Timeline Discussion - Part 14

Marvelus·3/31/2020 in General Discussion

In this thread we will discuss the timeline of future MCU installments, TV series and movies, including Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. S7 and Helstrom. It is a continuation of Part 13, once the limit is reached. Timeline Discussion - Spin-Off Thread

(Edited by Marvelus)

BEJT·6/11/2020

<nav id="toc" class="toc" data-loaded="false"><div id="toctitle"><h2>Contents</h2>[show]</div>

</nav><h3>Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Season 7 (Mrmichaelt, Brett3801, Edward Zachary Sunrose, Marvelus, BardicFire, Mystery Phantom, Assassin1and2)</h3> <div class="quote"> Mrmichaelt wrote: Think of it as like the CIA. It was formed in 1947 but was still relatively small in number and not much power to do covert activity then it wasn't really until 1950 when they were granted more and more abilities. Or like a building. The Empire State Building was constructed in April 1931 but opened in May 1931. I think with S.H.I.E.L.D., we'll also get into similar nitty gritty. Something like 'formed in 1945, on hold in 1946, recommissioned in 1949, fully activated at some point before June 1953' </div>
Yeah, thanks. <div class="quote"> Mrmichaelt wrote: Only thing that popped in my head, is there anyone with the last names Edwards and Martin in the crew? </div>
<div class="quote"> Brett3801 wrote: Yeah, Viola's passport is a problem. Basically, she arrives in Germany on February 12, 1931, and then has to make it back to New York in time for FDR's party. When Freddy talks about his dad is a little problematic with January, too, as he says it was "almost two years" ago, which is a bit of a problem given that it most definitely happened after October 29, 1929. I'm trying to avoid giving too much away, but those two things are problematic, and my solution was basically make it as early as possible given the passport, and Freddy meant "1931 - 1929 = 2." Hence, February 12 arrival, and assume Viola arrived in Germany, received the vial, and then immediately flew home to make it to the party on time. However, I've previously mentioned that the Empire State Building isn't in total disagreement with February 1931 (recapped in the blog as well), and neither is the Dracula poster (as this would place the agents' arrival on the release date of the movie). The Phantom of the West has a poster too (released January 1), which isn't terrible, and we were assuming the football poster was old anyway, so I'm not overly concerned about that. Regarding the boxing poster, thanks in advance for the help! For now, I placed Eddie Martin on Marvelus' draft page and assumed that Edwards was fictional and not a reference to Buster Edwards. Finally, does anybody recognize the jazz song at the end of Know Your Onions in the bar scene? Tunefind and Shazam didn't recognize it, so I was going to assume it was written for the show, but I wanted to see if anybody else recognized it. </div>
<div class="quote"> Brett3801 wrote: Good thinking. I checked, and only found one Martin (other than episode-only character actors and stuff like that) who was a stunt performer in End of the Beginning aimed Martin de Boer and one Edwards who directed T.R.A.C.K.S. named Paul Edwards. The only ways I can see around this problem is Buster Edwards was born earlier in the MCU or it's a fictional boxer. It's a shame, too, because everything else the show has done has been pretty consistently early 1931, but Edwards was born in 1931 in the real world. Martin never fought (I don't know the word in boxing) a person named Edwards in his entire career, so that's not super helpful either. </div>
I'm nearly with you, sorry. Very shortly I'll have a lot more free time, and I'll catch up on going over the evidence. <div class="quote"> Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: As a huge Agent Carter fan, and a huge fan of Sousa and Peggy, I really hope they explain what happened to them. They refer to Sousa as Peggy's old partner. He was never her partner in the events that we saw. He was a fellow agent in Season 1, her supervisor in Season 2 and then became her boyfriend at the end of Season 2. I need answers because clearly they became partners at some point, and if "Steve was her husband all along", I want to know when/why they broke up. </div>
So long as they don't contradict it being no later than 1949 - which applies for either Endgame interpretation, given even in the Russo version she has to be single by 1949. <div class="quote"> Brett3801 wrote: BEJT knows how much I loved Sousa and Peggy as a couple (hence his parenthetical in the previous message apologizing to me about his comment that "Peggy's former partner" sounds promising, I laughed really hard at that), I bring it up sometimes in the Discussions Area. I really wanted them to get together and was furious with Endgame for ruining them as a couple. That said, the writers were probably right, Cap was probably her husband all along. As much as I hate it, it makes sense. </div>
