Marvel Cinematic Universe - Timeline (Part 3)

Rman said:
I'd hope they wouldn't be that lazy. But, sadly I wouldn't be surprised. Pretty much what happened with Kamala's SWORD profile info except it was from the comics wiki.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm pessimist. But the Same thing happened with Assassin's Creed Odyssey.
 
Rman said:
They used questionable info from the wiki in the game ? Not too familiar with Assassin's Creed.
Click to expand...
for writing the plot they used the wiki. Basically since the Assassin's Creed universe become sooo big, they used the wiki for helping them writing the plot of the game. Basically Ubisoft doesn't have control over their own IP.

Even for the DLCs.

What I saying (and maybe I'm thinking this cos I'm very pessimist on the situation) is that if the MCU becomes sooo huge, Marvel Studios will start to abuse of the wiki, like Ubisoft does on a regulary basis.
 
Megatron said:
for writing the plot they used the wiki. Basically since the Assassin's Creed universe become sooo big, they used the wiki for helping them writing the plot of the game. Basically Ubisoft doesn't have control over their own IP.

Even for the DLCs.

What I saying (and maybe I'm thinking this cos I'm very pessimist on the situation) is that if the MCU becomes sooo huge, Marvel Studios will start to abuse of the wiki, like Ubisoft does on a regulary basis.
Click to expand...
I'd like to think it's used sparingly. They've already shown they have no problem contradicting it when it goes against their own beliefs. As I've mentioned certain timeline placements. But I think stuff like using the date for Endgame comes from them already knowing the movie is Fall 2023 and they figured using the date the wiki came up with worked since it matched.
 
Pro Bot said:
I mean, they have just started blatantly ripping off fandom recently with Secret Invasion and Ms. Marvel. Mephisto exists in the MCU already because they straight up copypasted the Marvel wiki's Cosmic Cube page in The Avengers.
Click to expand...
where? a fan wiki mistaking a comic events description of the cube as mcu canon doesnt make it so, no offence but i think you're over reacting a little here, even if it turned out to be true why the grievance over a character already intrinsically tied to the infinity gems multiversally being connected to them in the mcu just seems pretty obvious, he was literally there when they were first made, that's og thanos quest 616 canon
 
not to segway but i've been rewatching loki's first season and was wondering if we ever get an explanation about why HWR let 63 branches spin off the ST in the past version of the TVA
 
ScottishRyzo said:
not to segway but i've been rewatching loki's first season and was wondering if we ever get an explanation about why HWR let 63 branches spin off the ST in the past version of the TVA
Click to expand...
its so far been unaddressed but definitely should be in the future if they dont pivot away from the kang storyline
 
Last edited:
ScottishRyzo said:
where? a fan wiki mistaking a comic events description of the cube as mcu canon doesnt make it so, no offence but i think you're over reacting a little here, even if it turned out to be true why the grievance over a character already intrinsically tied to the infinity gems multiversally being connected to them in the mcu just seems pretty obvious, he was literally there when they were first made, that's og thanos quest 616 canon
Click to expand...
Christ, why are you overreacting? Everything I said was true to a degree, no need to argue semantics. It's the MCU using a fan wiki's description, not a fan wiki mistaking comic events as canon.
 
ScottishRyzo said:
not to segway but i've been rewatching loki's first season and was wondering if we ever get an explanation about why HWR let 63 branches spin off the ST in the past version of the TVA
Click to expand...
Time moves fast. Its not "allowing it to occur" when they literally just discovered it; plus due to them being outside of normal time 63 branches are already at various points in the history.
 
Pro Bot said:
Christ, why are you overreacting? Everything I said was true to a degree, no need to argue semantics. It's the MCU using a fan wiki's description, not a fan wiki mistaking comic events as canon.
Click to expand...
DC is no stranger to this either.
Remember Lucius Fox's journal in Batwoman literally stole from the Azrael article from Wikipedia with "[1]"s and all?
 
Pro Bot said:
Christ, why are you overreacting? Everything I said was true to a degree, no need to argue semantics. It's the MCU using a fan wiki's description, not a fan wiki mistaking comic events as canon.
Click to expand...
little bit of projection here. I just asked where, you didn't answer and literally overreacted by taking it personally. I elaborated that even if it were so, in this specific case it'd be perfectly logical, bit it IS a fan wiki mistaking something from the Heroes Reborn event as canon unless you'd like to provide the example of the official MCU saying it
 
selfishmisery said:
DC is no stranger to this either.
Remember Lucius Fox's journal in Batwoman literally stole from the Azrael article from Wikipedia with "[1]"s and all?
Click to expand...
Same thing happened in Star Wars: The Clone Wars. In the episode Cat and Mouse we can see a description of Trench's Ship, which is just the Wookieepedia Article of a Sith Dreadnaught, with the [1] and stuff, even a BBY year... So, apparently the Republic new when the Battle of Yavin would occur :p
 
Rojinn said:
Same thing happened in Star Wars: The Clone Wars. In the episode Cat and Mouse we can see a description of Trench's Ship, which is just the Wookieepedia Article of a Sith Dreadnaught, with the [1] and stuff, even a BBY year... So, apparently the Republic new when the Battle of Yavin would occur :p
Click to expand...
The article Is the Canon or Legends versione?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top