Yeah, but I could argue that in Incredible Hulk when SHIELD is tracking Banner, code shows up on the computer including "06.22.2008" and "06.00.2008." So, you have your argument and I have mine. But, your argument for ignoring the white board is very flimsy.
6.00.2008 isn't even an actual date though, man. My argument for ignoring the white board isn't flimsy at all. Again, we have the direct crossover with AoS, which we know must start in September based on the date shown on Ward's badge.
If we take whiteboard date at face value, that places events of Winter Soldier as occurring BEFORE AoS Season 1 in its entirety... which makes zero sense given the direct crossover aspect. Are you sure you've thought this all through?
The October date in WS allows for first 2/3 of Season 1 to occur over course of just under 5 weeks, from September to mid October, and for remaining episodes to run through end of October.
Between 2000 and 2013, 13 years have passed. You obviously do not count 2013 because it has not passed. Don't know how to make that anymore clear...I'm not ignoring anything, stop talking down.
When you're at the very end of 2013, sure you would. Talking down? Come on, man. We're going in circles. Again, you're quibbling over what amounts to about a week, maybe 8 days. It's ludicrous to think people wouldn't round up for a mere 8 days.
Nothing in the timeline says that AOS season 1 didn't start then.
Yes, Ward's ID badge that cleared him for Level 7 access does indeed show that. You're just unwilling to accept that because it disputes your chosen approach. I literally showed the picture reflecting that. Not sure how much clearer I can make it.
1. Coulson is the only person on the team who knows what Extremis is, including a Specialist and two of the smartest SHIELD has. Seems weird.
2. And seeing as Extremis had been around for a bit and partially funded by the US goverment, it makes sense he would know
It was a highly classified black ops project. It actually makes sense, given that, that it wouldn't be known by very many even in SHIELD.
But again, no it doesn't, and by using,your camera date, you're putting forth the argument that 3/4 of SHIELD's first season takes place over the course of a month. That is absurd. The first two episodes alone take "6 days." Not to mention Coulson's kidnapping, Skye's recovery, Trip and Garrett tracking Deathlok "for weeks" You constantly put SHIELD on the back burner and it messes up the Canon completely.
Not 3/4, only 2/3 (less than that even technically). First season was 22 episodes, episodes 1-15 occur before crossover episode in mid October. 15/22 isn't 3/4. It's shy of 2/3. Not to nitpick, but I notice a bit of hyperbole and exaggeration being utilized in your responses which works directly against logic.
As for squeezing the first fifteen episodes into period of 4 and a half week period, that allows an average of 2 days per episode. It works. Sit down, watch entire first season, and count the days. It does squeeze it, and requires assuming one episode follows immediately after previous, picking up the next day, but it works. Deathlok was introduced in pilot. It's absolutely reasonable to factor they've been tracking him for weeks over course of first 2/3 of Season 1.
Plus, you're doing the same thing I am but, in reverse, you're ignoring the newspaper for the computer date, the only difference is that Winter Soldier and SHIELD do a HARD crossover, in which events from the film are shown and discussed in real time.
And I never said otherwise, but you're not using the Occam's Razor approach. In my approach, we need only shift the 2013 dates back a year. In yours, it requires ignoring dates shown in both Winter Soldier and AoS. Again, it's a simple case of them retconning or not paying attention. That itself is proven in fact the scripted dialogue reflects movie starting at very end of 1999, and that being established as happening 12 or 13 years ago. We know it can't be 12, so it must be 13. That places it at end of 2012, not 2013, which would be literally just shy of 14 years. You're ignoring hard dates in two instances in two different sources, as well as the dialogue reflecting that. I'm just ignoring the 2013 dates (in favor of 2012) shown in IM3 in favor of the multiple other dates, plot points, etc that would be messed up continuity wise by pushing IM3 to occur AFTER AoS Season 1, Thor - TDW, and CA-TWS. Ultimately your approach requires ignoring far more sources. It's simply more logical to ignore the one entry, IM3, instead of WS, AoS Pilot, AND assume IM3 occurs after two films it was released before, not to mention the fact the AoS pilot continues the Extremis plotline established in IM3.
When talking about a person's age, such rounding up isn't commonly used. But in terms of passage of time, it absolutely is, most especially when it's literally short of only a week.