I'm sorry Endgame upset you in that regard. I didn't elaborate in the Discussions section - I absolutely love Peggy, and I like Sousa a lot and am looking forward to watching the new episode. However, I wasn't the hugest fan of the show (I enjoyed it quite a bit, but it never fully connected despite its great characters), and never overly invested in their relationship. I think I might have also partly just been anticipating what we thought was the inevitable "Captain America saved my battalion" line and so not quite connecting as I just waited for that moment. I was glad they got together, but when it came around in Endgame it didn't illicit more than, "Oof, poor Sousa. Guess he's not the husband then." Also in part because I just don't expect the films to acknowledge the shows, so I was thinking, "Well, to general audiences they probably just have to accept Sousa is meaningless, sadly." Plus with the gift of Jarvis' appearance, I was willing to let them off the hook a little. <div class="quote"> Marvelus wrote: I read a theory in Comicbook.com, that if the Chronicoms manage to change something, then a new timeline will be created, but the Agents will not be aware of it, so when they go back in time they return to the future of the new timeline they have created. I really want a solid answer for time travel in Season 7, from Bootstrap paradox to erasing yourself from existence. I also read something that "scared" me, apparently, there is a source out there that says Iain was shooting other series and he was unable to film 13 episodes, so he is getting a reduced amount of time this season... I hell hope not. The user that told me this said he is in only 2 episodes, and I really hope not. I mean, I doubt it is just two, but having him only in 5 is still bad. </div>
They pretty much say in Episode 2 that if the Chronicoms change something, they would return to a new timeline: "We'll just deal with it when we get back, right?" "To a future we don't recognise." The same way if Deke had gone "back" to 2091 after The End, he would find a different future. To quote my above response, while I haven't taken the time to work out the ins and outs of it all (still need to post my analysis of Runaways before that), I feel I have a reasonable picture of the rules: <div class="quote"> BEJT wrote: I still wouldn't personally call it a predestination paradox, since that to me says "You are simply part of the timeline, there is no chance of anything being "changed"", and the agents are in a position where there is a chance of "change" (in whatever form that takes). Deke's "sticks in a stream" theory does seem to be a sort of sweet spot between predestination (which is always the neatest option) and "choice", whereby the Chronicoms are capable of splitting the timeline to "change" things, but if they don't manage to then the events in that time period are simply part of the timeline, but haven't been "changed" to be like that, rather were always the case, in a sort of predestination paradox. I'll have to take some time at some point to wrap my head around how that works exactly, since it would mean that the agents therefore had always been part of 1931, but this seems in conflict with the idea of them being in a position where they can disrupt things "too much". But then, they don't know that, so they were always destined to not disrupt it in this case... it's complicated and, like with all time travel, I'll have to take some time one I have some to get my head around all the kinks. But it does also provide somewhat of an explanation for the kind of vague way they changed things in 2018. There does seem to be something, as I'd sort of assumed, where White Monolith time travel back in time somehow weakens time (the other methods seem to as well), and then you either end up having settled into things and it turns out you were predestined as such, or a "dam" ends up splitting things, like Coulson slipping Daisy the Centipede Serum. And from the way they refer to the Destroyed Earth universe, and the stakes here, it definitely seems that in some vague sense the "previous" (from their perspective) universe/timeline becomes less valid than the "new" one, as close as you could get to "change". </div>
As for Iain, oh no! <div class="quote"> Edward Zachary Sunrose wrote: Iain was supposed to shoot another series, which conflicted with AoS, but that series was postponed, freeing him up. Sadly, by the time this delay happened, it was too late to rewrite any of the season's scripts, so Fitz has a dramatically reduced screentime this season. At least, that's what I've read online. But my question is why even bother taking on another project if you think it might conflict with your main one? Clearly the fact that he wanted to make it work rather than ditching AoS altogether means he cares about the show, so why even go and look for something that would shoot at the same time? I don't get it. </div>
Nooo. <div class="quote"> Mrmichaelt wrote: There was a conflict/overlap before right? When Iain was filming Overlord then a couple episodes into AOS, Fitz eventually popped up in disguise at Kasius' party at the Lighthouse. </div>
<div class="quote"> Marvelus wrote: That is so sad :(, and such a shame. It's the last season! I already miss Fitz. I can't have enough of Fitz. He is like the best character... Well. Sh*t happens. </div>
<div class="quote"> Brett3801 wrote: Oh noooooo. Fitz is my favorite character, how could they do that? I don't think Chloe Bennet realized that he's most people's favorite when she said that this season will be everybody's favorite. </div>
<div class="quote"> Mystery Phantom wrote: Fitz is alongside Coulson also one of my favorite aoS characters, let's hope that Marvel Studios sees the success of the show on AoS and brings some of the characters into the movies... </div>
Love Fitz. And yeah, Fitz, Mack, and Coulson are three of my favourite MCU characters in total. <div class="quote"> BardicFire wrote: 1955! BEJT was right </div>
<div class="quote"> Marvelus wrote: He always is. That is why I don't bet with him anymore. </div>
<div class="quote"> BardicFire wrote: My friends think I'm an MCU expert yet I'm but a humble student to BEJT. </div>
You flatter me😂. Thank you. 1955 was only an educated guess. <div class="quote"> Marvelus wrote: Timeline info from the promo, I don't know if this has been shown in the episode, but:

