Marvel Cinematic Universe - Timeline

[DIrishB]

Am I high? That's exactly what I'm saying given the format of the xx.xx.xx it could be argued that the date in WS isn't a date at all either. I'm not saying it is that way, I'm saying it could be argued. And yeah, but if your rules apply, the film's are more important, so SHIELD's dates don't seems to matter here.

Sigh. Anything can be argued, man. There are people who still think Earth is flat.

That's exactly what I'm arguing with you, you only seem to work in what you want to work in. I'm not arguing for The whiteboard date, I think the white board date is wrong, if you read my post I'm using it as an example of how dates in WS are inaccurate. So, yeah, thought it through.

Lol. Man, you keep making these completely unfounded accusations that I'm ignoring stuff. You continue to claim I'm ignoring you, neither of which is true. This is why I'm losing my patience. You're resorting to softball ad hominem attacks. I'm not ignoring anything. Again, the options were weighed heavily. You're proposing reorganizing the entire section of timeline there which I'd be open to if it didn't require ignoring multiple other dates from multiple other sources. You also are suggesting placing Iron Man 3 AFTER Thor-TDW, CA-WS, and all of AoS Season 1, despite the obvious continuity problems it creates, specifically regarding the Extremis plot. You can posit that AoS pilot happens before IM3, but that's obviously not the intention.

Absurd.

I could say same about placing Iron Man 3 after Thor - TDW, CA-TWS, and AoS Season 1. But I'm trying to be rational and not act like a jerk. Unfortunately you're not affording me same.

We can agree to disagree on this, but everyone celebrates New Years as the upcoming year. New Years at the end of 1999 is celebrated as New Years 2000. Sorry. No one thinks to round up eight days because no one thinks like that in conversation 2000 to 2013. 13 years have passed, hence the numbering system.

Prince disagrees with you.

Also, you're not making the point you think you are. You continue to use flawed logic and round down by almost an entire YEAR to make your point work, but that's simply illogical. Beginning of 2000 to END of 2013 is almost 14 years, not 13.

Very few would refer to span of very end of 1999/first day of 2000 to last week of December, 2013 as 13 years. The vast majority would accurately refer to that as 14 years. You keep saying "no one would" when reality shows otherwise. Most people round up or down to closes whole number, especially in such instances. At this point you've adopted a completely illogical approach here merely to sustain your approach. That's what I'm taking issue with.

I'm not disagreeing with Ward's ID badge, I'm agreeing that the show starts in September. I'm disputing the absurd notion that you think the first 15 or so episodes happen in 5 weeks.

And I'm disputing the absurd idea Iron Man 3 happens after Thor-TDW, CA-WS, and AoS Season 1, specifically when the AoS Pilot references and continues that plot line.

But, like me, you are assuming, we both have a logical answer for this, we would just be going in circles.

But, you're not utilizing logic behind a certain point. When you continue to push idea very end of 1999/first day of 2000 to last week of 2013 is only thirteen years instead of 14 (again, literally days shy of 14) and that most people WOULDN'T round up, that's pretty absurd itself.

Ugh. My inability to do fractions isn't what is being discussed here.

No, but you've already utilized hyperbole in a few cases. Accuracy is important, especially in regards to the which relies so heavily on specifics.

I'm willing to bet I've watched the first season far more recently than you have,

Here's a gold star. I also literally said I hadn't seen it in a couple years. That doesn't discount fact more evidence has to be ignored taking your approach, and requires placing IM3 after 2 films it was clearly meant to occur before.

and I have been sitting down watching the entire first season and counting the days, it how I "relax" after work. And you're ignoring story arcs and DIALOG. "How long have you guys been together?" "A few months"-

Sigh. So, you're willing to illogically round down by almost an entire year, but a comment of a few months when the timeline reflects at least a month is what bothers you? You're contradicting yourself in regards to your approach.

-"We've been tracking Peterson for weeks"-

14 days would qualify. And who's to say they're not rounding up?

and again, Coulson's kidnapping, Skye's recovery, this is why I feel like SHIELD is getting the shaft.

So you instead choose for Winter Soldier to get the shaft? And entirety of the 2013 entries by forcing IM3 after two films and a season of television is was clearly intended to precede?

And no, they begin tracking him after the attack on Skye, seeing as everyone is unaware that he is alive until T.R.A.C.K.S. Plus, before THE BRIDGE he was at a SHIELD base. Wouldn't have to look for him that hard.

Again, so two weeks would qualify. Hell, even 10 days could be rounded up to two weeks. Yes, it's an assumption, but so is the approach I used to fix the problem created by Iron Man 2's retcon to 2011 from 2009.

This is insane, how do you justify ignoring flat dates.

The same way you choose to with Winter Soldier and the intended order of the films.

If you acknowledge the Iron Man 3 dates, not a lot changes

Actually, a lot changes. You're approach requires completely reordering the early Phase 2 stuff (which I'm not opposed to) to ignore the intended chronology (which I am opposed to).

12.02.2012- Soldiers ID photo is taken

02/2013- Soldier blows up

Sep. 2013- SHIELD begins

November 11, 2013- Selvig is released from hospital in Thor: Dark World (Yet another date you have chosen to ignore due to stubbornness I guess)

Sigh. Not stubbornness, necessity. But thanks for continuing your ad hominem attacks.

Early 2014- Winter Soldier

I've discussed my reasoning for the Extremis thing already, not too out there to think Coulson would know.

Except you're overlooking fact Extremis was controlled by Killian and Hansen until their deaths. It wasn't ever shown to be tested/utilized beyond anyone else but them until their deaths in IM3. The entire Centipede plot arose from Extremis being acquired by SHIELD and as a result, as well as the super soldier serum, gamma radiation, and Chitauri metal from the previous films. That isn't to say Coulson couldn't have known, that isn't the point. It's the fact no one else had access to Extremis until after IM3. Most importantly and which backs that up is fact Pepper Potts was first to be cured of it thanks to Tony. That same cure or a variation of it is likely what helped stabilize Deathlok/Peterson.

