took the leap to say it's Vulture, exactly, though. Oh no it definitely registered as Vulture for me. He's speaking the way he spoke for that role, plus of course I'd been following all the worrying build-up about how Sony are reportedly allowed to reference events, how J. Jonah Jameson could be appearing, the leaked "murderer" image. I was anticipating, and sincerely hoping there wouldn't be, MCU tie-ins. I was about to click away, relieved at the end of the trailer that they had only done the (mistaken) "murderer" image, but then there was that final scene and I just... ugh.

Mrmichaelt wrote: The trailer seems designed to be "canon thirsty" to maximize interest in the movie even it has nothing to do with the MCU. Pretty much.

David Kaique wrote: No name is mentioned, but he is wearing the same outfit that Toomes wears in the post-credit scene of Spider-Man Homecoming. Yup. I enjoy though that Wikipedia says he is playing an "undisclosed role", because technically that's the case given that this technically is its own universe, so technically this is a new character we've never seen before.

Just we all really know this is a copy-and-pasted Adrian Toomes taken from the MCU version.

Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: Feige said Spider-Man would be the only hero capable of crossing cinematic universes. So to me that's direct confirmation that Morbius, Venom and all of SONY's other stuff is not canon to the MCU.

It just sucks because you know SONY's going to milk their irrelevant side stories' tangential connections to the MCU for all they're worth.

Ugh, I'm so mad. He's also made other comments about "their universe". Plus, of course, the universe has its own name.

You might have seen, I've been worried about this exact thing for a couple of years now. Well, it's somewhat happened *sigh*, and it's the mess I knew it would be, the kind of problem you get when you enter the territory of "murky canon". I've said my piece on this situation on the discussions section and vented my frustration. I'm feeling pretty fine about it at the moment otherwise, because the good thing is that:
 * 1) The fear factor of the uncertainty is lessening. I mean, there's still a lot of uncertainty, but things are heading in a more certain direction. It's not all up in the air anymore like so many things in the MCU at the moment - it's starting to land.
 * 2) This might be the full extent of the situation, in which case it's ended up that they're not MCU canon, which is great.
 * 3) I'm pleasantly surprised by the number of people online who are responding to the fact that this might not be proper MCU canon. I thought if this kind of thing happened that I would be the sole voice saying "Just because Michael Keaton showed up as Vulture doesn't actually necessarily mean it's canon, and here are the quotes to prove that" and just be depressed by people not listening and the world just coming to call them MCU. And while many people have done that, Wikipedia has stuck to the facts, the wiki has stuck to the facts, and influential social media users regarding the MCU are spreading the word that they're not technically MCU.

Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: One can't even say that the events of the MCU are canon to Venom's reality. The Symbiotes are "the first aliens humanity has encountered", yet the MCU had the Chitauri in 2012 in Avengers and the Inhumans in 2015 in Agents of SHIELD. And if it's post-Snap in 2018, then Thanos is common knowledge as well. And the Dark Elves in 2013. To be honest, it would in some ways be beneficial to Sony for them to not count as the MCU, because then you can wave away the continuity errors like that and Venom supposedly being during the Snap period and inevitable future errors (guarantee you if not Morbius then something else supposedly set post-Far from Home will set itself in present day, not 2024+).

Eternals (Marvelus)
Marvelus wrote: Eternals will be set after Avengers: Endgame Mentioned this on the discussions, but given we've been told it spans over 7000 years and shown it likely includes 800 B.C. Babylon, I reckon it will be grounded in present day and just have long series of flashbacks to tell their history, spanning 7000 years. While we knew there was going to presumably be some present day (well, near future I guess, 2023-2025) stuff from set photos, interesting to know that's where the film will be grounded. Helpful for the placement of the film in the timeline as well.

Black Widow Prelude "04/04/14" (Lebnyx, Marvelus, Mrmichaelt, Rman823, DaenerysTheMadKhal58, DieGrinsekatz77)
Lebnyx wrote: At the beginning of Black Widow Prelude #1, we see footage from the battle at the Triskelion from The Winter Soldier, which is dated 04/04/14.

I'm keeping it in January 2014 in The Comic Board because of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, but do what you will with that information. Hmmmm OK. I was going to get around to reading it soon, I've just been really busy and unable to do much wiki work this last week or two, and for the next week as well.

Had a quick look though, and yeah, it really does suggest the film's climax should be set then (on the film's release date, which they clearly just used for sake of ease). I'm amazed they got this unnecessarily specific, Marvel almost never do that with really specific dates for the films.

As I've mentioned before, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Season 1 is a weak spot for me, as the last time I fully watched it I hadn't started working on the timeline. I'm only aware of most of the timeline details through research, and I know almost for a fact that the September 2013-January 2014 section is not all perfectly placed, a lot of it just as close as can be done for now. So I couldn't really tell you how feasible it is for 4.5 months to pass from The Well to End of the Beginning.