Daniel Sousa got hurt during the Siege of Bastogne: December 20th-27th 1944, I assume he got hurt in the last days, maybe 24th.
He is the first S.H.I.E.L.D. agent to have an important role in history (AVOID SPOILERS PLEASE)

</div>
Guys, if you're withholding spoilers just for me, don't worry. It was only Episode 1 where I was particularly behind, and should generally watch episodes within 12ish hours, so I'm happy to just stay away from the discussion for a few hours every Thursday morning and come on once I've seen each one. But if we could agree either way, so I know whether to stay away or read. <div class="quote"> BardicFire wrote: upon first viewing I saw nothing that could give us a specific date. Hopefully we will get more next episode. I predicted mostly right it seems, 2 episodes per time period, but maybe skipping a decade time. Which lines up to about mid season where we might get a second plot. </div>
I haven't read the supposed plot leak, but I believe that did say about two episodes per time period (and the saving Hydra story). <div class="quote"> Assassin1and2 wrote: There was also a 1955 SHIELD file Daisy reads on Sousa that shows his age as 27 and when he entered duty (presumably SSR because the date is 1-26-46). </div>
<div class="quote"> Brett3801 wrote: I interpreted that age as when the file was written, meaning it couldn't have been written in 1955. That said, if you interpret it that way, then it means that Sousa was born in 1919. He was 27 on the date he entered duty, January 26, 1946, meaning he was born between January 27, 1919 and January 27, 1920, around August 28, 1919. I don't know what other evidence is out there about this, but this is the implication of this particular piece of evidence. (My blog coming soon with an approximate date for Alien Commies from the Future!) </div>
I'll let you know my thoughts once I've watched it. If it helps:

Agent Carter: Season 1 middle of filming was around November 25.25, 2014, so Enver was about 34.79, middle set April 24.5, 1946, suggesting Sousa would be born around July 1911.
Agent Carter: Season 2 middle of filming was around October 25, 2015, so Enver was about 35.70, middle set July 19, 1947, suggesting Sousa would be born around November 1911.
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Season 7, Episodes 3-4 middle of filming was around April 3ish, 2019, so Enver was about 39.14, set 1955 (I don't know the specifics), suggesting Sousa was born around May 1916.

