No official word as far as I'm aware, but from the new trailer it looks like it can't be, as there's no place in the MCU timeline it could take place.
Before Civil War?
Spider-Man isn't friends with the heroes and doesn't have this suit, Wasp doesn't have her suit, Black Panther isn't friends with the heroes and doesn't have this suit, the heroes don't know Doctor Strange and he isn't a proper sorcerer yet, Hulk is off-world.
Between Civil War and Ant-Man and the Wasp?
Scott is under house arrest and not in contact with Hope, Hulk is off-world, the heroes don't know Doctor Strange.
Between Ant-Man and the Wasp and Infinity War?
Hulk is off-world, the heroes don't know Doctor Strange.
Between Infinity War and Endgame?
Spider-Man, Wasp, Black Panther, Doctor Strange, and Falcon are all dead, Hulk has stopped coming out and Bruce eventually becomes Smart Hulk, not normal Hulk.
Between Endgame and Far from Home?
Peter seems to use the Iron Spider suit in this time, Hulk looks like Professor Hulk rather than this Hulk.
After Far from Home?
Peter is a fugitive and his blue suit has been blown up/he has a black suit now, Hulk looks like Professor Hulk rather than this Hulk.
It would have to be set either:
Between Endgame and Far from Home and, without us knowing, it turns out Smart Hulk actually went back to normal Hulk in this time for some reason, plus Peter did in fact use his red and blue suit in this time
Some time after Far from Home, presumably after the events of Spider-Man 3 and Peter is no longer a fugitive, and for some reason he has started wearing a copy of his old suit, and Hulk has gone back to normal Hulk.
All of that is a lot of assumption, and would be bizarre.
Hello. Today I watched the final episode Agent Carter. I have a question. Is the document that Michael Carter steals is a document about him or is it written about Peggy? After all, M. Carter may be him.
Hey man, I've been working on school work and since that has taken a majority of my time, I haven't been up-to-date on the date placements. All I ask is why the 2018 dates on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. /Avengers: Infinity War dates are undetermined. (like the first date like this is like 3rd/17th. I'm assuming that the date is undetermined). Is the reason we haven't settled on a single date because of the Jessica Jones Season 3 placement (which I saw the vote. I was leaning towards april/may placement myself). Are we waiting on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Season 7 for a full timeline to work with? If you can remind my why that would be wonderful. Also keep up the good work you guys!
The reason was because of the Jessica Jones problem. The earlier in the year, the better for Avengers: Infinity War, with Spider-Man: Far from Home loosely describing it as halfway through the school year. If Jessica Jones: Season 3 was going to be November-December, then Avengers: Infinity War could come right after the end of The Punisher: Season 2. If Jessica Jones: Season 3 was going to be April-May, then the season ends in late May, so Avengers: Infinity War would have to take place 2 weeks later. So we had narrowed Avengers: Infinity War down to two possible placements, just not quite one. This also impacted Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Season 6.
Now, though, we just held the vote on what to do on Jessica Jones: Season 3, so in the coming days I should be able to make another edit to the 2018 page to update all those dates, and add the Jessica Jones events as placeholders until the full episodes are written up. So you should see an update very soon.
But yeah, it'll be the later option on all of those dates with two options, not the earlier one.
Thank you for the quick response BEJT! Your're definity faster then my professor. No but really though I appreiciate the work you guys do. Must take a lifetime and a half and you weren't even asked to do it.
Since the system over dates changed, where every date has to be only written to the level of certainty, I have been told that citations should be provided for the dates to explain their source, which made sense considering, for example, the citations for dates of birth, and the wiki policy of citations.
I agree it doesn't really clear things up. Some other uses started putting actual explanations, but were told to instead put citations purely for films/episodes/articles, as that's the way the citation policy works. So I prepare the most efficient usage of films/episodes/articles to provide the minimum required puzzle pieces to reference the date sufficiently, so that if a user really wanted to find out, they can find enough pieces in those references to work out where it's coming from.
I also agree the timeline pages are there for that information, but a while ago it was made clear that the timeline pages should not be a resource for factual information on the main articles. I'm fine with there being no citations on certain dates (still feel things like the Ancient One being 700 do need a source provided, especially since users have often in the past removed dates saying no citation is provided, but that was only since the citation was removed), I've just been trying to fix the policy.
Also, by the way, this isn't a recent thing. My cleaning up of the date sections recently has been more focused on consistency and removing fanon for the betterment of the articles. I noticed massive inconsistency with dates sections regarding the same season or film, with some people putting exact dates, some months, some seasons, some the part of the year, etc.. What I've been doing is, knowing the level of certainty of the dates, I've been putting the correct degree of accuracy and apply it uniform across the board, including making sure to remove fanon that's too accurate. The references were just part of that, making sure they were also consistent and well-done.
A couple of years ago when the system changed for dates on articles. It might not have also necessarily been directly to me, it might have been to other users who were adding full citation explanations.
Yeah, that was the sort of thing where I felt it was trickier too. But since the dates do provide a link to the timeline page, especially with the Before 20th Century page taking you specifically to that year, I can agree that it should be fine so long as that stuff is actually in the timeline pages.
Unfortunately, I can't (also I think that would be for Black Widow, not Runaways). I tried before when there were some people noting the main page being outdated, but that template is locked for content moderators as well as normal users.
When Steve returns the stones he would have to return each of them to their correct realities so when Steve gives the Time Stone back to the Ancient One that would clip the branch saving the new reality. That would be the reason on how the Loki show can happen.
Loki taking the Tesseract is already in an alternate timeline.
According to the Russos, that action however would make the timeline unable to be "rectified", leaving it a mess. The Russos seem to imply that timelines don't in fact get erased, just fixed as much as possible.