However, the main thing that sticks out for me in all of this was that the main reason The Winter Soldier got placed as early as possible in 2014, because in Shadows, Talbot says: "You managed to evade us for an entire winter."

Here he is referring to the time since the events of Nothing Personal, shortly after The Winter Soldier. The Winter Soldier and the end of Season 1 cannot be late 2013 since Yes Men, before The Winter Soldier, has to be 2014, given them saying in Who You Really Are that it was "last year", plus other evidence placing it 2 years after 2012, 2 years before 2016, and 4 years before 2018, despite The Winter Soldier having two 2013 dates in it. So, the best we could do was January 2014, which also fit well with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Season 1, and taking Talbot to just mean "when we came after you it was still the early part of winter, and you managed to evade us for the entire remainder of winter".

Early April to late May (or you could move Shadows to June 2014 to help the tiniest tiniest bit in this situation, but what difference does it make really?) is just in no way, shape, or form "an entire winter". That's my main problem with just accepting this.

It would be such a nice gift of a date, especially since it would be backing up that the film is 2014 and not 2013, which some evidence does suggest, but I just don't know that we can accept it. Anyone have any thoughts about this, regarding the Talbot line (which I feel is the biggest obstacle)?

Also huh, last I saw The Comic Board had The Winter Soldier in December 2013. Been a long time since I checked in, it just slipped out of control how far behind I was.

Marvelus wrote: Well, in the movie it is implied that the Battle of the Triskelion began in the morning and go through midday, not afternoon. We can assume that 17:27 - 04/04/2014 is the date Ross is showing that footage. And it makes sense. It is months after the fall of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Ross is hunting Natasha. "And tomorrow morning, we're gonna give it a push." Good point. That helps justify rationalising the date as not referring to the events themselves (even though it clearly is and there's not much way around it).

Lebnyx wrote: The scene in question takes place after Black Widow has become a fugitive in Civil War. Maybe that date is when the footage was retrieved? Marvelus wrote: Forget what I wrote before xD. i should have read the whole page before jumping the gun. But we can assume they managed to save the record in April 4th I guess that would be the best assumption if we're taking it that it's not the date of the events. Still pretty silly, but the point about the 5PM time is helpful. I think that probably is the tipping point for me into being able to accept this as not the date of the climax and keep sticking to the Talbot line.

Mrmichaelt wrote: Oi. That could be messy if the comic is saying the battle took place on April 4th.

So to recap, the Prelude #1 did link a couple events a bit closer together.

-Starts out with footage from TWS of when Natasha, as Councilwoman Hawley, stepped on Peirce's moment and the security footage of it is time stamped 04/04/14. It is a freeze frame on when Hawley is revealed to be Natasha and that's with "SECURITY FOOTAGE 17:27 - 04/04/14" overlaid on the screen. That's Page 5.

-Then pans out to reveal it's General Ross meeting with Hawley (so she did survive if that was a question) post-Civil War. They go over the fight at the airport in Civil War. She's not keen on helping him with the pursuit of Natasha mainly because of his lack of evidence and lot of suppositions.

-Ross briefs Hawley on Natasha's past. Confirms on page 10 she was born in 1984 in Russia.

-Ross admits think she was orphaned at an early age. General Dreykov oversaw the Red Room, it was managed by Madame B. Dreykov took an interest in Natasha and put her in the program. Exact quote on page 11 is "We know nothing about her parentage or early years, although we believe she was orphaned at an early age. Very little is known about her young life. Some say she lived in the streets. Others say the State raised her. All we know is this: At some point she attracted the attention of one General Dreykov. He over something called the Red Room..."

-Also on page 11, Ross states the Red Room no longer exists.

-On page 12, Ross says everything he told Hawley is from what Natasha told Fury as much in her early days at SHIELD.

-On page 15, Ross admits they have no clue why she defected but have 3 theories. Then on page 16, he says them - she met Clint Barton during a mission gone wrong and bonded (implicitly this is Budapest), saved Fury and he was so impressed he recruited her, or she was disenfranchised after the ceremony and wanted a fresh start. Or I guess it possible all of the above.

-On page 17, the Odessa mission where she was shot by Winter Soldier is stated to be one of her earliest SHIELD missions and after she recovered, she was given a low-pressure mission: watch Tony Stark in events of Iron Man 2.

So the main quibble is the 04/04/14 timestamp. But also so if TWS was in 2014 either way, since Natasha stated in the movie the Odessa mission was 5 years ago, depending on January or April - that she defected between 2008 and 2009. Maybe even narrowing it to late 2008 to early 2009. And also narrowing Budapest to around that range as well as the evident shuttering of the Red Room. And she I guess took awhile to recover from the car crash and bullet wound, and starts her next assignment in May 2010 at Stark Industries. Thank you, because again, haven't really been able to give it a good read yet, just skim it.

