Hey, so I understand why you didn't include the Instagram scenes as canon, but I was wondering if there was a way for them to be considered canon too: where either Sequoia later deleted the parts of her story (especially the ones where she talks about her boyfriend, as that would be embarrassing given her newfound relationship with Kahn. If that's where the story "splits" into separate videos, then that works. She talks about her increased love for Shaw during them, so it makes sense), or she made the videos and decided not to post them. I think they should be canon, but was wondering what you thought about that?
As I was working through the write-ups, I intended on including them as canon. Then when I clocked that the bars running continuously at the top of the story in the episode should mean that we are seeing the whole thing, I came to the conclusion that those bits shouldn't slip in between the other stories, classifying them ultimately in the "deleted scene, non-canon" camp, along with the fact that some of them seem to include alternate takes on bits seen in the episode.
That said, I can certainly see the point about how they could fit. They could be seen as takes for her story that she deleted and redid. I guess it ultimately comes down to whether you consider them as "extra in-universe material" (canon) or "deleted scenes" (non-canon), and to me the evidence seems to point to deleted scenes. But what would you say?
I can see valid arguments either way, honestly. The first time I saw them, there was nothing that particularly struck me as non-canon, even in "Sequoia's Vlog" (the first one, her in the car). I could see them as drafts or stuff she later deleted since she got a new boyfriend, and the viewer just watched her story after she did that.
I rewatched them, and here's my rundown:
"Sequoia's Vlog": This is the trickiest one, it's likely that she drafted this and then decided not to post herself talking like that (as influencers have to maintain an image of themselves in order to continue to get paid by companies), so deleted it and posted the one we saw in the episode.
"Isn't he so cute?": This one doesn't contradict anything, fits with what was happening, doesn't mess up timing, is most likely canon.
Bathroom: Doesn't contradict anything, fits with the situation, slightly contradicts Sequoia's later willingness to date Kahn but is justifiable as it fits with Sequoia before knowing Kahn was a SHIELD agent, and doesn't mess up timing, it's therefore most likely canon. The first sentence of this scene is even a perfect continuation (given the way Sequoia speaks) of the in-episode bathroom scene, so it makes sense that she later deleted the part where she talks about how much she loves her ex.
Since the other two present no or very little problems with the episode and what we see at the end, I have no trouble believing that "Sequoia's Vlog" is just a first draft that she deleted. Maybe list them as separate bullet points, the first ending with "She then deleted this video," and starting the next one with, "She filmed a second take," allowing for the bonus scenes to be canon.
That's just me, if you disagree, I'd say it's worth getting a third opinion.
I also checked the preface post, which describes them as "bonus scenes," rather than deleted scenes. That's a point in the favor of "extra in-universe material" the way I see it. To me that sounds like they're extra scenes from the episode.
Sorry for the late replies. I've been busy with other work and want to give proper responses.
I get the argument. I think the way I see it, it's bending over backwards to fit in something which doesn't particularly have a need to be canon, and since it requires bending over backwards, I don't feel it's worth it. But it is indeed not contradictory either.
I understand the "bonus scenes" name may be seen as such, but I also feel like if it weren't in an Instagram story format, then "bonus scenes" label would be taken to more clearly simply refer to some deleted scenes.
That also said, some deleted scenes do get put onto the timeline pages so long as they don't contradict the canon, which these arguably don't. So it could be taken that these should be put onto the pages in the way of non-contradictory unofficial canon like the inspired canon comics and some deleted scenes, without counting as official canon.
Hey. I have a few question about Endgame. So when Steve Rogers takes the responsibility of returning the stones to their original timelines, are the containment devices shown at the end of the movie? Like for instance, was the Reality Stone converted to the Aether and contained in the extraction device that Rocket used and were the Space Power and Mind Stones encased in the Tesseract, Orb, and Scepter? Second question- where was Korath when Nebula and War Machine hijacked Star Lord's theft of the Orb on Morag? Was he ordered to sit that one out by Thanos, or did he arrive on Morag the same time as Nebula and War Machine stole the Power Stone from the Temple Vault? Finally, would the Time Heist end with the implication that the Stones were still active in the alternate timeline although their status on many pages is listed as destroyed?
