MCUniverse: Cat Scratch Fever edition.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Strange has an award dated 2016 (alber maybe just a prop error), but I'd say he had his accident very early 2016 (maybe late 2015) and his film ended early-mid 2017. Thor R is likely v late 2017 wirh several months of space travel, and also wonky timeshift in thr wormhole (Loki was on the gladiator world a month or two)

[WarGalley]

I haven't seen Captain Marvel yet but how old is she supposed to be in Endgame? If she's 20 in the first movie and 25 years have passed since.. she's one good looking 45 year old.

[Rhom]

Disney+ service to develop Hawkeye show starring Jeremy Renner

The premise is that he will train Kate Bishop to be the next Hawkeye for the MCU.

[Werthead]

The official MCU Timeline is as follows:

Quote

• 1943-1945: Captain America: The First Avenger
• 1995: Captain Marvel
• 2010: Iron Man
• 2011: Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor
• 2012: The Avengers, Iron Man 3
• 2013: Thor: The Dark World
• 2014: Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
• 2015: Avengers: Age of Ultron, Ant-Man
• 2016: Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming
• 2016-2017: Doctor Strange
• 2017: Black Panther, Thor: Ragnarok, Avengers: Infinity War

 

This is the official line, including some blatant retcons (such as ignoring Homecoming's "eight years later" title card).

Quote

For Ultron though, yeah, they were moments away from the world being destroyed.  Fury shoulda used the pager.

Insufficient time. It would take Carol a long time to get back from being "maybe a couple of galaxies" away, and the Endgame trailer confirms that, it takes weeks for her to get back from wherever she is.

Quote

 

I haven't seen Captain Marvel yet but how old is she supposed to be in Endgame? If she's 20 in the first movie and 25 years have passed since.. she's one good looking 45 year old.

 

Either time dilation effects or her exposure to the Tesseract gave her immortality as well as her superpowers. I've seen some theorising that the Infinity Stones may be destroyed or neutralised in Endgame, which may also remove Captain Marvel's immortality (thus allowing her to age in future movies) and at least nerf her power level a bit.

[felice]

2 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Strange has an award dated 2016 (alber maybe just a prop error), but I'd say he had his accident very early 2016 (maybe late 2015) and his film ended early-mid 2017.

His story makes a hell of a lot more sense if you assume it starts at the time of Iron Man 2, and write off references to 2016 and the Avengers Tower as production errors. That way he gets to study magic for years to reach his current skill level.

[Corvinus85]

6 minutes ago, Werthead said:

• 1943-1945: Captain America: The First Avenger
• 1995: Captain Marvel
• 2010: Iron Man
• 2011: Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor
• 2012: The Avengers, Iron Man 3
• 2013: Thor: The Dark World
• 2014: Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
• 2015: Avengers: Age of Ultron, Ant-Man
• 2016: Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming
• 2016-2017: Doctor Strange
• 2017: Black Panther, Thor: Ragnarok, Avengers: Infinity War

There's something off here

• Doesn't Black Panther start a week after Civil War? I believe they say that in the movie. So unless Civil War was right at the end of 2016, though the weather in Germany wasn't indicative of that, and BP starts in January, then this is incorrect. I think BP needs to be put in the same year with CW. T'Challa accepts to take in Bucky at the end of CW, and then in IW he says the White Wolf has rested long enough, so I don't think the two stories should be so close together.
• In Infinity War it's mentioned 2 years passed since certain people saw each other, mainly the two sides of the Avengers, so IW should be in 2018.
• However, at the same time, Banner was missing for two years, so it's two years between Ultron and Ragnarok. This is a mess.
• Why aren't they matching the real life timeline closer? Iron Man was released in 2008.

[Werthead]

10 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

There's something off here

• Doesn't Black Panther start a week after Civil War? I believe they say that in the movie. So unless Civil War was right at the end of 2016, though the weather in Germany wasn't indicative of that, and BP starts in January, then this is incorrect. I think BP needs to be put in the same year with CW. T'Challa accepts to take in Bucky at the end of CW, and then in IW he says the White Wolf has rested long enough, so I don't think the two stories should be so close together.
• In Infinity War it's mentioned 2 years passed since certain people saw each other, mainly the two sides of the Avengers, so IW should be in 2018.
• However, at the same time, Banner was missing for two years, so it's two years between Ultron and Ragnarok. This is a mess.
• Why aren't they matching the real life timeline closer? Iron Man was released in 2008.

Black Panther/Civil War is problematic. The theory seems to be that it's not a week, but it's also not a year, it might be 3-6 months. Some have argued that it's unlikely Wakanda would go that long without a ruler, but most nations can actually function pretty well without an executive for at least a few months, as long as the bureaucracy keeps ticking (as Northern Ireland - coming up on two years - is currently confirming).