So we should be looking at c. 1912 for his date of birth. So 1918/1919 makes more sense than 1927/1928. <div class="quote"> Brett3801 wrote: So, about 1955... The evidence is fully on board with it. I'll avoid spoilers, if you want to know all of the details, check out the new section of my blog. Daisy comes to the conclusion that they are in 1955 based on an advertisement for a car that was actually made available to be sold on October 22, 1954, it was just called the 1955 model. The car is referred to as "brand new," so this ad can't realistically be airing more than three months after this, January 22, 1955 (which I personally think is stretching it, but I put that down as people can exaggerate, especially on the radio). With very little other evidence, this ends up being our date range. Area 51 in the real world became a research facility in April 1955, but is made moot by Coulson stating that the Space Race (started August 2, 1955) had not yet started and Vega says that the facility had been open a couple of years, so we have to assume that Area 51 in the MCU was opened earlier, and is therefore not helpful as evidence. All of the references to it being 1955 are based on Daisy's incorrect assumption, so there's no way get as much weight as would be required (just over 77%) for the events of this episode to happen on January 1, 1955. It's unfortunate, because the writers very clearly intended a 1955 date for everything, but made it impossible. I go more in-depth on my blog, but there are spoilers there. Long story short, until next week provides more evidence (hopefully more evidence for 1955 rather than 1954), it can be approximated that Alien Commies from the Future! takes place on December 16, 1954. Sorry, BEJT, I was rotting for you. Unless somebody can find a mistake in my math. If that's the case, please point it out so I can make the math better. </div>
I'll take a look once I've watched the episode and when I get to catch up on the notes, but by the sounds of it the clear writer intent of 1955 would outweigh little details that would technically seem to suggest late 1954. Even though technically Daisy could be mistaken, there's also the element of the writer intent. 
 <h3>Methods of... (Gerisama, Marvelus, BardicFire, Rman823)</h3> <div class="quote"> Gerisama wrote: Back to the Perception page I've linke here a while ago, I think it's important to read through the page's time-travel section as Perception worked as Conceptual Development Consultants for Endgame's Time Heist related parts and one of the ideas they proposed was the Time Stream (The River Flows idea) also saying that travelling time leads to creation of rocks (sticks as per Deke) in the flow, that adds turbulence to the flow leading to fragmented flow/time. IT also details how users of Time Stone would be able to traverse through time, and minimize the splash in the stream . There's a high possibility Marvel TV worked with these ideas presented by the Perception Team, it also might suggest some plot-points for AoS's future plot. </div>
I don't know that Marvel Television would've worked with them. The stream/river thing is fairly common. But it's an interesting article, and I didn't forget about it when Deke's comment came along. <div class="quote"> Marvelus wrote: Hi Gerisama, I haven't read that page yet, is there something that might have worked with Runaways? Or they avoided that completely? BEJT, I will leave behing the discussion related to Snap's absence. I know it bothers you, and wait, Helstrom is months to come yet. I also wanted to tell you that, what if Deke's timestream idea was more related to time adapts instead of time fixes itself? We throw sticks, there has been some changes, but not permanent. So time adapts itself to it and creates what we know as predestination paradox. What do you think? It is an interesting concept I got today lol. </div>
I would steer away from the phrase "predestination paradox" currently, as I feel it's misleading, for the reasons explained above. I certainly wouldn't put the words "changes" and "predestination paradox" together. Are you trying to say that things are changed, then time compromises with half-undoing them? I don't think that's the case but I'll bear it in mind when I work out the exact details. <div class="quote"> BardicFire wrote: Reading thru everything on this Perception site because its fascinating. They seem to work regularly with Marvel. I'm of the opinion we should consider this a canon description of how time & the multiverse works in the MCU, especially with how important the the multiverse will be to future phases. The Sticks in the River theory seems to work for everything, including Runaways I think. Consider that everything they did do in the past was just sticks, but if Future Alex has killed the Runaways it wouldve made Dams, just as Future Chase did saving Gert. just want to take a moment to appreciate how much we passionately discuss the time travel rules of superhero films. It's the epitome of geekiness and fandom and I adore it. Im so jealous this was a whole company's job to design this stuff. What I'd give to be at those meetings and conversations. Edit: reading further thru this I feel like its suggesting AOS5-7 & Runaways did cause splinter timelines, because it says only the Time Stone can safely and precisely guide a traveler thru probability. If you dont have it the likelihood of returning to the wrong universe gets higher. </div>