And if SHIELD fell in October, why would Darcy call them, and someone pick up, in November. I feel like someone else may be ignoring dialog.

Because Thor TDW doesn't happen in November. Now you're intentionally conflating the two. Further, did you stop to consider that the date shown in Thor-TDW (that portion is set in UK) is likely using European dating system, which is day/month/year, and not month/day/year? That may not work if the month numerical is more than 12, granted. I have to go back and double check.

But you clearly know my position, as it's listed on timeline, and know that I don't place TDW in November, so why even ask this question?

Born in 88, rescued in 89, put into foster care, 91 agents start dying.

Again, no info corroborates that, only your assumption.

We obviously see this differently.

Simple math and principles of rounding to closest whole number disprove you on that one, man. You're leaning on illogical and extreme case of rounding down by almost an entire year to support your point. That's illogical.

Yeah, man, but they wouldn't, you are ignoring HARD DATES for unspecified dialog. Illogical.

Lol, again, most people round to closest whole number. That's reality. You're making blanket statements that directly fly in face of that common practice.

Most people aren't going to say, at very end of 2013, that the VERY BEGINNING of 2000 was only 13 years ago. Simply because it's literally a week shy of actually being 14 years. It's simple math. We all learned about rounding to closest whole number in elementary school. And in such an OBVIOUS case, it's clear. It's also quite specific dialogue, of 12-13 years. That's pretty specific, and as said deductive reasoning shows it can't be 12, which leaves only 13... not 14, as your approach requires.

I'm not ignoring simple math at all, if I ask anyone how many years passed between 2000 and 2013, they will say 13, that's why we have this system, so you don't have to count it out everytime.

But you are ignoring simple math, as well as intentionally ignoring the important detail of the fact it's VERY FIRST DAY of 2000, to VERY END of 2013 (according to the newspapers). In that instance with those specifics, which you're ignoring, yes, that's 14 years. If you were talking about end of 2000 yes, then that would only be 13 years, but you're intentionally ignoring those specific to push your flawed argument. When you have to rely on such illogical approach and ignoring common practice to push your position, it's not worth defending.

Also, what are you reading? I never disregarded the Ward ID badge, and I ignored one date In winter soldier In favor of a date from Thor Dark World, some pretty clear lines from AOS, and SEVERAL dates from IM3, if anyone is ignoring information, it is you my friend.

You're also ignoring the intended and chronological order of the films to place IM3 after TDW, WS, and AoS Season 1. You're also ignoring the "all winter" line in AoS 2x01 which can't work with your approach (another point I made that you conveniently ignored and failed to address).

Unless, it does, seeing as AOS has a pretty large gap between seasons (actually stated by Jed Whedon, Simmons has been within HYDRA for a bit, and the season actually pretty heavily ties in with Ultron which is dated in 2015, so if you keep it at 2013, then the first 18 episodes of season 2 happen over the course of OVER A YEAR. Which is insane.

You keep utilizing discrediting put downs like "insane" and "absurd", and in this case you're blatantly incorrect.

Here's the thing. Watch Episode 2x20 again. That clearly shows that indeed a year DOES pass between 2x01 and 2x20. That episode features a flashback at very beginning to a year before, and that flashback leads directly into opening of 2x01.

Which, again, reinforces my approach, and helps disprove yours.

I guess you haven't gotten to Season 2 yet. You'll see.

Also, Daisy "Wait '88, I'm 26?"

Once again, details matter. Her birthday is in July, so yes, she's be 25 up until July of 2014, and 26 from July 2014 to July 2015. And the timeline has that episode in December, 2014. So she's 26 and a half to get technical.

Again, don't know why you have decided that I am ignoring Ward's badge. And the "all winter" comment hurts your placement of Ultron in 2015.

Not at all, not when you get caught up and see that Season 2 does indeed cover over a year due to the explicitly clear flashback in 2x20 that leads directly into 2x01.

Things ignored.

12.02.2012 date in Avengers (Only hard date in Avengers, just sayin)

Where is that shown?

12.02.2012 date in IM3

02/2013 date in IM3

Multiple pieces of dialog in AOS S1

Daisy line in AOS season 2

11/14/2013 the only hard date in Thor Dark World, which puts down your AOS theory.

Which is likely using day/month/year dating system since its in UK, not US dating system of month/day/year. But again I have to look at it again

12/23/2013 date in IM3


Yeah, but as the cost of ACTUAL GIVEN DATES.

Things you're ignoring:

Dialogue in IM3 that places it 12-13 years after New Years Eve 1999, not 14 years.

Simple math and commonly used practice of rounding up or down to closest whole number. A week shy of a year would mean rounding up.

Hard date in Winter Soldier.

Hard date in AoS 1x01.

The "all winter" comment in AoS 2x01.

The flashback in AoS 2x20 that proves Season 2 spans a year or more.

The INTENDED CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER of the films themself since you posit placing IM3 after Thor-TDW and CA-TWS, and AoS Season 1.

Plot lines related to that ordering like the Extremis/Centipede plot in AoS.

Well, I'm sorry you're getting worked up, that is not my intention,

Then I'd ask you to not refer to my reasoning as absurd or insane. It's rude, and uncalled for. I've clearly outlined the details and reasons for placements, you just refuse to accept them.

but you're criticizing me for doing the exact same thing you are doing. Look above at all the hard evidence you have ignored. What is you're reasoning to ignore the Dark World date? Or the Avengers date, you're ignoring a lot of dates to maintain this one computer date and that, my friend, is illogical.