Infinity War starts the second Ragnarok ends, and Banner has been missing for two years, which pushes Ultron back to 2015. That figure seems very solid (as it's mentioned in both Ragnarok and Infinity War), whilst the "two years since Civil War" thing feels a bit vaguer. I haven't reached Civil War in my rewatch yet, so will keep an eye out for any references to Banner being missing for any amount of time.

I'm not sure why Iron Man was moved up to 2010. I think the idea was that there being two years between IM1 and IM2, and two years between IM2 and The Avengers felt a little long (no idea why, felt okay to me) and they wanted to compress it down.

I mean, the films do have an issue with continuity and retcons. Remember than Phil Coulson spent all of Iron Man coming up with the name SHIELD, and it was then revealed that SHIELD had been called that from its founding in 1946, with the name even on documents and symbols?

[DaveSumm]

I could never figure out why they needed an official timeline, just assuming the films happened when they were released seemed to be working fine, then they started shifting the early ones around. I liked hearing Vision say “in the 8 years since Mr Stark revealed the Iron Man suit” cos you could think “hmm, 2008 ... yea that’s true”. 

As far as I know there’s no theory where the “8 years later” in Homecoming makes sense, that was just the flat out wrong number and I don’t understand how it made it to the final film.

[Werthead]

The other fun bit is when you try to fit the TV shows into the same time spans between the movies. Although given the yawning gap between the movies and shows (even Agents of SHIELD, which was so carefully designed to fit between the movies, gave up last season) means that's not perhaps as big an issue any more.

[Corvinus85]

28 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Black Panther/Civil War is problematic. The theory seems to be that it's not a week, but it's also not a year, it might be 3-6 months. Some have argued that it's unlikely Wakanda would go that long without a ruler, but most nations can actually function pretty well without an executive for at least a few months, as long as the bureaucracy keeps ticking (as Northern Ireland - coming up on two years - is currently confirming).

Infinity War starts the second Ragnarok ends, and Banner has been missing for two years, which pushes Ultron back to 2015. That figure seems very solid (as it's mentioned in both Ragnarok and Infinity War), whilst the "two years since Civil War" thing feels a bit vaguer. I haven't reached Civil War in my rewatch yet, so will keep an eye out for any references to Banner being missing for any amount of time.

I'm not sure why Iron Man was moved up to 2010. I think the idea was that there being two years between IM1 and IM2, and two years between IM2 and The Avengers felt a little long (no idea why, felt okay to me) and they wanted to compress it down.

I mean, the films do have an issue with continuity and retcons. Remember than Phil Coulson spent all of Iron Man coming up with the name SHIELD, and it was then revealed that SHIELD had been called that from its founding in 1946, with the name even on documents and symbols?

There's also Ant-Man and the Wasp, which takes place at the same time as Infinity War, and it's clearly stated that Scott's house arrest was 2 years long, following the events in Civil War. So I really think Infinity War needs to be moved to 2018, and all the others that directly tie to it.

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, Corvinus said:

There's also Ant-Man and the Wasp, which takes place at the same time as Infinity War, and it's clearly stated that Scott's house arrest was 2 years long, following the events in Civil War. So I really think Infinity War needs to be moved to 2018, and all the others that directly tie to it.

That means that Ragnarok also has to be moved into 2018, which then puts Age of Ultron in 2016, which causes potential problems with Civil War and Homecoming. I'll have to see if Civil War mentions how long it's been since Ultron, since that will be the key on if that's possible.

[john]

2 hours ago, Rhom said:

Disney+ service to develop Hawkeye show starring Jeremy Renner

The premise is that he will train Kate Bishop to be the next Hawkeye for the MCU.

That’s the first interesting thing they’ve announced so far for Disney+

40 minutes ago, felice said:

His story makes a hell of a lot more sense if you assume it starts at the time of Iron Man 2, and write off references to 2016 and the Avengers Tower as production errors. That way he gets to study magic for years to reach his current skill level.

And the injured Colonel in the armoured suit could be one of the guys trying out the failed Hammertech suits.

[john]

7 minutes ago, Werthead said:

That means that Ragnarok also has to be moved into 2018, which then puts Age of Ultron in 2016, which causes potential problems with Civil War and Homecoming. I'll have to see if Civil War mentions how long it's been since Ultron, since that will be the key on if that's possible.

I just saw Civil War last week.  Stark says to Rogers that “a few years ago I trashed my suits.” Which either narrows the timeline to Iron Man 3 by one year, or is just Stark using vague language.  Pretty sure the other scenes where they’re discussing the various destructive Avengers events don’t have any time mentioned.