It's not a canon explanation, since they were just various propositions for Marvel to pick, choose, and play around with. As such, I definitely wouldn't take it as applicable for whether Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is creating new timelines (with Episode 2 establishing itself as part of the timeline, it seems when they're successful, they don't). Runaways is more complicated than that given the being erased. However, the sticks in the stream and Perception site factor in. I've got a whole set of notes prepared on this that I'm yet to get around to finishing and posting. Thanks for the reminder to take this all lightly. <div class="quote"> Rman823 wrote: I know some may not agree, but I'm in the Russos camp that Steve wasn't her husband all along in the main timeline. Since Endgame, I've headcanoned that she married Sousa in the original timeline and Steve in an alternate one. Part of Agent Carter was showing Peggy being able to let go of Steve and I'm not a fan of the implications of older Steve being in the timeline all this time. I'm curious to see how they handle it. From the looks of it the 50s stuff will be set in the middle of the decade which at that point Peggy would have been married. From Daisy reffering to Sousa as just Peggy's partner, I don't have much hope that my headcanon will stick. They'll probably have something like them not working out as a couple while also remaining friends having Daniel join her at SHIELD once the SSR is disbanded. </div>
Even if Steve weren't her husband in the main timeline (which, of course, I maintain going off Endgame that he was, and personally also find much more satisfying), Peggy and Sousa have to have broken up by 1949 for Peggy to be single when Steve shows up. Though that's not to say that they couldn't get back together later, in the case where Steve weren't the husband. I'm personally totally comfortable with Steve being in the timeline all along given he couldn't change anything, and I think it's a really beautiful narrative idea that recontextualises previous films in a beautiful way, but hey. I've discussed the character arc thing with people in my personal life before. I've talked on the Discussions section about why I think it's fine with Steve's arc, but as for Peggy, my thought is this: Yes, Season 1 was about her learning to move on, because he seemingly died. A nice neat arc wouldn't then throw a spanner in the works there. But it was worth giving the arc the slight hiccup of "But that's not to say that if Steve showed up at her door, she would just turn him away" for the sake of what overall gives a beautiful ending to the Infinity Saga (excluding Far from Home). Saying "But that's not to say that if Steve showed up at her door, she would just turn him away" is different to undoing her character journey, just not quite as neat as some might like. I'm totally fine with it. And I think Peggy came out of Season 1 with extended character strengths from that moving on than merely just having moved on from Steve. Also, even if Steve were to have created an alternate timeline, it's still the same Peggy up to that point, so still the same one who went through Agent Carter: Season 1. Any "damage" (I don't think it's damage) done to her arc occurs either way, just there's also a version of her without that "damage" on the Russo picture. That's a good point about it being 1955. As someone who very much had it in my head from the moment I worked out it was c. 1955 that "Oh, so Peggy's out there married to Steve already", I hadn't thought what this means for Russo defenders. Yeah, I guess that does mean he wouldn't be the husband for you, that they didn't just get back together after 1949. That's a shame for you, I was definitely someone who wanted Sousa to be the husband (until Endgame), so if I weren't someone completely stuck on Steve being the husband, I would want that. Oh well, sometimes life doesn't work out as fairy tale-like as we would want. <div class="quote"> Marvelus wrote: While I agree with the writers, due to recent research, I have come to accept the Russos' explanation is the truth in the long term. But I still support the writers, they wrote the movie, they were specifics about the changes and what involved creating a new timeline, but being 100% unbiased, the Russos' decision is likely the MCU's approach to time travel in the films and Disney+ shows. </div>
I'm sure they'd sadly rather go with the Russos than try to explain about being unable to change things due to a time loop. But different methods yield different results and who knows what the future holds. <div class="quote"> Rman823 wrote: I feel the same way and am curious as to why there wasn't more of a concrete understanding on the time travel specifics for Endgame. </div>