You need to start sourcing your info. Time codes for dates, etc. I already asked you to do so but you're not. If you want to support your point, provide evidence. Specifics.

Well, unless it's any of the prop dates I listed above...

Again, because they're overridden by other evidence.

Born 88, taken home 89, SHIELD agents start dying in 90/91

Again, early 1991 to late 2013 would be almost 24 years. Rounding numbers is a thing you seem to not acknowledge at all.

Born 88, town home 89, Agents start dying in 90/91. Also, while we're talking about Skye, there is a dialog in AOS season 2 "Wait '88, I'm 26?" Guess where that puts Season 2? And it's dialog.

And again, she's born in July, 1988. Do the math. That means she's 26 through July, 2014.

Also, again, please utilize specifics. Which episode is that said in?

Yeah, but, Thor Dark World too. Come on man. This is from the same movie that put corridinates on screen with two lattitudes. If any of these movies made mistakes. In just saying evidence from IM3, Dark World, and AOS. Contradict Winter Soldier 3 to 1.

And the dialogue in IM3 contradicts itself. The Dark World dates may be using day/month/year dating approach, and AoS's dialogue actually supports my placements as I've explained.

This is my time to give credit to you. I really dig your whole 6 months after Vanko finished his suit approach. Genius. But, if your rule is that film is the most important part of the canon, why would you adjust dates in the movie, based on a comic book?

Because it's canon, and retconned the events of those three films to occur at same time. Not doing so requires ignoring a part of the canon. Further, NOTHING IN IM2 itself disputes my theory. Obviously that wasn't original intention, but the retcon required it. Same applies to Iron Man 3's 2013 dates, especially since the dialogue in IM3 directly disputes those dates.

Yeah, but, I don't think WS was meant to contradict 3 pieces of canon.

It's not just WS. It's also AoS (in multiple places).

Sorry, that was me childishly mocking the retcon cop out. Apologies.

Lol, it's not a cop out, but thanks again for continually feeling need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Sigh. Again, one retcon and already been utilized, explicitly, by Fury's Big Week aligning IH, IM2, and Thor. IM3's newspaper dates were also retconned. Specifically due to WS and AoS.

Yeah, I'm currently watching it, 3rd time around I think. Really like the show.



Arguements above




I.....think I've established how much that this timeline is ignoring above. The Dark World date and Darcy calling SHIELD alone discredit your placement. I'm not pissed at all, dude.

Lol, only if you lean on unintended chronology of films and place IM3 after Thor-TDW, WS, and AoS Season 1.

Not mad, just passionate. Again, we're doing the same thing. I don't think I'm ignoring anything but the WS dates, which the white board proves as unreliable.

Except the white board proves no such thing. You're only assuming that. Again, white board date with the April date could easily just be a few months old. It was in a random room, not a main hallway by nurses station with assignments/coverage or anything.

Hell, for all we know, it could have been a date written for something that occurred in April, a patient surgery or something, and wasn't erased. It could be an intentional dating of an event, procedure, etc that occurred months before.

Again, as I explained, logic would dictate the interrogation video of the world's foremost intelligence and security agency would utilize correct date, as opposed to a random white board in a hospital. The white board date doesn't discount the video date at all.

But, again, so many dates. There is ONE date in Dark World and you ignored it.




And Thor Dark World. Two movies and a show.



"Wait '88, I'm 26?!"



So many dates.



It screws up the placement of two movies and a show. Dark World also supports it. Two films to your one.





But, those dates, Dark Worlds dates....come on man.

Just checked Thor-TDW. Are you talking about Selvig's discharge papers? Cuz the shot is taken from too far away to make out any dates (or anything really):

I absolutely acknowledge your arguements, hence why I am responding.



Hey, free psych evaluation, because I say things and your argue the wrong points. Like the white board, I in no way was arguing its canon, just using it as justification in my lack of trust for WS. But, here you come slamming me like I want it to be law.

Slamming you? Not at all. Never once have I insulted you. Meanwhile you're one throwing around "insane" and "absurd" regarding my reasoning, so...

The dialog is not specific in the slightest, the 4 dates are. "Wait '88, I'm 26?"

The dialogue is specific, to 12-13 years. We know it can't be 12, thus must be 13.

And again, she was born in July, 1988. If I'm not mistaken that line is from the 2x10 "What They Become" episode, placed in December of 2014 on the timeline. In July, 2014 she turns 26. In December of 2014 she'd still be 26... what's the problem? You're only reinforcing the placement I currently have.

In One source....WS.

In multiple sources, including AoS itself. Again, you conveniently keep ignoring anything that disputes your theory.

And Scarlett Johanson said that WS happens in real time...two years after the Avengers...so if we're using inteviews

And again, you're conveniently overlooking the override factor. The onscreen dates show otherwise. Further, you're also hypocritically leaning on interview here, but ignoring interview with Shane Black that places IM3 six months after Avengers. You can't have it both ways, man.

Again, the onscreen dates override behind the scenes interviews. When the onscreen dates conflict, whatever minimizes the discrepancies is approach we use.

I'm not ignoring anything, you have ignored far more than me, I'm just saying the unspecific ballpark dialog should,not contradict hard dates from two films and specific dialog from the show. I don't think that is too crazy.

But the thing is, the dialogue is quite specific. 12-13 years. And we know it can't be 12. Thus it must be 13. It is illogical (not crazy) to force IM3 after events of AoS Season 1, Thor-TDW, and CA-WS though, as your approach requires.

Absolutely I acknowledge that. Sorry man, can't justify ignoring all of those dates and dialog, you've done good work here, but too much is being shafted for one date.

I truly respect the work you have done here, it's probably arrogance that keeps pushing me to continue this conversation. But, I truly believe that the dates from IM3 and TDW as well as the AOS lines are there for a reason. I'm sorry we don't agree, but I do appreciate the effort you put forth even though we do not see eye to eye.