One other timeline issue - in GoTG2 a giant mass of planet eating lava stuff erupts from behind a Dairy Queen in Missouri.  This goes totally unmentioned in any other MCU stuff later in the timeline afaik (not surprising since they only came up with it later but still in world odd).

[Derfel Cadarn]

28 minutes ago, Werthead said:

That means that Ragnarok also has to be moved into 2018, which then puts Age of Ultron in 2016, which causes potential problems with Civil War and Homecoming. I'll have to see if Civil War mentions how long it's been since Ultron, since that will be the key on if that's possible.

Months pass between the destruction of Asgard and Thanos boarding Thor's ship, apparently. So if Thor R starts November 2017, a month or two lost due to time dilation between Thor fleeing Hera and ending up on the gladiator planet, plus the space voyage, then having Infinity War(and Antman/Wasp) in spring 2018 works.

pretty sure Black Panther starts a week after Civil War, so it should be 2016.

Iron Man is set 6 months before Hulk climax/Iron Man2/Thor, which all take end in the same week, apprpx a year before Avengers, and Iron Man 3 is set months after Avengers, and is confirmed as Xmas 2012.  No idea what Homecoming was smoking.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah the timeline makes no sense.

[Werthead]

33 minutes ago, john said:

One other timeline issue - in GoTG2 a giant mass of planet eating lava stuff erupts from behind a Dairy Queen in Missouri.  This goes totally unmentioned in any other MCU stuff later in the timeline afaik (not surprising since they only came up with it later but still in world odd).

Nah, I can see that going unmentioned. It was a one-off, isolated and somewhat weird event, the sort of thing that SHIELD would have locked down in a couple of days (if they still existed, which itself is a weird thing in the MCUl; SHIELD was officially dissolved but it's still kind of operating in the later movies, even if you ignore Agents of SHIELD). That's on the order of asking why Tony Stark was hanging out in the tower in The Winter Soldier and not zipping down to DC (like 10 minutes at his speed) to ask WTF is going on.

[Werthead]

On another topic, saw another board where someone suggested that, even if the MCU isn't going to use the Fantastic Four/X-Men until Phase Five, they could start seeding things in. One idea that sounded cool was Dr. Doom rising as the new ruler of Sokovia (wherein Sokovia replaces Latveria, even if he doesn't just rename it), using the remains of Ultron's army and weapons to make his armour (hell, the old Hydra base full of stuff is still intact and was just left alone at the end of the film) and giving him a 100% clear reason why he hates the Avengers, blaming them for destroying his country's capital.

[Bastard of Boston]

Wow. I was scanning the topic for all the new posts, and are we playing a game of point out plotholes? You guys sure know how to suck the fun out of the MCU. I'd argue that not everything is a plothole. Something not being addressed doesn't mean the writers didn't account for it. Sometimes it just means they're satisfied with allowing the audience to fill in the blank -- especially if it isn't integral to the development of the story. Almost every mention of a plothole in this topic, I can come up with an explanation for.

RE: Carol being missing for 20 years, I saw a pretty smart quote from Feige. When asked why Fury didn't page her earlier, Feige simply said some variation of, "What makes you think Fury never tried to page her before?" Just because we didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. And do we really care why Carol wasn't in Avengers? Maybe she was fighting Galactus.

Also, I really don't think Captain Marvel unravels Avengers as much as anyone says. Fury lies. Fury lies to the team about Coulson's cards to motivate them to unite. He tells people what he wants to tell them. He even faked his death. I don't understand why anyone is hung up on Fury lying about his experience with Skrulls or the Tesseract.

[Bastard of Boston]

3 hours ago, WarGalley said:

I haven't seen Captain Marvel yet but how old is she supposed to be in Endgame? If she's 20 in the first movie and 25 years have passed since.. she's one good looking 45 year old.

She's definitely not 20 in Captain Marvel because she's a captain in the Air Force when she goes missing. Carol was transfused with Kree blood and given powers by an infinity stone. She's just extremely long-lived. Look at Korath and Ronan. They were in Captain Marvel and didn't age between that and their appearance in Guardians.

[HokieStone]

40 minutes ago, Bastard of Boston said:

She's definitely not 20 in Captain Marvel because she's a captain in the Air Force when she goes missing. Carol was transfused with Kree blood and given powers by an infinity stone. She's just extremely long-lived. Look at Korath and Ronan. They were in Captain Marvel and didn't age between that and their appearance in Guardians.

Yeah...typical progression is to make O-3 4 years after commissioning.  So assuming she went to the academy, or otherwise was commissioned right after finishing college, she's 25-26 before she goes missing.  And then she was missing what...6 years?  So, she's 31-32 during the main setting of the movie in 1995.  So, she's in her mid-50s in Endgame.  I wonder if in future Capt. Marvel movies, they'll "age up" Maria Rambeau.