Steve only takes back the stones. It's a question many people have. The How It Should Have Ended YouTube series did a fun video about it. Personally, I believe that since returning the stones is said to be sufficient to "erase" the stoneless timelines, I don't see why the casings would be necessary to just erase things. Steve would just have to drop the stones back in so there was always a complete set, and that would collapse the timelines. But that's just a theory, I think it makes sense but no one has said that.
I did some work on how the Time Heist lines up. It works, so long as you assume that in Guardians of the Galaxy, Quill took a bit of time getting set up once he got into the temple. That means that Rhodey and Nebula would actually have some time once they get there, so you can assume Korath arrives just after Nebula leaves.
The wiki is kicking off an overhaul with how it works with the multiverse. However, the general approach so far with the statuses in the infoboxes is to only acknowledge the non-main universe versions of characters/items if they're significant. So, Loki's page does acknowledge that the alternate version of him is alive, because it's relevant given his show. But, for example, Frigga's page doesn't talk about her alternate self, because it's not relevant. So that's the case with the Infinity Stones really - plus those timelines were seemingly collapsed, "erased", when Steve returns the stones, so the timelines aren't still active anyway. Though there's some disagreement bout this.
aight so like when you say the timelines were erased, you are talking about the timeline that would have been created without the stones, right? I'm sorry this whole plotline of Avengers Endgame was confusing. Just because Steve returned the stones doesn't mean that the events such as the Dark Elf Conflict and the Quest for the Orb played out as it did in the original timeline. For instance, in the alternate 2014 timeline, Thanos and his forces disappeared from 2014, thus creating a new reality where the Gotg never formed, and without Thanos's presence, the Collector would still be in possession of the Aether, and Ronan and Korath could have possibly got his hands on the Power Stone in this new timeline?
Yes, but things would have been different if the Reality Stone was returned to Asgard, because anything could have happened as a result. The Dark Elves were searching for the Aether, and they would have to attack Asgard I guess to regain possession of it, and Malekith could somehow turn it back into the Aether. Anyway, one thing that confuses me, is that in the alternate 2012 timeline where Loki stole the Space Stone and disappeared, would the events that transpired in Thor: The Dark World and the Guardians of the Galaxy still occur as they did in the original timelines in this new timeline that was created by the Time Heist?
Again, things depend on who you ask. Theoretically, you just either have or haven't created a new timeline, so something that just happens to be particularly significantly different as opposed to less significantly different doesn't make a difference. Thanos and his forces came from what was already an alternate 2014, that action didn't make it an alternate timeline. It just made it particularly different.
If you ask me or the writers, Steve returning the stones isn't about fixing what might happen in those timelines, it's about literally erasing them from existence. As discussed in the film, just being back in time doesn't mean they can change time, but if they remove an Infinity Stone then the timeline splits, a new timeline being broken off, missing that stone (i.e. it causes/allows each Time Heist point to be an alternate timeline instead of just a fixed part of the timeline). Steve returning the stone, according to Bruce and the Ancient One, means that technically those branch timelines never had an incomplete set, allowing the timeline to repair itself and erase those splinters.
So the way I have read (and analysed) the film, it's really simple and neat - those timelines open up briefly, and then are collapsed, and no longer exist. So you don't need to worry about what might happen in those timelines after the Avengers left them behind. But the directors, and some fans, disagree.
Wait a minute I'm confused. So for instance when Steve Rogers returned the Power Stone to 2014, Thanos and his forces disappeared from that alternate timeline, right? In another words, after Steve returned the Orb to its spot in the Temple Vault, the Quest for the Orb didn't play out as it did in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie. And when the writers addressed that the moment that Steve returned the stones to the moment they were taken, then that alernate reality was erased, were they asserting that for instance, when Steve returned the Power Stone to Morag, then after that, Star-Lord would have broken into the Temple Vault before being confronted and pursued by Korath as it originally happened in the original timeline? Right?