Here's the thing. There is no visible date in Thor - TDW, as I showed. If it's shown elsewhere you let me know (please, use time coding so it makes it easy to check).

 

[DIrishB]

Anyway, DE23111, let me know when you get to Season 2 of AoS. Think once you get to those you'll see how those reinforce the timeline's placements. If not I'm willing to listen as to why you disagree.

 

[DE23111]

Sigh. Anything can be argued, man. There are people who still think Earth is flat.

No one thinks that.

Lol. Man, you keep making these completely unfounded accusations that I'm ignoring stuff. You continue to claim I'm ignoring you, neither of which is true. This is why I'm losing my patience. You're resorting to softball ad hominem attacks. I'm not ignoring anything. Again, the options were weighed heavily. You're proposing reorganizing the entire section of timeline there which I'd be open to if it didn't require ignoring multiple other dates from multiple other sources. You also are suggesting placing Iron Man 3 AFTER Thor-TDW, CA-WS, and all of AoS Season 1, despite the obvious continuity problems it creates, specifically regarding the Extremis plot. You can posit that AoS pilot happens before IM3, but that's obviously not the intention.

No one said that. You're not ignoring me, you're just twisting my words into an argument that I am not making. I'm proposing:

AOS pilot: Sep. 2013
TDW- November 2013
Iron man 3- December 2013
Seeds- Early 2014
WS-Early 2014

I'm not reordering everything, you're being dramatic. This is my proposal based on hard dates, and information you are choosing to ignore to fit your preexisting ideas.

I could say same about placing Iron Man 3 after Thor - TDW, CA-TWS, and AoS Season 1. But I'm trying to be rational and not act like a jerk. Unfortunately you're not affording me same.

Not what I'm saying. I didn't realize keeping your head would be such a chore.

Prince disagrees with you.

That's funny.

Also, you're not making the point you think you are. You continue to use flawed logic and round down by almost an entire YEAR to make your point work, but that's simply illogical. Beginning of 2000 to END of 2013 is almost 14 years, not 13.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that if I were to ask how many years HAVE PASSED between 2000 and 2013. If it were Wednesday and I said that something happened two days ago, that would be Monday because both Monday and Tuesday, two days, have passed. That's what AGO means. I do not count Wednesday, because Wednesday is the point in which I am counting backward, the starting point if you will. If I say something happened five minutes ago, it happened before 5 minutes had passed, I don't look at the seconds, round up and say 6 minutes, because that sixth minute has YET to pass. So, even though it is 5 minutes and 45 seconds, still only 5 MINUTES HAVE PASSED. (The caps aren't me yelling, it's me using emphasis.)

Very few would refer to span of very end of 1999/first day of 2000 to last week of December, 2013 as 13 years. The vast majority would accurately refer to that as 14 years. You keep saying "no one would" when reality shows otherwise. Most people round up or down to closes whole number, especially in such instances. At this point you've adopted a completely illogical approach here merely to sustain your approach. That's what I'm taking issue with.

How are you going to criticize my use of the term "no one would" and use the terms "very few would," "The vast majority" and "most people would" in the same paragraph. You're doing exactly what you're getting mad at me for doing the exact same thing you're doing.

And I'm disputing the absurd idea Iron Man 3 happens after Thor-TDW, CA-WS, and AoS Season 1, specifically when the AoS Pilot references and continues that plot line.

I don't know why you're doing that, that idea was never presented.

But, you're not utilizing logic behind a certain point. When you continue to push idea very end of 1999/first day of 2000 to last week of 2013 is only thirteen years instead of 14 (again, literally days shy of 14) and that most people WOULDN'T round up, that's pretty absurd itself.

"Most people" ....,willing to see the data that you pulled together for that logic based, non assumption. All kidding aside though. I'm also arguing that to throw away multiple given dates for lines in which the characters don't even know the dates is strange to me. If someone came from the future and told you you were going to be in a car accident and you could avoid it, so you ask when it takes place, would you want them to say 12 or 13 years or 12.02.2013 because one of those is immensly more specific and leads to you more accurately avoiding said car accident.

No, but you've already utilized hyperbole in a few cases. Accuracy is important, especially in regards to the which relies so heavily on specifics.

Ugh.

Here's a gold star. I also literally said I hadn't seen it in a couple years. That doesn't discount fact more evidence has to be ignored taking your approach, and requires placing IM3 after 2 films it was clearly meant to occur before.

Wait, do I actually get a gold star? This all relies very heavily on specifics. Again, no clue where you got that, because I sure,as hell didn't type it.

Sigh. So, you're willing to illogically round down by almost an entire year, but a comment of a few months when the timeline reflects at least a month is what bothers you? You're contradicting yourself in regards to your approach.

Presented an argument against my "illogical rounding"

14 days would qualify. And who's to say they're not rounding up?

Even if it did mean 14 days, the first TWO episodes take six days, the gap between TAHITI and the End of the Beginning is, at least, two weeks, not to mention Couslon is captured for awhile, so that is A LOT of cramping when you could just push Winter Soldier back.

So you instead choose for Winter Soldier to get the shaft? And entirety of the 2013 entries by forcing IM3 after two films and a season of television is was clearly intended to precede?

Why do you keep saying this. Who proposed this. Did I black out and type that, delete it and completely forget? Plus, again AIM is mentioned as a recent event. And yes, I hear it now, that can be a year or so ago, but I also feel like the theme of corruption of intelligence for power is very present in both SEEDS and Iron Man 3. Making it feel like a crossover thing, the AIM name drop only helps, they could have said it anywhere, but they said it here.

Again, so two weeks would qualify. Hell, even 10 days could be rounded up to two weeks. Yes, it's an assumption, but so is the approach I used to fix the problem created by Iron Man 2's retcon to 2011 from 2009.