According to Markus and McFeely, the timelines are all to do with removing/returning Infinity Stones and they believe that timeline, as the film implies, would get erased by Steve.
The show being about this Loki would imply Marvel are leaning the Russos' way and fudging the rules of the film for creative purposes. However, it's possible that, seeing as the Jaws image and previous rumours would suggest Loki will time-travel, Loki escaoes that splinter timeline before it's erased.
OK. I don't really see what the difference is, timeline makes it clear that these universes are not just completely separate realities you can jump between but the fact that they are connected since they split from the same stem. Personally, I find it much more clear talking about them being timelines than all the other language that gets substituted in, but sure.
Isn't it fine though to keep speaking like this on message discussions with people I talk about this to, where the average user isn't reading? I don't think I've edited anything on an actual page to say "alternate timeline", I've stayed away from that stuff.
Since it's related, is this all fine to edit? Wanted to check with you because it was your project.
That implies that the agents switched universes when they travelled in time, which was never the case as is evident by Fitz sleeping through into that future, and other things.
I happen to have just written about this for a write-up explaining why the theory that the reason the Snap has not been covered by Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Season 6 is that it's in an alternate universe does not work. That wiki seems to operate on trying to fit to comics rules, but there's only one timeline where Earth is destroyed in the MCU.
Right, but the alternate universe was the original timeline. Then they made a new branch timeline in 2018, which became the designated continuation of the main MCU timeline, designating the original timeline as an alternate universe.
When they travelled in time, they just travelled in time, as is evident from the time loop, the fact it's just a time monolith, Fitz sleeping through, and other things listed in the link. Their decisions in May 2018 split the timeline, not their travelling in time.
Yeah, 2091 is an alternate universe. Not arguing that. Just there's nothing in the show to imply a third universe and so I don't see a reason for that to stay on the page.
Not trying to pull you into a discussion here if you don't want to. To be honest I wasn't expecting a discussion to start. Of course remain as inactive as you need to be, I hope work is treating you well. I'm very sorry for whenever I frustrate you, always doing my best.
Yes, but I mean that the list of Alternate universes lists 2 universes of the loop because we were shown oficially in the MCU two futures, the one seen in the kind of flashbacks from Episode 8 of Season 5 and the other same destroyed reality we see is the one to where our agents were taken to. That is why we have 2 alternste universes in that list besides being a loop
Those are the same universe. The agents fail, Earth is destroyed, Simmons has a child, that child has Deke, in 2091 the agents arrive from 2017. They head back to 2017. The agents fail, Earth is destroyed, Simmons has a child, that child has Deke, in 2091 the agents arrive from 2017. The agents fail, Earth is destroyed, Simmons has a child, that child has Deke, in 2091 the agents arrive from 2017 etc..
I know they are the same universe, but they are listed as two in the list because we were shown two times that universe through the main events of Seasom 5 and other during the "flashbacks" in Episode 8.
@BEJT, is it alright if on March 26th, 2010, I add that How To Train Your Dragon 1 was released, since on the 2014 page it says the sequel was released. Also, can I add in the Star Wars: The Force Awakens on 2015, since an action figure of it can be seen in Runaways, Rogue One in 2016 and The Last Jedi in 2017?
We try not to make assumptions. There's no hard and fast rule, but basically if the other film clearly exists as an implication, it's worth putting, but if not, don't.
We don't add sequels to a film that was referenced, because there's nothing to suggest that any further films were made in the MCU. So just because The Force Awakens exists in the MCU doesn't mean we know Rogue One or The Last Jedi do for sure.
Since How to Train Your Dragon 2 is called what it is, it is clearly the sequel to How to Train Your Dragon in the MCU as well, so yes, you can be sure that How to Train Your Dragon came out. That can be added.
Sequels that are less direct in nature or title can't necessarily assume previous films. Using The Force Awakens as an example again, it doesn't mean we can assume that the prequel trilogy was released in the MCU.
Alright I added How To Train Your Dragon, but I'll put in The Force Awakens only if I'm 100% allowed to. Also, I always just figured that the only difference between the MCU and our world is that the MCU has superheroes and supervillains and Marvel Comics was never a thing (At least not until 2012 but that's my own headcanon) and our world has no superheroes and supervillains and Marvel Comics was created back in the 1930's.
The Force Awakens does include podracing flags and vehicle's, which were introduced in The Phantom Menace. In the MCU, (assuming the prequels don't exist for now), why would they make a huge comeback with TFA, only to stop there and not make any more films. Rogue One and Solo are in a gray spot since Ben Mendleson was in Rogue One and Solo would have come out after the snap (at least in my timeline of events which is when the snap is on May 10th 2018) But TLJ would surley exist as a sequel.
You're allowed to put The Force Awakens, just it's not worth speculating that Rogue One and The Last Jedi must therefore exist.
It does seem that way, that the MCU is pretty much the same with pop culture, but since there's no actual evidence of the prequels or the further Disney films, it would just be speculation.
We don't know that The Force Awakens exists exactly the same way in the MCU (it likely doesn't, since it probably doesn't include Jessica Henwick in the MCU). So we don't know that it would include the podracing flags and vehicles in the film the same way it does in the real world. And we don't know that it was as big a success in the MCU or that they went on to make exactly the same films. Yes, The Last Jedi
likely exists, but we don't actually have evidence for it existing.
Alright I guess that makes sense. I do agree that the movie is most likely different but in small ways like a different actress playing Jess Pava (the pilot who Henwick played). Also is there an active thread for a timeline disscusion? I have an idea of when everything fits in. Thanks for reading