The idea is, going by the writers and the way I see the film, that once both stones are returned to 2014, that timeline ceases to exist at that point. Thanos and his forces left the timeline before the timeline collapsed. It's not about making things go how they did before, but purely about restoring balance to the universe.
I know that this is confusing. But this is another opinion that explores the other possibility. So when Steve returns the stones to the moment they were taken back, like the Power Stone to Morag, then that would erase the timeline that War Machine and Nebula created when they stole it from Morag. Therefore, Thanos and his forces would have no incentive to travel back to 2023, and that is one way as to how the original events from 2014 could play.
Anything is possible in those new timelines, though I and the writers would say that those new timelines cease to exist shortly after their creation.
The idea with the 2014 example you give would be that Steve would return the Power Stone and Soul Stone to the appropriate times, which would then cause that timeline to crumble from the point of the Soul Stone leaving/being returned, i.e. the moment after Hawkeye leaves that timeline.
Thanos and his army simply therefore, going by this interpretation, must have left the 2014 timeline before Hawkeye did, i.e. during the span of time that that timeline exists.
Hey, you can delete this and you definitely don't have to answer if you're not comfortable (I know you don't want people knowing your identity here), but what are you pronouns so that I know how to refer to you in the future? I mentioned not knowing on the Timeline Discussion page, and that was my apparently-too-subtle way of asking, so I figured I'd ask. But if you don't want to tell me and would rather I stick with they/them, that's fine with me too. It's your privacy, I get that.
In Daredevil, i figured it out who this Silvio guy is. Silvio is a former mobster and a mcu character without a surname but he is a MCU related version of Silvio Manfredi who is also a mobster and Silvio Manfredi is "Silvermane".
and i got a point! the reason why Michelle Jones is not or is the other side of the coin of Mary Jane because she is a MCU related version due to Mary Jane Watson as a Sony-Owned Character too.
and reason why The Elementals were fake and holograms because in real life they are MCU Related versions because the real Sandman, Molten Man, Hydro-Man, Cyclone and Mud-Thing are also "Sony owned" Characters as well. so "Sony-owned" Characters and MCU related Characters are two sides of a coin.
Disney is borrowing the "Sony owned" spider-Man characters to make them as Related versions as a cover because they haven't owned the whole spider-man rights yet.
BEJT wrote: Spider-Man and other characters involved are Sony characters. They're not borrowing them, they're collaborating with Sony.
Get to technically make the films.
Get to use their characters in their films.
Make most of the money off the Spider-Man films.
Are the primary studio owning the Spider-Man films.
Get to borrow some Marvel characters in the Spider-Man films (Captain America, Tony Stark, Nick Fury, Happy Hogan, Maria Hill, Talos, etc.).
Get to use characters Sony give them permission for in films beyond the Sony-owned Spider-Man films. e.g. Spider-Man in Civil War, Infinity War, and Endgame, and Ned in Infinity War and Endgame.
Get to have the Spider-Man films be part of their universe.
Get to have a lot of creative control over the Spider-Man films.
Get a small cut of the Spider-Man films' money.
MJ and the Elementals are just creative choices, it's not a rights issue. They're Sony films, they can include the characters to any extent they want.
Also by that contract, Marvel could not use thos characters for TV Shows. I don't think is a Marvel Television-strict rule only, i bet Marvel Studios won't be able to use those characters if the accords are not changed.
I head that the Cosmic Quest books ended up getting deemed not canon, which had me wondering if there were any books that were canon that aren't just novelizations of the movies? I've been looking for some reading to do during quarantine, and I could help with timeline placements as well if you need it.
Btw, in previous "Timeline Discussions" posts (I thin 11-13), BEJT has made bullet points for some of the books, describing possible placements. If you don't get it online, you might guide you from there.
The books are a hazy situation. I've been reaching out to some people for comment, and will continue to soon.
Since 2018 they started releasing some books that aren't novelisations. I've purchased those to see what's going on and was reading them, and will get back to reading them:
Marvel's Avengers: Infinity War: The Heroes' Journey by Steve Behling. I've read some of this, definitely has some original content.
Marvel's Avengers: Infinity War: The Cosmic Quest Volume One: Beginning by Brandon T. Snider. I've read this, original story. Writing style aimed I guess kind of at early teen readers.
