Thread:Marvelus/@comment-27496405-20190519011243/@comment-26838855-20190630224021

Jessica Jones: Season 3 (Aricco)
Aricco wrote: I know this isn't how you guys work around here, but I think we can all assume that most of the time TV shows try to make important things obvious for the audience so as that way they don't miss important details. Most audience members don't notice dates on calendars & how it was dark early one night or the weather. (I know they. can be used as indicators & sometimes these things play an important role in the timeline or story but for this season of this show because our attention wasn't largely drawn to these things I think it is easier justified to ignore it. If we heard a weather report stating "The wintery weather is on it's way, make sure to wrap up" & this impacted how a character dressed or a character made their plans taking into account this information, then it would be important to accept this, because it is playing a part in the story & a character’s decisions. I don't remember any situation this season in which a character makes a decision based a detail like that. I am not trying to say these details aren't important just because a passive audience doesn't pick up on it, I'm just arguing that it could be overlooked due to the lack of importance for the actual story.

In the same vein, the snap would clearly not be overlooked in this season if it was post-snap. There aren't even any hints that it took place. No audience watching. this, passive or not, could pick up on this being post-snap. Even if this season played out the same, they would at least make reference to the snap like they do with the Battle of New York, the raft, the Avengers, etc. Would a passive audience put 2 & 2 together to realise the snap took place in summer of 2018 & this takes place in fall of 2018? I doubt it because they would have to pick up on small hints & remember date indicators & references in other movies & TV shows to realise when Infinity War took place in the first place & then do the math in their head to find out when each of the Netflix seasons took place.

The Mother's Day reference is the biggest issue because a passive audience member is going to hear that & know roughly when this season takes place during a year. But, are they going to remember this long term? It's not like season one of Punisher in which Thanksgiving was an event, or Mari Gras in season one of Cloak & Dagger. They basically mentioned an annual event is taking place at a different time of year than it is now. If this season actually had a holiday happen during it, such as halloween or Thanksgiving, it would be harder to overlook. I just think saying a holiday is at a different time of the year to right now is less of a date indicator than if we seen a holiday take place this season.

As I said these shows are largely  made for passive audience, the "18 years ago" isn't going to trigger most people to realise it doesn't exactly line up. We can make a case to overlook the inconstancies & seasonal & monthly indicators, because largely they don't play a role in this story & we don't see an actual holiday celebrations. The snap would not be overlooked by the writers, even though they wrote this before they knew what happened in Endgame, there is no way they would overlook this universal event without even a reference. Lack of Endgame references trump the mothers day 6 months away & other inconsistent dates I feel.

I know most, if not all of you agree, you are just looking for a way to justify it. I’m not trying to force things, just trying to make a solid argument that you guys think will support & justify overlooking some details in lieu of others that are arguably more important. The weather isn't that important, it's just a small part of the stuff supporting November-December. All I'm saying is that the bulk of the evidence points to November-December over May by a fair amount.

I don't really see why it's important to look from a passive audience member's point of view and what they might forget about, especially since a passive audience member isn't going to be that interested in the timeline anyway, but I imagine your point is more about more prominent and less prominent pieces of evidence which is something that we take into account. It's just that that "6 months" line is particularly prominent.

There's no arguing that the writers didn't intend for this to be post-Snap, they absolutely didn't.

What you say about "lack of Endgame references trump the Mother's Day 6 months away & other inconsistent dates", yeah, that's the problem basically is at least personally, I can't quite as decisively as you say that it trumps it. It might, but it's kind of comparing apples and oranges because it's soft evidence about implications, just massive soft evidence/implications, versus hard/specific evidence.

I'm glad you've understood though, because I really appreciate you saying "I know most, if not all of you agree, you are just looking for a way to justify it" as that's exactly it. Yeah, I agree that I really want it to be pre-Snap, but exactly, just really want a way to justify it.

Ant-Man and the Wasp (ProBot1227, Marvelus, Ben 1,000,911)
ProBot1227 wrote: If it's no trouble, why does Ant-Man and the Wasp have to take place in June 2018? I'm not disagreeing at all, your probably right, just very hard to find the exact text in "2018" describing why it absolutely has to be not long before Avengers: Infinity War. I know about the April reference, is all I'm saying. The end credits in my mind was just a time jump, right? Like Thor: Ragnarok. It doesn't. The main events have to be between April 29th-May 2nd and June 18th-June 21st.

It should all be explained here.