But it is ALSO, the beginning of 2000, most people would think of that as New Years 2000.
New Year's Day, sure. New Year's Eve, 1999, is clearly the time setting of the prologue scene that crosses over into 2000. Either way, 13 years later would be either very end of 2012 or very beginning of 2013. That matter of hours between New Years Eve to New Years Day changes nothing.
No one remembers New Years as the end of the year before the new one. That's weird. And now who's using assumed logic instead of actual logic.
You still are, since you just made another supposition, man. The math is very simple. You can complicate it as much as you like, but 13 years is clear. Beginning of 2000 (first day) to last week of December in 2012 is thirteen years. Most people would round it up to the closest whole number, which is 13. It really is that simple.
I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just presenting solid arguements that you're not willing to hear because of how "locked in" you are to your timeline. You're way screws up all of Agents of Shield, it just doesn't make sense.
But you are ignoring plenty, as I keep pointing out. You're ignoring hard dates given in WS and AoS Pilot. You're ignoring the simple math and incorrectly using principle of rounding (it's to closest whole number in most cases, which supports my approach). Again, this was not a decision I came to on my own, it was something carefully considered and weighed when AoS Season 1 was airing and TWS came out in theaters. We didn't just roll the dice, it was carefully considered. Nor does it screw up AoS.
In fact, my approach is actually supported by AoS 2x01 and mention of Talbot chasing them "all winter". That would indicate AoS season 1 had to end sometime BEFORE winter 2013 (so before December, 2013) for Talbot to begin chasing them and for it to last "all winter"). With your approach, that's impossible to do or make sense of. Talbot can't have chased them all winter if we follow your approach and extend Season 1 into 2014, since Talbot doesn't even show up until towards end of first season in Providence. If we follow your approach that wouldn't allow the all winter line to make any sense, whereas in my approach it does.
I thought it all through, as presented above, you're just not willing to hear it.
Actually, I was willing to hear it, hence why I responded with such long and detailed responses of why I don't think your approach works. That required listening, weighing your points, and measuring against ALL the evidence provided. I'm sorry you're taking it so personally and being offended by me not changing to suit your suggestions/preference, but I absolutely listened, I just disagree, and made very clear why. You unfortunately aren't listening to the MANY reasons I listed why it doesn't work, the Occam's Razor approach isn't being utilized by you in your approach.
What hard dates do you have From Agents of Shield? I've recently watched it, and I have nothing. But, I'm willing to,be proved wrong. Ward's ID placed it in Sep. 2013. Bit other than that, no real dates are given.
Right. Ward's badge. Then the specific date in WS which directly crosses over with AoS. And then the mention of Talbot chasing the team "all winter" in AoS 2x01 all reinforce what I've been saying.
Already addressed above
Yeah, but there is ACTUAL footage from WS in AOS.
And?
Is it not possible yours is? After all, your approach requires ignoring far more than mine does, and from multiple sources instead of just one.
it's like NEW Star Wars Canon where everything is of equal importance. You're limiting yourself to,make things easier and it screws up the canon.
Make things easier? lol, have you LOOKED at the timeline? Exactly what portion did I half ass or make easier? I literally split up adaptations by PAGE number and insert them in films to be as DETAILED AND ACCURATE as possible, man. Again, I'm not limiting, ignoring, or simplifying anything, and it's kind of offensive you'd accuse me of that given how hard I've worked on this and how much time I and others have put into it. Again, these decisions were made collectively, simply because they were the best and most logical approach.
It boils down simply to the fact something must be ignored. Most logical approach is to minimize that as much as possible. Your approach maximizes that as much as possible, unfortunately.
Honestly, I'm trying very hard to be patient. I've explained my position in extreme detail. I get you disagree, all I'm asking you to do is see it from my point of view, that reorganizing the intended order of the films, ignoring hard dates and dialogue that backs up those dates from multiple other sources, simply makes no sense.
Yeah, but when things on TV affect things in movies and vice versa, it makes it so that they are equally important. Can't walk without two legs.
Never said otherwise. But that point you just made reinforces my approach. Again, yours is approach that requires ignoring MORE.