Marvel's Ant-Man and the Wasp: The Heroes' Journey by Steve Behling. I've read this, original story but with lots of flashbacks to film events. Writing style aimed I guess kind of at tween readers.
Marvel's Avengers: Infinity War: The Cosmic Quest Volume Two: Aftermath by Brandon T. Snider. I've read this, original story. Writing style aimed I guess kind of at early teen readers.
Captain Marvel: Higher, Further, Faster by Liza Palmer. Not read this yet, seems like an original story.
Captain Marvel: Starforce on the Rise by Steve Behling. Not read this yet, seems like an original story.
Avengers: Endgame The Pirate Angel, The Talking Tree, and Captain Rabbit by Steve Behling. Not read this yet, seems like it might be mostly adaptation but I'm not sure.
Avengers: Infinity War: Destiny Arrives by Liza Palmer. Not read this yet, seems like it might be mostly adaptation but I'm not sure.
There may be more, and I need to look into where the line is drawn with the novelisation books and what other books there are and just sort it all out. But I hope that at least gives you a little more information.
I haven't started writing any of them properly, not beyond just the bullet point notes I took on those three. So if you are reading them anyway and wish to, feel free. I don't want to in any way push it on you or indeed in any way imply that I want you to spend money on any of these, but if you are buying them of your own volition and wish to write any of them up, you would be welcome to.
The Incredible Hulk lists two locations under Bruce Banner's Apartment Building, Martina and Bruce's individual apartments. Should they really be two separate articles from the main building? I personally see no use for them, as in total they make up around five minutes of the movie, I think less than a minute for Martina's. No meaningful information exists about them that wouldn't already be in the main article for the building, and the location tag would have so many items under it on the infobox. They were added as of April 4 it seems.
You know more about the image placement than I do. The thing is, 200px just about works on the 2018 page because there's a good amount of undisturbed writing around it (though, with the addition of the images on that page, the bullet points no longer line up in each column, so there will have to be editing on that page to line them back up at some point).
On the 2012 page, it's very short bursts of text that have to be broken up almost line by line to keep them aligned in each column. And with very short bursts of text, the disruption of a 200px image means that to the left of the image, you barely get the space for any words, and it looks bad/messy.
The thing is that with these columns, the inclusion of any images is very disruptive to the structure. But given that they have to be included, the smaller, the less disruptive.
What do you mean "the one assigned (250px)" though?
Hi, I don't agree with putting the images in the left column, as that is not the format we use for the Years articles and it loses structure with the rest of the article, I know they are not supposed to be set in the Time Heist 2012 Timeline but maybe in the description of said pictures we can put "(in the original 2012 timeline)" or something like that. What do you think?
I honestly think it's fine and the right thing to do, putting images in the left column. They're still to the right of the text, keeping with the formatting. If it was the case that the images were separate from the text and to the right, then it might make sense, but they're in line with the text, meaning they're part of the body of writing and thus should be with the right pieces. Otherwise you're not just putting the images to the right, but you're specifically putting all the images in the right column. Imagine doing that with completely different events in side-by-side columns, the images would go back and forth.
The columns, like tabs, are supposed to operate in a way such that you can follow the sequence of events into either column individually, without regard for the over. Like you could cover the other column with your hand or a piece of paper or whatever and just follow the column you wish, left or right. With the images in the correct columns, that works. With them all on the right, you would end up with no images at all if looking at the left column, and a weird mix of universes'/storylines' images including things both from the storyline you're following and the storyline you're not if looking at the right column.
Plus putting the images in either column keeps the balance of the columns instead of massively extending the length of the right column. And to me, as well as all the logical reasons, it just looks absolutely right and much more in keeping with the formatting rules to put them in their correct columns.
180px seems to work, particularly with reducing the double "**" bullet points to single "*" bullet points. I had hoped to find a way to indent the double bullet points without the need for that annoying first bullet point showing at the start of a new column section, but could only find ":", which doesn't indent the right amount. So despite events still being part of the Battle of New York, it makes sense to just give them single bullet points for formatting, as you have done.