There shouldn't be a big jump ideally since they still think Scott is on house arrest in Infinity War so it shouldn't have really been long, otherwise they would have found out he's off. Plus the closer to June 2018, a full 2 years since June 2016, the better.

Marvelus wrote: Civil War's ending is firmly set in June 2016. Ant-Man has a sentence of two years afterwards, but we know (at least we can guess) that he got a reduced sentence as Hawkeye was still under house arrest days/weeks after the climax of AMatW. Clint still being on house arrest isn't really an indicator that Scott got time off, it's more likely that Clint's house arrest just took longer to set up or he got more than 2 years because we were never told he got the same sentence. But sure, it doesn't hurt in regards to the assumption of Scott getting time off.

ProBot1227 wrote: Thanks, but that doesn't really explain June if we're considering a reduced sentence, in my opinion. Marvelus wrote: The references in the 2018 article are not pointing out to June, I think, they have to be updated. Basically it is because we have Civil War in June 2016. I don't think there are other reasons. Also, we are taking that it has to be after May 2018 (The Punisher S2) and it is 5 years before July 2023 (I know it does not have to be exactly 5 years). BEJT can explain it better than me, I am not currently focusing too much in the timeline due to personal life and stuff. I don't think they need updating, I updated them fairly recently. But yeah, they don't say June, they say April-June for Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Yeah, Avengers: Infinity War has to be after The Punisher: Season 2 in May. What you say about Endgame though isn't exactly right. 1) Endgame can't be set in July, since Peter and Ned are in school at the end. It is most likely (and we'll know for sure on Tuesday) late May to early June 2023, since there's a full moon over Wakanda towards the end which would be June 3rd or July 3rd and July 3rd is too late to still be term time for Peter. And also if you were to take the 5 years as strict, which obviously it doesn't have to be, it would imply around May 2018 for the beginning of Endgame, not Infinity War, as Infinity War ends 23 days prior to the 5-year jump, so it would suggest around late April/early May for Infinity War. But yeah it's not really a factor because there's a very big window in 2018 from which you could jump to late May 2023 and still call if "5 years" very comfortably.

ProBot1227 wrote: Thanks anyway. I agree that Avengers: Infinity War is June 2018. May or June, yeah.

Ben 1,000,911 wrote: There's other reasons, but remember how in Infinity War Natasha said Scott was still on house arrest? I think it was decided that that's one reason why the majority of Ant-Man & the Wasp is not too long before Infinity War. That's a factor for having a minimal gap, yes.

Marvelus wrote: That is a mistake. We know by the dates of the week that there must be days. (Maybe weeks). Between one movie and another. It's a mistake in Infinity War, but it's not to be discarded. It works much better if it's only been a week since he got off than several weeks.

ProBot1227 wrote: Oh, I see. 30th April 2018 - 5th May 2018. I mean, a month and a half could work (?) but sure, I would understand that reasoning. What are you referring to here?

Avengers: Endgame and Its Captain America Question (CirUmeUela, Marvelus, Edward Zachary Sunrose, ProBot1227)
CirUmeUela wrote: Here's a new interview with the Russos. They reaffirmed that Cap grew old in an alternate timeline and used Pym particles to return to the main timeline to pass off the shield to Sam Wilson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cclrVWc7Vo&t=1s I'm aware. I wasn't going to bring it up now because I'm writing a blog dissecting all the quotes from the film and people involved really thoroughly, and the debate has been had and had and won't achieve anything more now.

Since it's come up again now, I hadn't sent this link before for the same reason, but a science adviser for the film also agrees with the writers.

Marvelus wrote: Yeah. I am not buying anything that is not said in the movies. The movies said something and I will stay by that. Any other explanation can go to ***** I've said this before, but I think that ultimately the answer seems to be, "The writers are correct in their understanding of what the film says, which makes sense considering they wrote it, but from what they've said in interviews it seems some of it is intentionally vague to leave loopholes for Marvel to exploit for future storytelling, and the Russos are likely more clued in at what Marvel want to do with the loose ends and are thus giving the explanation that is more likely to be used by Marvel in the future. It's just not strictly in line with the implication in the film, but doesn't 100% fly in the face of the film."

Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: The movies DIDN'T say anything regarding Steve, that's why people keep asking the Russos or Markus and McFeely, because that scene between the Ancient One and Hulk doesn't actually confirm anything one way or the other and it very specifically only refers to the Infinity Stones, not staying in the past for 70 years.

