Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26838855-20190803131136/@comment-26838855-20190816160244

Split Point in The End (Edward Zachary Sunrose)
Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: For me, the reason I thought the major split was Daisy finding the Serum before being absorbed is actually a few reasons: - The original plan before the team realized there would only be enough serum for one dose was to have someone willingly be absorbed by Talbot while holding an Odium-infused version of the Serum, in order to poison him. That already foreshadows that Talbot would be able to absorb the properties of the Serum, no matter which version was used. Including the power-up effect of the version Daisy ended up taking. - Daisy states early on (and we as viewers know) she's not powerful enough to quake the world apart. And even though Talbot can control a ship the size of a small town, that's not really world-breaker material. - As you said, the way the episode is edited with Robin's statement, it's edited in a way that implies that Daisy finding the Serum is the one big change. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think that Fitz dying and Yo-Yo giving Coulson CPR are also major divergences as well, just because of how the episode frames all three occurences. I'm still so incredibly confused by Season 5's time loop, especially since they never gave us a dedicated episode of the key points in the original loop. I originally thought it was Daisy finding the serum because that's the way it's presented, but when I actually sat down to work out timings, I realised that the chronological order doesn't support that, with the team saving Mack and Polly before Daisy finds it. And then ultimately, for the reasons above, I settled on Coulson putting the serum in the gauntlet.

I would've loved a full episode about the loop. Standalone episodes like 4,722 Hours and Rewind tend to be really interesting, so the flashbacks of The Last Day but a whole episode's worth of that sort of thing, it could've been fascinating.

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Season 7 (Steve993, Mrmichaelt, Marvelus, Edward Zachary Sunrose, The Wikia Editor)
Steve993 wrote: Today at Dublin Comic Con (It ended a few hours ago and I'm back home in Cork now) I went to a panel where Patrick Warburton was doing a Q&A where he revealed he'll be back for Season 7 of Agents of SHIELD. He probably wasn't meant to reveal that but a person asked and he answered. I met him and Pom Klementieff at that convention and both of them were nice people. Oh cool! Looks like we'll be getting 1930, c. 1947, and c. 1972 then at least. Pom seems lovely in all interviews.

Mrmichaelt wrote: Cool, seems like a possibility of the team going to a time when the Lighthouse was being built or when it was in operation during that Hydrogen crisis that was mentioned. Indeed, 1972 crisis.

Marvelus wrote: Besides Agent Carter and Sousa, do you expect some other MCU character appearing? I would like if Marvel Studios gave them the permission to use Maria Hill and Nick Fury one more time. I would love that too, before they head out. They probably would have permission, problem being that Samuel L. Jackson is likely very expensive, so they could only use him those two times in Season 1 because the show had its biggest budget at the time and the drive behind it of "This is the MCU TV show". I'm just super happy for more Peggy at any opportunity, and glad they can use this show to give Agent Carter a bit of closure, the same way Jessica Jones did for Luke Cage.

Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: I wouldn't be mad if they introduced Nick Fury Sr. and established that Sam Jackson's Fury is Nick Fury Jr. just like he is in 616, but that's just me. Meh, sure. It's a bit of an odd one, it kind of feels like "Woah, that's way too big a deal for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. to be allowed to make that change to a film character", but at the same time, is it? It's essentially just a reveal that he's a "Jr." and his dad has the same name. They were allowed to say Hydra went back way before Red Skull, some changes feel drastic but at the same time, it doesn't really affect the films. Unless, of course, the future films wanted to address Fury's family.

Mrmichaelt wrote: I'd be surprised if the Chronicoms don't try to alter when Fury recruited Coulson in the '82 or whenever it was. It would make sense. You wouldn't have to deage Clark Gregg either, you can just get a younger actor. I know it's pushing it, at 18 you're not likely to look different-actor-level of different to your adult self (for example, 30-year-old Coulson in Captain Marvel), but if the actor looks alike enough. Things like the young Ben Donovan and Anansi casting in The Creator show that you can still absolutely get it more than close enough, that was (I rewatched it recently for write-ups) insanely good casting.

The Wikia Editor wrote: Also, having finished AoS: Season 6, I'm both curious and nervous about how they'll deal with the time travel aspect. One thing I had in mind is that they'll at least be able to return Deke and Flint back to their own time, although possibly not to the timeline they originate from. I'm not nervous about it because it's not like the MCU ' s time travel rules are all set clearly in stone.

I don't think Deke and Flint necessarily want to go back to their time, and it could get problematic as you could end up with two Dekes in 2091, the one from the original timeline and the one yet to be born (though to be fair, even if Fitz and Simmons still conceive the same daughter, it's unlikely that she will meet Owen Shaw in this timeline). But also, you're giving the films a problem as, theoretically, they would always be destined for that 2091 until any further timeline changes.

Marvelus wrote: I think the time travel in Season 7 will be like "things happened in that way because we intervened". Season 5 was a travel to a "mirror of the possible upcoming future of Earth-199999" and by returning to the past an alternate Timeline is created (Earth-199999) which was always meant to be different. Avengers: Endgame kind of reflects what Season 5 established: the multiverse theory. Those are two different things, causal loops and different universes.

Avengers: Endgame reflects Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. if you take the Markus and McFeely route. And yes, multiverse is involved on both counts, but the way it works is very complicated and debatable.

But shhh, we don't need to worry about this for 9 more months.