I'm of two minds about the way they handled it. On the one hand, I am so glad they didn't use Back to the Future rules, which would've felt like a cop out fix and been utter nonsense. They took a much better approach, making much more sense and feeling much more fresh and enjoyable. And I came out of the film thinking "Wow, that was good and consistent and all works out", and maintain that if the writers are correct. On the other hand, if the Russos are correct, it's much sloppier and messier and worse-thought-out than it seemed, and the fact that there's the disparity at all suggests that for all their planning, they didn't quite work out every kink. And that's disappointing to me, because it seems they put in 95% of the effort but for whatever reason didn't iron out a major detail. I can't help but wonder if an hour's discussion on Feige, Markus, McFeely, and the Russo's part, a tweak to the script, and 30 seconds more of exposition could have saved us a year (and counting) of stress. <div class="quote"> Marvelus wrote: They changed their own rules during the reshoots. Script says what I believe is the truth: "only the removal of an Infinity Stone will create a new timeline". The script is 100% correct (sadly, they have changed that). Then, the script also says "you return the Stones to the point where they were before" and the timeline is erased, as the flow continues on. That is in the script! And those were the real rules. The real deal. However, it is likely Feige changed those lines during reshoots as he wanted to use Loki's 2012 version for the "Loki (TV series)". So Cap was always meant to be Peggy's hubsand going by the script's true rules. So the reshoots happened, and Tilda Swinton confirmed they changed her lines for the reshoots, and the idea of time travel changed, now the actions of the Avengers created a new timeline but the disappearance/removal of Infinity Stones created a dark reality, as the Stones are needed for the flow of space-time-reality-time, etc. Without it, the Universe collapses, they changed the first version to that one. Feige's idea of Loki's show is what I believe to be the factor that changed the time rules. It is a shame they didn't reshoot Cap's return to the present to actually confirm the new changes. Had they shown Steve returning through the Quantum Realm as an old man would have settled the debate of a new timeline or same timeline, but no... The Russos: "Hey, I don't think we thought all the way through" </div>
I don't think Feige changed the rules for Loki. The writers have talked about how nothing in the film was planted specifically at Feige's behest for the future. They've talked about changing the Ancient One scene (and you can see the original version on Disney+) to make sure people are clear that this isn't like Back to the Future, which they feel wasn't clear in the first version. The Disney+ deleted scene is a little odd, since it relies on Bruce having gone ahead with the Time Heist without understanding what he's doing. The Disney+ scene also includes the Ancient One saying the "Your former present becomes the past" spiel, and a slight change in wording I discuss here does make it slightly clearer than in the final film. The fact she says it all there tells me that the Hulk scene was also likely a reshoot, and so the reshoots separating that discussion it feels to me improved the narrative regarding Hulk knowing the science and the Avengers' plan, but slightly confused things in terms of having two accounts that aren't quite saying the same thing. 
 <h3>Shades (Brett3801, Marvelus)</h3> <div class="quote"> Brett3801 wrote: I have a question about Shades' incarceration from Luke Cage. I was rewatching the Shades/Cottonmouth scene from the Pilot (Shades' first appearance), and I don't know why it's implied that he had only recently gotten out. In fact, this is the exchange that occurs during that conversation: <div class="quote"> <dl><dd>"Shades. When'd you come home?"
"Ooh, a while ago." </dd><dd>―Cottonmouth and Shades</dd></dl></div>
This seems to imply that it has been some time since Shades got released, not that it was recent. Why did anyone say the opposite? Does this affect any of the math involved for his release/incarceration/stealing sunglasses, which I previously brought up? March does work with "a while ago" (at least the way I would talk), but it was also chosen to be as close to the start of the season as possible. I used the math from Step in the Arena to figure out Shades' release without actually rewatching the episode. But now that I have, I'm confused. </div> I didn't remember it being phrased quite like that. I've just revisited the scene, and I think I always took it in combination with the fact that in Episode 2 Shades says, "I just got home." So given that, I always watched that scene with the frame of mind that Cottonmouth is surprised to see him back so he can't have been back that long, and Shades is just kind of saying, "Well, longer than you think, you just haven't seen me because I don't hang around here anymore, I work with Diamondback now." I never took it as meaning that he's been back more than a couple of months given that Episode 2 line. But if you feel it does change things, feel free to alter some things. It's all just approximations anyway. <div class="quote"> Marvelus wrote: New information from Luke Cage S2, which alluded to him being released shortly before Season 1, mostly due to the setting of Season 1 and 2. </div>
<div class="quote"> Brett3801 wrote: Oh, alright. Thanks! </div>
The information in Season 2 suggests Shades was released earlier, longer before Season 1, given his "last year in Seagate" line. As far as I'm aware, it's just the Season 1, Episode 2 line suggesting he was released shortly before Season 1. 
 <h3>Jessica Jones: Season 3 Small Corrections and New Evidence (additional)</h3> I mentioned before that I'd noticed some small mistakes in my Jessica Jones: Season 3, Episode 3 notes, but was only going to fix them after I'd finished the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Season 6 notes. I've done that now.