I mean, that one is more acceptable because the 6 months shows up after the suit,is built and you have Thor to give you that 2011 date. This is the opposite, there is a Dark World date showing that the SHIELD/Dark World crossover doesn't even happen until November.

The same way you choose to with Winter Soldier and the intended order of the films.

Date. Ignoring one date. From one movie. Against the five I have given you. From two different movies.

Actually, a lot changes. You're approach requires completely reordering the early Phase 2 stuff (which I'm not opposed to) to ignore the intended chronology (which I am opposed to).

I'm....I don't know how to....I'm not....how do you consider the "intended" chronology, because if it's by release, your placement of Winter Soldier is wrong anyway, if it's strictly by date it's AOS, WS, DW, IM3. So, how exactly do you get the "intended" chronology. Unless this is in fact Kevin Fiege in which case I am very sorry, and please put Daredevil in Infinity War.

Sigh. Not stubbornness, necessity. But thanks for continuing your ad hominem attacks.

Man, my word of the day calender really let me down here.

Except you're overlooking fact Extremis was controlled by Killian and Hansen until their deaths. It wasn't ever shown to be tested/utilized beyond anyone else but them until their deaths in IM3. The entire Centipede plot arose from Extremis being acquired by SHIELD and as a result, as well as the super soldier serum, gamma radiation, and Chitauri metal from the previous films. That isn't to say Coulson couldn't have known, that isn't the point. It's the fact no one else had access to Extremis until after IM3. Most importantly and which backs that up is fact Pepper Potts was first to be cured of it thanks to Tony. That same cure or a variation of it is likely what helped stabilize Deathlok/Peterson.

Except it wasn't. the entire later half of the episode is FitSimmons trying to find a solution to the problem, even bringing up the possibility of killing him, when if this thing had already been cured...just...I don't search SHIELD'S files? In fact, it's more realistic that Tony got the cure from SHIELD. Also, remember, Killian has been shopping around for sponsors for funding, could he have gone to SHIELD and they saw how unstable it was and said no? Could Garrett have known about that encounter from the SHIELD files he was hacking? Maybe? I wasn't there. I'm assuming. Although I'm proud of the theory myself. All I'm saying is it's an explainable plot hole that the concrete dates create.

Because Thor TDW doesn't happen in November. Now you're intentionally conflating the two. Further, did you stop to consider that the date shown in Thor-TDW (that portion is set in UK) is likely using European dating system, which is day/month/year, and not month/day/year? That may not work if the month numerical is more than 12, granted. I have to go back and double check.

I would consider that, but the date is is 14/11/2013 so wait....I did consider that. I'm pretty sure that no matter where you are there are only 12 months

But you clearly know my position, as it's listed on timeline, and know that I don't place TDW in November, so why even ask this question?

Because, there is a date that puts it there that you have ignored for no reason?

Again, no info corroborates that, only your assumption.

Incorrect. Dialog for 88. Written evidence for 89. Setting date evidence for 1991. All there.

Simple math and principles of rounding to closest whole number disprove you on that one, man. You're leaning on illogical and extreme case of rounding down by almost an entire year to support your point. That's illogical.

I think if you use the word illogical on me one more time, I win repetitive bingo, I'm not sure what the prize is, but I'm pumped to find out. I've made my point on this subject. ON TO THE NEXT.

Lol, again, most people round to closest whole number. That's reality. You're making blanket statements that directly fly in face of that common practice.

I see this is very similar to the last statement. Just head back to the top of you want a response for this one.

Most people aren't going to say, at very end of 2013, that the VERY BEGINNING of 2000 was only 13 years ago. Simply because it's literally a week shy of actually being 14 years. It's simple math. We all learned about rounding to closest whole number in elementary school. And in such an OBVIOUS case, it's clear. It's also quite specific dialogue, of 12-13 years. That's pretty specific, and as said deductive reasoning shows it can't be 12, which leaves only 13... not 14, as your approach requires.

"Most people" most people you know, or most people I know? Most people with green hats? Specifics are important.

But you are ignoring simple math, as well as intentionally ignoring the important detail of the fact it's VERY FIRST DAY of 2000, to VERY END of 2013 (according to the newspapers). In that instance with those specifics, which you're ignoring, yes, that's 14 years. If you were talking about end of 2000 yes, then that would only be 13 years, but you're intentionally ignoring those specific to push your flawed argument. When you have to rely on such illogical approach and ignoring common practice to push your position, it's not worth defending.

Really, because you've used up a lot of time defending it. See above.

You're also ignoring the intended and chronological order of the films to place IM3 after TDW, WS, and AoS Season 1. You're also ignoring the "all winter" line in AoS 2x01 which can't work with your approach (another point I made that you conveniently ignored and failed to address).

Convenient to who? I'm not ignoring the all winter line. If you can prove to me whether or not it was winter of 2014 or winter of 2015 I'll drop it. Because, if you use that very strange gap that you used in the middle of season 2 of AOS and just put it between the seasons instead, giving Coulson time to,actually build a BRAND NEW SHIELD instead of the what, three months you gave him? Also, why is that gap there? To buy time to get to Age of Ultron? When you could just use the all winter line to put you at the Beginning of 2015 and be done with it? The latter half has to be later than July 2014, but earlier than July, 2015 anyway.

You keep utilizing discrediting put downs like "insane" and "absurd", and in this case you're blatantly incorrect.

Well, I'm sorry you feel discredited. I may have said it again up above, but I'll end it here.

Here's the thing. Watch Episode 2x20 again. That clearly shows that indeed a year DOES pass between 2x01 and 2x20. That episode features a flashback at very beginning to a year before, and that flashback leads directly into opening of 2x01.