Mrmichaelt wrote: That would be interesting if they jumped past 2091 if only to see what happened to the timeline once Graviton was defeated by Daisy. It would be interesting, but that's sort of too big a can of worms, I don't think they will.

Avengers: Endgame November 2009 (me, Marvelus, CirUmeUela, Mrmichaelt, Edward Zachary Sunrose, The Wikia Editor)
BEJT wrote: I remembered one more point about the White Monolith, but I'll save it for when the proper discussion happens.

In other, pretty exciting news.

Endgame confirmed an important event in 2988 B.C. (essentially confirming that's when the Svartalfheim battle was), that Avengers was specifically May 2012, and that there was an important event in November 2009!

Now, obviously Iron Man doesn't involve an Infinity Stone. But there's nothing else going on around then, so I think, unless it's just a random date that coincidentally lines up, it's still an Iron Man Easter egg. Especially since we know from that April 2008 thing before that they're likely throwing in Easter eggs calling back to the first film in the Infinity Saga in the ending (I know Far from Home is technically the ending).

May 2012 can absolutely have just come from Marvel using the release date.

2988 B.C. can quite possibly have just come from Marvel, if someone was attentive enough to realise it shouldn't be 2987 B.C.. The writers had it down as -7 on their whiteboard, but it's very possible Marvel noticed.

But with November 2009 as well? Assuming it isn't just coincidence and is indeed an Iron Man Easter egg... there would then be a good chance it came from the wiki. I mean, it's possible that they worked it out, considering the official timeline from 2012 places it in roughly 2009. But for Marvel to specifically put November 2009, when the MCU has twice recently implied it erroneously thinks Iron Man is probably just 2008? A lot of work went into achieving that conclusion on my/our part. If Marvel didn't go through all that work and achieving the same conclusion on their part... there's honestly, I feel, especially with getting the 2988 B.C. correct as well, a chance that they got this from the wiki.

There's a chance that my work, doing the Phase One calculations, has had an effect on Endgame😱. Marvelus wrote: That is exciting indeed!! CirUmeUela wrote: Was the 2988 date not on screen in TDW? Was that date from a prelude comic or something? That would be awesome if they looked at the wiki for information! Marvelus wrote: Nope. They only say it was 5000 years prior to the events of the film. That date is not from a prelude. I remember it was originally placed in 2987 due to 2013-5000. But I think, we can count it as a confirmation for the First Battle of Svartalfheim on January 2988 BC BEJT wrote: Yes, people had placed it in 2987 B.C. because of 2013 - 5000, which is not the case, as there's no year 0 in the B.C./A.D. system.

But there's no such thing as January 2988 B.C., months didn't exist back then. The 01 must just be simulating what month it would've been if they did exist. No reason to put it on the page. Marvelus wrote: Hmm. Interesting. I did not know that. I learn more from you than my History Teacher :p I mean, it's kind of tricky, because obviously 2988 B.C. also wasn't called 2988 B.C. at the time, obviously the B.C. dates were only established "after Christ". So you could make an argument for "Well yes, but people go back with the calendar and assign dates where there were none". But months and days are different, because that system was established for a while before being tweaked and changed, and because of calendar changes over the year you get weird things like 11 days being skipped in the 18th century. Just, if it's not necessary to put months in dates too far back, best not to.

Mrmichaelt wrote: Very cool. I thought the November 2009 thing, too, but also maybe that was when Thanos found the Mind Stone -- Nebula would know when that happened presumably if she were involved in the discovery. It could be, but why would they put a random date that audiences might surmise is when he found the Mind Stone when they could instead put a meaningful date? They could've put 11 2013 or something. They chose 11 2009, and I just feel that's likely an intentional reference to something, and if it were meant as the Mind Stone then that's not really a reference because we're not going to recognise that. I think they wanted an Iron Man nod (calling back to the first film as you reach the end of this saga, and Feige considers "I am Iron Man" the pivotal moment in the MCU timeline), and I think for them to have put November 2009, there's definitely at least a chance that they did a quick check on the wiki for when Iron Man takes place.

Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: Whoa, that's really awesome. That means that if Marvel Studios is looking at the Wiki's timeline for dates, we should do our best to keep it as tight as possible.

BEJT, you've mentioned before that there are some gaps in your knowledge, right? I think you mentioned SHIELD Season 1 or 2 a few months ago? I have both of those on Blu-Ray, so I can start combing through them for precise dates.

Is there anything else we can go back and reinforce a bit? Yeah, Agent Carter and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Seasons 1 and 2 I'm rusty on. Hoping to start my major timeline project properly in the coming months, so will be revisiting them then.

As for the stuff Marvel Studios might look at, the only film/one-shot stuff I'm not super satisfied with is Guardians 2, where the exact dates are slightly too late in October based on one report saying 3 months but over time it's clearly become an anomaly, with James Gunn saying multiple times that it's just 2 months, and Age of Ultron, where a few tweaks are due to be made, on my to-do list. I also have sweeps of the timeline articles on my to-do list because I know there are lots of bits and pieces of mistakes on there that I've never noticed or had time to deal with. Things get left on there that then, unfortunately, give us things like the "official timeline" from last year that was clearly based on the July 2017 version of the MCU Wiki, with then some guesses for content released since then. But anyone is welcome to tighten some things in the meantime.

The Wikia Editor wrote: Awesome! It's really nice when these kind of things line up. Indeed.