I made the changes to the notes. You can see the notes changes here but it's mainly a lot of little details that don't matter, you can get the relevant changes from the below.
The changes applied to May 1-4, 2018. I made the appropriate changes on the 2018 page, with that edit easier to see the changes from. Only some minor tweaks to the days of a few scenes.
I have also corrected the April-May 2018 watch order, with Jessica Jones: Season 3, Episode 3 being before The Punisher: Season 2, Episode 4, not after. You can also more easily see there the simple tweaks to which minutes of the episode occur on which days.
Also, Brett3801, I'm taking into account any of your notes on the Jessica Jones write-ups that slipped through the cracks when I did my notes, and going back and adding them to my notes post from last year so they're all in one place. Just to let you know when they're deleted from the write-up part of the draft page, that isn't me ignoring them. Obviously then when I get to the Season 3 past events, they'll be dealt with.

While doing some Jessica Jones work, I also noticed something in Episode 1 I hadn't spotted before: when Jessica watches ARN in the bar, Trish is selling an "easy breezy summer tank" (top). This just helps that little bit more for justifying it being spring rather than autumn/fall.

(Edited by BEJT)

Jessica3801·6/11/2020

Regarding SHIELD 7, I set writers' intent aside to focus more closely on in-universe evidence, kind of like y'all did last season with placing Enoch and Fitz getting attacked before the timeline split last season. Was I wrong to do so? And, take your time. It's definitely not a rush. Regarding Shades, the line honestly kind of helps with where I have it, so that "I just got out" isn't as weird. It's also possible that he didn't go straight back to New York, so it works more nicely with that line. Regarding Jessica Jones, thanks for letting me know! I appreciate it.

(Edited by Jessica3801)

BEJT·6/11/2020

I personally try to focus on both clear writer intent and in-universe meaning as two factors (admittedly, that might not be clear from looking at some of my past workings). This is kind of the idea behind the weighted values being a value based on the type of evidence, divided by the in-universe leniency. The type of evidence part is the strength that the line or whatever it is is meant to convey, how decisive and explicit and intentional it is. Sometimes, you can tell that a writer definitely meant something a certain way, but have to exploit that technically in-universe it could mean something else. This isn't the best example, but off the top of my head, the "8 years" Vulture line in Homecoming is clearly meant to refer to the Battle of New York, but technically you can fudge his meaning to refer to how their 8 years in total as a crew (even before they went to the black market) has covered the rise of superheroes - and given the intention behind the line is badly mistaken, we can resort to fudging based on in-universe human error or ambiguity. But sometimes, and in a case like this, while an in-universe thing would technically point to something slightly different, I would imagine (having not yet watched the episode) that the intent we can safely read from the line is to tell the audience "We're in 1955", so it's just a bit weird to go against that. But I'll try to give some more specific advice when I can.