Wait. If Ultron is mid 2015, wouldn't a year ago be 2014, since you are saying that WS and by association SHIELD end October 2013, what were they doing for half a year, dicking around? But, if it ends in 2014, it makes sense that Coulson would start on recruiting and such right away, not hang out for a bit. I'm confused by the placement of the flashback on the timeline though. Why is it directly above Shadows?

Which, again, reinforces my approach, and helps disprove yours.

Well.....not really

I guess you haven't gotten to Season 2 yet. You'll see.

I guess so...still some questions here...

Once again, details matter. Her birthday is in July, so yes, she's be 25 up until July of 2014, and 26 from July 2014 to July 2015. And the timeline has that episode in December, 2014. So she's 26 and a half to get technical.

We have fun here. Right. So the all winter line would work in January/Feburary of 2015.

Not at all, not when you get caught up and see that Season 2 does indeed cover over a year due to the explicitly clear flashback in 2x20 that leads directly into 2x01.

Season 2 doesn't cover that year, the flashback takes place between seasons 1 and 2 due to the fact that Hartley is alive.

Where is that shown?

The Hellicarrier when they leave to obtain Loki

Which is likely using day/month/year dating system since its in UK, not US dating system of month/day/year. But again I have to look at it again

What exactly is the 14th month again? 14/11/2013.

Things you're ignoring:

Dialogue in IM3 that places it 12-13 years after New Years Eve 1999, not 14 years.

No specific dialog against specific dates.

Simple math and commonly used practice of rounding up or down to closest whole number. A week shy of a year would mean rounding up.

This again.

Hard date in Winter Soldier.

One against five.

Hard date in AoS 1x01.

Not ignoring it.

The "all winter" comment in AoS 2x01.

Agree that it exists just not the placement.

The flashback in AoS 2x20 that proves Season 2 spans a year or more.

Once again wrong, takes place between seasons one and two. Must not have gotten to season 2 yet. You'll see.

The INTENDED CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER of the films themself since you posit placing IM3 after Thor-TDW and CA-TWS, and AoS Season 1.

If I did that my bad. Iron Man 3 only happens after Dark World, but before WS AND AOS CROSSOVER

Then I'd ask you to not refer to my reasoning as absurd or insane. It's rude, and uncalled for. I've clearly outlined the details and reasons for placements, you just refuse to accept them.

I refuse to accept them, because I don't see them as correct due to evidence I have presented.

You need to start sourcing your info. Time codes for dates, etc. I already asked you to do so but you're not. If you want to support your point, provide evidence. Specifics.

I'm really trying to add photos I have taken, but I don't know how to. You're in the right spot for that Dark World date. Just not looking hard enough.

Again, because they're overridden by other evidence.

But, five dates...

Again, early 1991 to late 2013 would be almost 24 years. Rounding numbers is a thing you seem to not acknowledge at all.

You're killing me here.

And again, she's born in July, 1988. Do the math. That means she's 26 through July, 2014.

Correct. She turns 26 on July 2014.

Also, again, please utilize specifics. Which episode is that said in?

It's in the episode where Skye talks to Calvin. I'm pretty sure, I'll look it up.

And the dialogue in IM3 contradicts itself. The Dark World dates may be using day/month/year dating approach, and AoS's dialogue actually supports my placements as I've explained.

Except that couple months line. Still waiting on the,name of that 14th month. Yeah, it does, so I guess if we can't trust the dialog we would trust.............
............
............
PROP DATES

Because it's canon, and retconned the events of those three films to occur at same time. Not doing so requires ignoring a part of the canon. Further, NOTHING IN IM2 itself disputes my theory. Obviously that wasn't original intention, but the retcon required it. Same applies to Iron Man 3's 2013 dates, especially since the dialogue in IM3 directly disputes those dates.

But, if your rules apply, the 2010 date while Tony is researching Vanko would stand dispite FBW....right? Films are the ultimate cannon?

It's not just WS. It's also AoS (in multiple places).

Such as?

Lol, it's not a cop out, but thanks again for continually feeling need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Sigh. Again, one retcon and already been utilized, explicitly, by Fury's Big Week aligning IH, IM2, and Thor. IM3's newspaper dates were also retconned. Specifically due to WS and AoS.

They weren't though....Dark World proves it. As well as SEEDS

Lol, only if you lean on unintended chronology of films and place IM3 after Thor-TDW, WS, and AoS Season 1.

When on Earth?! WHO TOLD YOU THIS?!

Except the white board proves no such thing. You're only assuming that. Again, white board date with the April date could easily just be a few months old. It was in a random room, not a main hallway by nurses station with assignments/coverage or anything.

Assumption. And I assume the date on the SHIELD computer is just data. We both have no proof. Weird to argue when there ls no proof.

Hell, for all we know, it could have been a date written for something that occurred in April, a patient surgery or something, and wasn't erased. It could be an intentional dating of an event, procedure, etc that occurred months before.

Or it could be the actual date....who knows.


Again, as I explained, logic would dictate the interrogation video of the world's foremost intelligence and security agency would utilize correct date, as opposed to a random white board in a hospital. The white board date doesn't discount the video date at all.[/QUOTE]

Or it could be data. No proof though right?

Just checked Thor-TDW. Are you talking about Selvig's discharge papers? Cuz the shot is taken from too far away to make out any dates (or anything really):

I am, I have the photo, I just don't know how to post it...

Slamming you? Not at all. Never once have I insulted you. Meanwhile you're one throwing around "insane" and "absurd" regarding my reasoning, so...

You've been pretty condescending. But, it's all good. By gones.

The dialogue is specific, to 12-13 years. We know it can't be 12, thus must be 13.

How many years specifically, 12 or 13? You can't answer that, due to the fact that it isn't specific enough..

And again, she was born in July, 1988. If I'm not mistaken that line is from the 2x10 "What They Become" episode, placed in December of 2014 on the timeline. In July, 2014 she turns 26. In December of 2014 she'd still be 26... what's the problem? You're only reinforcing the placement I currently have.