I think the fact that the comic is going "I'm not sure what might have happened" means we're even more likely to be seeing the origin stuff in the film. I wonder if they'll combine the mission of Clint going to eliminate her and deciding not to with the Budapest mission. They probably will, I reckon.

Interesting that Odessa was an early mission, so maybe she defected a few years later than I estimated, around 2008.

Love that they say Odessa was followed by Iron Man 2. It connects events nicely, making it feel like there are fewer gaps in our knowledge of her (same with her defecting later, I guess), but also works out really nicely with the timeline, further providing evidence that Iron Man 2 should be 2010.

Like you say, it narrows a few ranges down, which is nice.

Rman823 wrote: I will say that weather wise the movie looks way more April than it does January. Which given the movie was shot in the summer, makes sense. I'm not sure if I can ignore the SHIELD evidence though. Sure, it was filmed April-June/July. But it's not glaringly summery to me, though I don't know much about Washington, D.C. weather. Aside from the trees being leafy, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say it's January.

Mrmichaelt wrote: Yeah, not much wiggle room. Just one example is Dark World was November 2013 and AOS was well linked to it, one episode starting off with them cleaning up at that university. Kinda hard to then say Lorelei, the hunt for the Clarivoyant, and TWS take place over 5 months between December to January rather than two months from December to January. Hrm. It's hard, but I don't know how hard. The main thing for me is definitely the Talbot Shadows line.

Rman823 wrote: At one point the timeline did have Season 1 of SHIELD as taking place from September 2013 to April 2014. Not saying it was ideal but it was possible. Yeah that wasn't us. That was previous iterations of the timeline having the films set almost purely to their release dates. I don't know how much it actually worked - again, Season 1 is a weak spot for me - though I think it wasn't disastrous. Again though, the Talbot line is the big thing I feel.

DaenerysTheMadKhal58 wrote: Isn't that just the film's release date? I think we can ignore it, whoever wrote that probably didn't think much of it. Oh definitely not thought-through, just not sure how easily it can be ignored. But Marvelus is right about the time being wrong.

Rman823 wrote: It makes sense that Marvel Studios would see it as taking place around its release date. Agents of SHIELD is where the January evidence comes from. Mrmichaelt wrote: Interesting. Any recollection about it, i.e. was their a time skip at some point, or was it adjusted to January 2014 to accommodate for the events of the next season, movies, etc. that came after AOS season 1? It was previous users placing it based on release date, and fitting Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. around it. It was changed because I wrote this old blog (it's not very good, it's almost 3 years old) to convince users to let it be changed. So you can see the reasons at the top there (again, remember it's almost 3 years old, so apologies for it not being particularly good, and also there are more reasons now). It's mainly the Talbot line though. The old version included several jumps in time between episodes between The Well and End of the Beginning.

Rman823 wrote: If I'm remembering correctly, there was a big time jump between Seeds and T.R.A.C.K.S. that placed it in March 2014 and by the time you get to The Winter Soldier tie-ins it was April. You can see a March calendar behind agent Blake during the hunt for the clarivoyant which at the time fit. That sounds about right. Though I don't think the placement was anything to do with that March calendar, it was purely around the film release dates.

DieGrinsekatz77 wrote: I think the conversation between Ross and Hawley is set during the End of Captain America: Civil War. Ross sais "Barton, Wilson and the Ant guy have been apprehended..." That must be the moment when they're all in the Raft and Cap try to set them free. Yea, I know Barton and Skott are arrested in there houses after Civil War, but Falcon run away alongside Captain America. Sounds like it from what you say.

Runaways: Season 3 (additional)
So, as I mentioned above, I've been really busy of late for many reasons I won't get into, some expected, some unexpected. Things clear up a bit next Wednesday/Thursday. So I don't know if I'll have time before then to do much wiki work, but if not then after then I should be able to give you the last bits on Runaways: Season 3.

Anyway, the rough notes are done for the season (the dates given up until the finale are based on the current placement of Season 2, and likely to be pushed a bit later), but I have three things I still need to do.
 * 1) I need to work out the timings of Episode 5 and Episode 8 so as to then distribute the episodes over the 6 months and 8 hours respectively of the timeline they actually take place over.
 * 2) I need to finish cracking the rules of this time travel. Every time I've tried, I've gone mad as it all spirals out and unravels, since for every option there's another problem, which then has a couple of options for solutions but each then has another problem, each of which then has a couple of options for solutions but then each then has another problem, and so on. So I have a rough idea of how best to approach it, and then I'll have to do that and then write it up for you guys.
 * 3) I need to take a look at Season 2 and see how best to handle the fact that Gert's death should fall at least in late August and not early August, since school seems to be in term on the 3-year anniversary.