If you have evidence from an episode to back that up, I'll see it, but as that is a wiki, I don't see that as proof. And from a website you yourself have dismissed multiple times
http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Linda_Avery
I've only dismissed their approach to utilizing a real world release date approach to their timeline system, nothing else. The wikia is a very reliable source of background info, including stuff from series bible like character birthdays and whatnot. The ONLY thing I disagree with them on is ignoring onscreen dates on props. They don't consider those valid, whereas we both do (hence this entire debate).
No no. I'm assuming it, because if you count 23 years from 1991, which is the earliest date on the side of the wall that she looks at, you get to 2014. Anything past 1991 would place it later and that doesn't make sense. The side of the wall is listed as "1991-2015" and other parts of the wall have those labels as well. I have the evidence here, you're assuming. Nothing in that episode even hints at the possibility that I'm wrong.
Except Skye's age. And she was born before 1991, and was described as an infant in the SHIELD file which was dated 4/23/1989, meaning she was born sometime prior to that, but not too long before (which the established birthday of July, 1988 backs up):
http://agentsofshield.wikia.com/wiki/Daisy_Johnson?file=GITFD_347.png
If it was 1991 as you're assuming, well, that clearly doesn't make sense given the clear date on the file there, which WAS shown in an episode.
Not at all.
But, again, it's a SHIELD run hospital, and I have my Incredible Hulk argument. Just saying, two conflicting dates. Also, your ignoring the dates of Pepper being visited by Killian that is shown as 12/22/2013, and the dates of the soldier blowing up that small town with Extremis dated, Feb. 2013, and the pictures of that same uniform while he was enlisted in the army dated 12.02.2012, unless he went into service, got wounded, found the Extremis program, qualified for it, underwent experiments, and blew up his town all in the span of 3 weeks, I'd say that all of these dates indicate that the newspaper IS NOT an accident. Far more proof of period than Winter Soldier anyway.
I never meant to imply the paper was an accident. It's better to look at it as the 2013 dates being retconned by those in WS and AoS. Originally, it was indeed obviously meant to occur in December, 2013. I never claimed otherwise, and up until release of WS and AoS Season 1, that's how it was on the timeline. But the various pieces of evidence I've repeatedly outlined forced a re-examination and movement to fix the conflicting issues.
The same happened with Iron Man 2. Originally it was meant to occur 6 months after Iron Man 1, placing it in late 2008 or early 2009. But we know that can't be the case due to the retcon established by Fury's Big Week.
That established the precedent. Retcons can and have happened in the MCU, though they're minor and just involve dates so far.
Again, no proof of that '89 date, and even if that is listed, which I didn't see, who's to say it wasn't retconned?
Once again:
http://agentsofshield.wikia.com/wiki/Daisy_Johnson?file=GITFD_347.png
The show itself is to say it wasn't retconned, since the show nor films nor any other source has presented any evidence whatsoever that it had been retconned. Now you're floating nonexistent hypotheticals to support your point? Come on, man.
And no, her death was 23 years after 1991, that's when Rumley disappeared. I feel like you're not reading What I'm saying.
I've been offering detailed responses to everything you've posited so not sure how your getting that impression. Realize it's been a couple years since I watched Season 1 so it's not fresh in my mind.
The end of the episode while Coulson is talking to May, it is intercut with Skye going to the wall, check it out, emotional stuff.
It's in the episode, you should watch it, it's one of my favorite season 1 episodes.
So, when do they say exactly how old Skye was when she was taken, must have missed that information.
http://agentsofshield.wikia.com/wiki/Daisy_Johnson?file=GITFD_347.png
Season 2, with intro of Skye/Daisy's parents and her backstory being established is when we get that info, specifically from the file shown above.
Yeah?
See, that's what gets me, I feel like people would be less inclined to argue with you if you didn't do the whole, "You can do what you want, but my way is the right way thing." it comes off as a bit condesending. I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just letting you know that that attitude can be very off putting and makes it seem like no one should try and add to this because ultimately they will be shut down.
Mate, you presented your point, I presented mine. Again, this was hashed over between us on this thread during latter half of 2013. Go back and look for yourself. The posts are all still there. The thing you're ignoring is that this is a community effort, and that we collectively agreed that was best approach. You're getting pissed because I'm disagreeing with you, which doesn't make sense. I'm sorry your opinion doesn't override my own and multiple others who helped work everything out for the placements of those entries. Is it perfect? No. Does it squash 2/3 of Season 1 into a period of about 5 weeks? Yes. But it can work, and is a preferable option than the one you're putting forth specifically because yours requires ignoring far more evidence from multiple sources. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. I don't know how much more evidence you need.