Not true, could also be in Early 2015 to maintain that all winter line, and eliminate your incorrect gapping of season 2.

In multiple sources, including AoS itself. Again, you conveniently keep ignoring anything that disputes your theory.

No I'm not at all, I've answered everything you've said. What SHIELD source?

And again, you're conveniently overlooking the override factor. The onscreen dates show otherwise. Further, you're also hypocritically leaning on interview here, but ignoring interview with Shane Black that places IM3 six months after Avengers. You can't have it both ways, man.

That's what I'm saying to you. You can't take the Shane interview for fact without taking the Scarlett one as fact. That's the point I'm making, you're picking an choosing. I don't take the Scarlett interview as accurate just like you shouldn't take the Black interview...

Again, the onscreen dates override behind the scenes interviews. When the onscreen dates conflict, whatever minimizes the discrepancies is approach we use.

Like Iron Man 3?

But I agree that interviews shouldn't count.

But the thing is, the dialogue is quite specific. 12-13 years. And we know it can't be 12. Thus it must be 13. It is illogical (not crazy) to force IM3 after events of AoS Season 1, Thor-TDW, and CA-WS though, as your approach requires.

BINGO! I won. It's a really nice cigar box. See above.

Here's the thing. There is no visible date in Thor - TDW, as I showed. If it's shown elsewhere you let me know (please, use time coding so it makes it easy to check).

There is though. I'm really trying to put this up. Is there a button? IS THERE A PHOTO BUTTON?!

 

[Lebnyx]

No one thinks that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies

There is though. I'm really trying to put this up. Is there a button? IS THERE A PHOTO BUTTON?!

There's an "Insert image" button above the area where you type your post. It looks like a square with a tree in it. You click it, and then you can embed pictures in your message.

Alternatively, you could do what I do: make an account on an image-sharing website (I use Imgur), upload your screenshots there and copy the BBCode which is on the side (it looks like this:

) and paste it in your forum message.

Anyways, chill out.

 

[DE23111]

I'm calm, man, I'm good. Also, that it is completely crazy to think that the Earth is flat, I mean, to each their own beliefs but the proof is So accessible. Like, look anywhere!

Alright, so... First the December date in Avengers

Then, contradicting that date, are these banners for the event in Germany

So who knows which one is right? Last I checked, no evidence confirms either one of these...but one of them is on a SHIELD computer...

Next, these are the Dark World photos, you had the right one, it just wasn't zoomed in properly, sorry for the picture quality, pictures of monitors never come out well.

I have more of you want them, I took a lot because I wasn't sure how the photos would look. If you want to see for yourself, this is at 1:10:49

This is going to sound sarcastic, I promise it is not, would you like the Iron Man 3 dates as well, or do you already have them?

 

[DIrishB]

No one thinks that.

As 64SuperNintendo pointed out, yes, there are people who think that, hence me using that as an example. Maybe stop using absolutes?

No one said that. You're not ignoring me, you're just twisting my words into an argument that I am not making. I'm proposing:

But, you did say that:

I do, but I have presented ACTUAL evidence, and it's being ignored for no solid reason.

See?

AOS pilot: Sep. 2013
TDW- November 2013
Iron man 3- December 2013
Seeds- Early 2014
WS-Early 2014

I'm not reordering everything, you're being dramatic. This is my proposal based on hard dates, and information you are choosing to ignore to fit your preexisting ideas.

Excuse me, I misunderstood you.

Not what I'm saying. I didn't realize keeping your head would be such a chore.

Dude, you're really going out of your way to be a jerk. Cut the attitude. If you insist on the insults the conversation ends here.

That's funny.

Tip your waiter.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that if I were to ask how many years HAVE PASSED between 2000 and 2013. If it were Wednesday and I said that something happened two days ago, that would be Monday because both Monday and Tuesday, two days, have passed. That's what AGO means. I do not count Wednesday, because Wednesday is the point in which I am counting backward, the starting point if you will. If I say something happened five minutes ago, it happened before 5 minutes had passed, I don't look at the seconds, round up and say 6 minutes, because that sixth minute has YET to pass. So, even though it is 5 minutes and 45 seconds, still only 5 MINUTES HAVE PASSED. (The caps aren't me yelling, it's me using emphasis.)

Speaking of twisting and ignoring... you continually refuse to acknowledge the fact it's a week shy of 14 years. Most people round up in such a case. It's a common practice. Whether you acknowledge it or not doesn't change that fact.

How are you going to criticize my use of the term "no one would" and use the terms "very few would," "The vast majority" and "most people would" in the same paragraph. You're doing exactly what you're getting mad at me for doing the exact same thing you're doing.

Fair point. Important difference to note is that what I'm suggesting is true, though. Most people DO round up or down to nearest whole number in such instances. If it's alsmost 14 years, I and most people in my experience would say "14 years", not round it down by almost an entire year (51 weeks) to 13 years.

That's the key aspect of this debate you ignore.

I don't know why you're doing that, that idea was never presented.

Again, I misunderstood you. Relax.

"Most people" ....,willing to see the data that you pulled together for that logic based, non assumption. All kidding aside though. I'm also arguing that to throw away multiple given dates for lines in which the characters don't even know the dates is strange to me. If someone came from the future and told you you were going to be in a car accident and you could avoid it, so you ask when it takes place, would you want them to say 12 or 13 years or 12.02.2013 because one of those is immensly more specific and leads to you more accurately avoiding said car accident.

That's a hell of a false analogy there. Course you'd want a specific date for future death to specifically avoid it. Meanwhile, this is a debate about a line in the film between two characters who hadn't seen each other in 12-13 years. And again, DEDUCTIVE LOGIC shows it can't be 12 years since that would, due to simple math, place it in December 2011 (which also goes against your proposed Dec 2013 dates as newspaper props show). 13 years later is Dec, 2012.