(Edited by BEJT)

Mrmichaelt·6/11/2020

<div class="quote"> Brett3801 wrote: So, about 1955... The evidence is fully on board with it. I'll avoid spoilers, if you want to know all of the details, check out the new section of my blog. Daisy comes to the conclusion that they are in 1955 based on an advertisement for a car that was actually made available to be sold on October 22, 1954, it was just called the 1955 model. The car is referred to as "brand new," so this ad can't realistically be airing more than three months after this, January 22, 1955 (which I personally think is stretching it, but I put that down as people can exaggerate, especially on the radio). With very little other evidence, this ends up being our date range. Area 51 in the real world became a research facility in April 1955, but is made moot by Coulson stating that the Space Race (started August 2, 1955) had not yet started and Vega says that the facility had been open a couple of years, so we have to assume that Area 51 in the MCU was opened earlier, and is therefore not helpful as evidence. All of the references to it being 1955 are based on Daisy's incorrect assumption, so there's no way get as much weight as would be required (just over 77%) for the events of this episode to happen on January 1, 1955. It's unfortunate, because the writers very clearly intended a 1955 date for everything, but made it impossible. I go more in-depth on my blog, but there are spoilers there. Long story short, until next week provides more evidence (hopefully more evidence for 1955 rather than 1954), it can be approximated that Alien Commies from the Future! takes place on December 16, 1954. Sorry, BEJT, I was rotting for you. Unless somebody can find a mistake in my math. If that's the case, please point it out so I can make the math better. </div>
I put in my 2 cents in your blog with a summer 1955 guess. LMD Coulson makes it pretty clear it's 1955 when he mentions Helius from a file around 7:43 in.

(Edited by Mrmichaelt)

Marvelus·6/11/2020

BEJT, answering your time travel question, I am sure you know I am as well writing down the rules of the MCU as a whole, I am being unbiased, just trying ti create a whole set of rules to avoid further contradictions by "Loki", so I think we will differ when we get our rules. I am using comics concepts, and I am basically avoiding the entire "Back to the Future" thing. Also what I was saying with time adapts is, "you can't do anything that hasn't happened, but you can do everything that has happened". I think this fits well with the paradox loop thing. I am still working on how Season 5 works with all the MCU, then I will jump to Runaways S1, and then analyze the entire conflict with Endgame. I am using a lot of comics concept, Multiverse, time travel rules in there, and comparing them. It is really helpful. I disagree with your opinion on Feige's decision. While it is weird the writers denied it, I will assume they didn't confirm anything because it wasn't known yet whether the show would be 2012 Loki or MCU Loki. Also, I finally published the article 81, after 2 years of publishing our work in BdS, it's finally over. And I got very sweet coments I will like to share with you guys. Of course, it is our work, but mostly BEJT's work, which I have made clear in all the articles I have written for that website. <dl><dd>Gust: Incredible and invaluable work! Like no other on the internet </dd><dd>Dr. Kadok: Titanic work! Although the Netflix series and other things end up being someday out of continuity, we will always have your MCU timeline... where everything fits. Congratulations!! </dd><dd>Charlie Jou LA: Wow! It was inevitable that this was the last article. [...] What is your retirement plan, will you be resting on the farm? (Endgame reference) [...] Will [you] return? Cheers ! </dd><dd>GVZ: Incredible work! Everything is excellent! </dd><dd>Rakunner: My congratulations [my name], it has been an interesting and educational journey throughout the MCU. [...] </dd><dd>Max Powers: Very good summary! </dd><dd>hades: Good work! </dd><dd>eeeh: Spectacular work, [...]. Fortunately, in the world we have you scholastics of wikias who resolve all doubts. </dd><dd>Ricardo1998: Thank you very much [...]! Your work has been incredible, it's been two years since I started reading. [...] Congratulations! </dd><dd>Alguty: Very good work. [---]. If I read you again here I will be delighted. Congratulations for this work. </dd><dd>Mariel: [...] I really don't even know what to tell you, if I had a way so Kevin Feige would see your work, I would take it. It is beautiful to see the effort to educate us. [...] </dd></dl>

(Edited by Marvelus)