Besides, the Russos' answer is consistent with Future Fitz and Frozen Fitz's situation over in Agents of SHIELD so I'm definitely buying it. (Not to mention its consistent with Steve's characterization, since a time loop like M&M claim means Steve left Bucky with HYDRA and let Zola infect SHIELD with his spies). Agh I didn't want to open this all up again. I'll just say to this three things:
 * The film does indirectly tell you how Steve likely got there when it says that it's removing Infinity Stones that opens up new timelines. They never say that jumping in time itself creates new timelines. There are ways of reshaping the meaning of the dialogue in the film to just about make it fit with the Russos' explanation if you make assumptions not said in the film, since they don't say that removing Infinity Stones is the only way to make new timelines, just you think they would mention it if there was another way.
 * I don't see how the Russos' answer is consistent with the Fitz situation. I only see the Markus and McFeely explanation being consistent with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., since it asserts that the act of jumping in time alone does not create a new timeline, which is what Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. did and why they got stuck in a causal loop. Now, if forced to take the Russo explanation, you can make it work with an added assumption, "Quantum Realm time travel always creates a new timeline while White Monolith time travel does not, for some reason the method of time travel makes a difference," but the Markus and McFeely explanation is consistent already.
 * Sorry but the Steve didn't interfere argument really frustrates me, because that's not how causal loops work. Steve doesn't have the choice to interfere because he's just living through the time that he lived through. Time is that way and there's no changing that. He could try all he likes, but he won't manage to, no matter how improbable, the same way no matter how improbable, Simmons is unable to die from her experiment with the four glasses or when she and Fitz are stuck in a room with Sleeper Mechs. Think of it as the same as the Past Life Yo-Yo and Yo-Yo scene. 2091 Yo-Yo is desperate to change something. She tries and tries to say something different to what she heard herself say when she was her 2017 self, but as she talks every word she realises is exactly what she said before, because it is the same conversation. She's trying and trying and it's frustrating for her but no matter what she says or does there's no changing the fact that that's what she saw herself say and do when she was younger because it's the same action.

Marvelus wrote: Excuse me, but the only way to return to the future according Endgame is by the Quanum Tunnel, and Steve did not return by using it, he was just sit on a bench... So yes, the movies implied that Steve was always there... Well, yeah. Anyway, I'm covering it all in a blog hopefully. I don't really want to break out into another full-fledged conversation about this because it won't get anywhere.

Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: The movie also shows that you can reappear whenever and wherever by typing in the coordinates to your intended destination. How do we as the audience know that Cap didn't ignore Bruce calling him back and just type in the coordinates to the Avengers Compound in the year 2023 and appeared on the bench, just like him and Tony appeared in 1970 on Camp Lehigh? Because that is a trip up the timeline, not a return trip to this timeline. I said this before but imagine it like a system of pipes. There's the big main pipe, the main timeline, with the top of the pipe being the beginning of time and the bottom being the end. They're at 2023, and they attach a harness to themselves and shoot up to 2012, where they then slip into an offshoot pipe. To get to 1970, they make a further jump up, going up the offshoot pipe back into the main pipe and continuing up into 1970. Then when they return, they are yanked back by wire on the harness. We know from Clint's test run that they're being yanked back by Hulk's settings, just after the test run they can choose when they return.

If Steve were to jump to 2023 from an alternate timeline, he would be jumping to the 2023 of his timeline, not yanking back to his main timeline. There's no precedent in the film for being able to essentially traverse the pipe system at your own will, with Steve deciding "I am going to put in a setting to jump all the way up back to the 1940s and then slide back down to 2023 of a different timeline".

And again, if the Russo explanation has to be taken, you can make big assumptions, but there's no precedent in the film for it.

ProBot1227 wrote: I actually go with both. Steve went to an alternative universe and ended up on the bench reguardless, because it's an identical timeline. That would mean that the final scene of the film is suddenly shifted between shots into being a scene set in an alternate timeline.

Anyway, while we're talking Endgame, having seen it a third time, I can confirm that Alexander Pierce does say S.H.I.E.L.D. have had the Tesseract for "over 70 years" which is incorrect, but oh well, the film itself disproves that by specifically saying both "1945" and "2012". And I can also confirm that yes, Tony implies that if you talked to him "10 years ago" he wouldn't have encountered aliens yet despite him encountering them 11 years ago, but again, it's disproved in the film by specifically saying both "2012" and "9 years" after "2014" so oh well.