If I can't change your mind, that's ok. You are absolutely free to organize your own timeline as you wish. But don't get mad because I (and the others who helped establish those placements) have a different opinion/interpretation. If your approach was logical to me I'd use it, but ignoring multiple other conflicting dates/placements in favor of just that one source (IM3) isn't logical to me. Again, Occam's Razor. I'm utilizing LESS assumptions than your approach. That's simply true.
It's not really a suggestion as much as it is where it belongs.
Your opinion. Again, retconning has already been established in the universe. When multiple other sources override those dates, it's more logical to utilize the approach that uses less assumptions and causes less conflicts/continuity problems. Your approach simply creates more.
Again, the newspaper is not the only 2013 date. You're ignoring several dates, and all of AOS for one computer date. Seems strange.
It's the one source I'm ignoring (IM3) and only in part (the year), simply because the conflicting dates in multiple other sources override it. Nor am I ignoring all of AoS. Please don't resort to hyperbole. Nor is it just for the date in WS. As I've clearly said several times, and which you seem to ignore, the AoS pilot also conflicts with IM3's dates.
AoS 2x01's "all winter" comment conflicts with your placement. Retcons have already been established regarding time/year settings for IM2. The precedent for retconning dates exists already in MCUz
If there was any way to make it work and retain those dates, trust me, I would have taken that approach. But it simply isn't.
I don't count it, but everyone misses things.
Hence why this is a community effort. Again, you keep repeatedly ignoring the fact this isn't a solo effort by me. Yes, I do most of work, but the info, poring over details, etc is something most of us who post in this thread do. You're also discounting their work and input, and again simple logic, to force your preferred approach, which as I have clearly explained causes more problems than it solves. I assure you, the way it's set up minimizes the problems as much as possible. It's not only about how many dates, but the different sources they come from. There are more sources disputing the IM3 2013 placement than supporting it. In fact, ONLY IM3 itself supports it, everything else in that time period disputes it.
but again several dates in the movie? Not a mistake, it was intended, but you keep saying you're doing it to avoid continuity errors, bit you're ****ting all over SHIELD.
Sigh. You keep making me repeat myself. It was retconned. And again, the dialogue shows it was intended for 2012. The 2013 dates on the props don't align with the dialogue. That shows conflicts within the source itself you're basing your white premise on. Again, this was all considered before. You're not shedding any new light or info on the subject, I promise you. This is something we spent months discussing until the Winter Soldier DVD came out and AoS Season 1 had finished its run to align everything and make as much sense of it as possible.
I do, but I have presented ACTUAL evidence,
As have I, but you continue acting as if I didn't. When you can't even acknowledge that competing/conflicting evidence, that isn't an unbiased approach.
and it's being ignored for no solid reason.
It's not being ignored. Please stop playing the victim. Your evidence was countered in extreme detail point by point. I don't see how you equate that to it being ignored at all.
There are like 5 dates in Iron Man 3 alone that disprove your placement of it.
There's also dialogue in IM3 that disproves those dates. There's also two dates in two different sources that disprove those dates. There's also the dialogue in AoS 2x01 which supports my placements.
There also the behind the scenes interview that supports it occurring six months after Avengers (which is definitively set in 2012 based on Talbot's dialogue in AoS). Normally if the behind the scenes stuff conflicts with dates shown in the film, those dates override. But, again, the multiple other conflicting dates in various other sources support the existing placements.
The filmmaker (Shane Black) obviously intended the film to occur six months after Avengers, hence the claim in interview. And again if nothing else disputed the 2013 dates, I'd place it as such. It was originally placed that way. But it was simply retconned.
It's really that simple.
I've literally answered this in extreme detail several times now, so please stop accusing me of ignoring you or being illogical. You've made your case, and I've made mine. I believe the evidence weighs in favor of the approach we're currently using, simply because it involves ignoring less of the hard dates and dialogue. Yours depends ONLY on the onscreen dates and ignores the dialogue in the film itself, as well as the other hard dates in WS and AoS, and dialogue in AoS.
I really can't make it more clear. Again, you're free to disagree. Just realize I am afforded that right as well. When you factor in the entirety of evidence, this truly is best approach.