The image of the Avengers is taken from the Black Widow Prelude. It is therefore an image of the Earth-199999 Avengers in New York, not the Time Heist 2012 Avengers in New York, so belongs in the left column, not the right.
I know your position, but as I said, in the Avengers' profile we have pictures put in ther biographies featuring the aftermath of the Time Heist's Battle of New York. As they happened the same, making one single exception in the 2012 article, what damage can it make?
While it is in the "wrong" Universe column, it happened the same events in both until the disruption in the escape of Loki. It also signs: in both universes, which is a fact. It is also a personal preference but this point is not objective.
I get that things happened similarly in both universes, but "similar" is a blurry line and it's much better to stick to hard facts.
For example, we can surmise that Hulk in both universes did go past that alley, because the 2023 Avengers haven't disrupted anything enough. However, what if the Chitauri he kills had just spotted the 2023 Avengers, so was at a slightly different angle to how he was in the main timeline. Then the 2012 Hulk would attack him at a tiny bit of a different angle, so the image is not applicable to be used interchangeably to depict the main timeline event.
This is just an example of the kind of reason why it doesn't really make sense to just go on "similar", when you don't objectively know. A blanket, objective rule is better.
If you wanted, say, the Thor on the Chrysler Building image in the right column instead of the left - sure, it is almost certainly identical in the new universe as the main one, but the problem is exactly that: almost certainly identical. It's not the case that the image is of that. The image would be "This is what this event most likely looks like", rather than "This is an image of this event". The same applies for any images put in the wrong column.
It's also literally just an image in a different location. New York A and New York B are just as distinct locations as New York and Sydney. You wouldn't put up an image of Sydney to depict something happening in New York.
As it happens, also, the image in question is actually from before the universes split anyway, so doesn't really belong there, or really earn the idea of "In both universes".
No, you haven't annoyed me. I have a big respect to you this minor thing wouldn't make me change the way I appreaciate you and your work. I understand your points, like you accepted mine with the 180px. My main frustration (if I could call it like that) is that I try to work out how pictures should go, the points in the timeline usually go from 5 lines to 25 lines (like in the 2017 article), and to not break that "paragraph" I add the image that works the most.
For example, in the 2017 article, the death of Black Mariah, the event is very descriptive and the paragraph, besides having a picture next to it, there are more words than images, and I try to avoid those kind of situation, but I try to settle with it and not breaking the big paragraph (24 lines into two paragraphs of two). And with the two columns, the picture is already small and one could feel (at least me) that you have more text than pictures and that is something I want to avoid in all the years articles, that is why I put all the images in the right column. When you moved them, it annoyed me because I have to dedicate time again to make it look fluid. That is why I wanted the picture in the right column. But it is just a personal liking.
I really appreciate the work you do on spacing the images. I'm sorry that the column format and the moving around has caused more work and difficulty for you.
It might be best to adopt a different, more lenient strategy for the column sections on pages than for the rest of all the pages, with the way that the column format messes around a lot of other formatting. Hopefully that way, it doesn't stress you too much.
I'm correcting it now. I was wondering about changing it to File:New York Battle.PNG, given that's a more general picture of the battle rather than a picture of the Avengers in their circle, which is from earlier in the battle, just before the universes split. Would that be OK?
Edit: Can't really wait longer for a response, so I'm going to make that edit, I hope it's OK.
As I understand it, Fandom imposed some rules recently, I believe last year, to try to prevent racist vandalism. As such, when editing a page, the presence of the N-word on the page then meant that no edits could go through anymore. When editing any pages with the N-word present, your edit wouldn't submit (the idea being to prevent people from putting that word onto pages as vandalism). So to proceed with editing pages like Comanche and Luke himself, the word had to be censored, otherwise no more edits would ever be possible.
Weird. I can still edit it, and the censorship wasn't done to all pages; Luke Cage's page I believe still has it, and edits were being done. I edited it myself, although that may be due to FANDOM user privileges. Seeing as it's not vandalism in this case & merely writing out the dialogue as is, I think it should be fine? In any case I'll speak with a Wiki Manager about it. Thanks for responding.