Ugh.



Wait, do I actually get a gold star? This all relies very heavily on specifics. Again, no clue where you got that, because I sure,as hell didn't type it.



Presented an argument against my "illogical rounding"

It simply is. You're rounding down BY AN ENTIRE YEAR.

Even if it did mean 14 days, the first TWO episodes take six days, the gap between TAHITI and the End of the Beginning is, at least, two weeks,

Not if we utilize your approach of extreme rounding down. Could only be a day or two.

not to mention Couslon is captured for awhile,

What evidence is there he's capture for awhile? From what I recall that was all of a few days max. Granted it has been awhile and if anything, you've motivated me to rewatch AoS from beginning.

so that is A LOT of cramping when you could just push Winter Soldier back.

Course, so is rounding down by an entire year.

Why do you keep saying this. Who proposed this. Did I black out and type that, delete it and completely forget?

Man you love your pithy responses, eh? Again, relax, man, I misunderstood your intended order.

Plus, again AIM is mentioned as a recent event. And yes, I hear it now, that can be a year or so ago,

Less than a year, which is almost meaningless according to your logic. May as well not even count it. Sorry, I'm just having fun at this point. Only way to keep from going insane with this repetitive back and forth.

but I also feel like the theme of corruption of intelligence for power is very present in both SEEDS and Iron Man 3. Making it feel like a crossover thing, the AIM name drop only helps, they could have said it anywhere, but they said it here.

We know those episodes weren't meant as any form of crossover thematically or timeline wise though, else they'd have advertised it as such for ratings boost purposes (ABC is very cognizant of fact the crossover episodes on AoS tend to see noticeably viewership increase, so they aren't going to ignore such an opportunity).

Again, this is just forced supposition with no factual bearing whatsoever.

I mean, that one is more acceptable because the 6 months shows up after the suit,is built and you have Thor to give you that 2011 date. This is the opposite, there is a Dark World date showing that the SHIELD/Dark World crossover doesn't even happen until November.

Not seen in the film itself. I clearly showed the only frames of the discharge paperwork and nothing is even legible. If it's not seen IN the film, it doesn't count, even if the prop did indeed reflect that date.

Date. Ignoring one date. From one movie. Against the five I have given you. From two different movies.

There is no visible date in Thor-TDW. Nice try.

I'm....I don't know how to....I'm not....how do you consider the "intended" chronology, because if it's by release, your placement of Winter Soldier is wrong anyway,

??? Um... no it isn't.

Phase 2 release order: Iron Man 3, Thor-TDW, CA-WS, GotG, Avengers - AoU, Ant-Man.

Whatcu talkin' bout Willis? How is it wrong based "on release order"? It literally exactly follows release order.

if it's strictly by date it's AOS, WS, DW, IM3. So, how exactly do you get the "intended" chronology. Unless this is in fact Kevin Fiege in which case I am very sorry, and please put Daredevil in Infinity War.

The films are generally released in an order reflecting their chronological order, with the exceptions of Captain America - The First Avenger (since it's mostly set in WWII, though it's modern bookend scenes do indeed occur in release chronology with other films) and IM2/Thor/IH merely due to the retcon in Fury's Big Week. Literally every single film released since the first Avengers has been released in chronological order in terms of in universe events, which makes sense as overall the universe is building towards the Infinity War film(s)--whatever Avengers 4 ends up being.

Man, my word of the day calender really let me down here.



Except it wasn't. the entire later half of the episode is FitSimmons trying to find a solution to the problem, even bringing up the possibility of killing him, when if this thing had already been cured...just...I don't search SHIELD'S files? In fact, it's more realistic that Tony got the cure from SHIELD. Also, remember, Killian has been shopping around for sponsors for funding, could he have gone to SHIELD and they saw how unstable it was and said no? Could Garrett have known about that encounter from the SHIELD files he was hacking? Maybe? I wasn't there. I'm assuming. Although I'm proud of the theory myself. All I'm saying is it's an explainable plot hole that the concrete dates create.

Illogical to equate the cure for Extremis with cure for Centipede formula. Not the same thing, so not the same cure, right? So logical that Fitz and Simmons wouldn't have the cure, they'd need to come up with a new one, possibly building on the Extremis cure created by Stark.

I would consider that, but the date is is 14/11/2013 so wait....I did consider that. I'm pretty sure that no matter where you are there are only 12 months

Ah, more sarcasm... Despite me saying no date is visible in the film itself. Nice. And again, that date isn't visible in the film itself. No date shown in Thor - The Dark World. If so, again, post the time coding.

Because, there is a date that puts it there that you have ignored for no reason?

Except there isn't, as I CLEARLY proved with the actual screenshot of the discharge papers seen in the film. That's the closest, best shot of those papers the date is on, and again, it's not visible. If it's not visible in the film, and it conflicts with other dates, it can be overridden. Again, not seen in the film. If so, happy to be corrected, just give me the specific time coding to double check (1:18:22 for instance, whenever it happens). But again, we both know that isn't case. No date is visible in Thor - TDW.

Incorrect. Dialog for 88. Written evidence for 89. Setting date evidence for 1991. All there.

Only the 1991 date is what's being questioned. I'm the one who provided the photo links that showed the 1988/1989 dates.

I think if you use the word illogical on me one more time, I win repetitive bingo,

It's most apt word to use. I'll switch it up and use groundless and unfounded for you, just for varieties sake.

I'm not sure what the prize is, but I'm pumped to find out. I've made my point on this subject. ON TO THE NEXT.




I see this is very similar to the last statement. Just head back to the top of you want a response for this one.



"Most people" most people you know, or most people I know? Most people with green hats? Specifics are important.

Most people in world who understand concept of whole numbers and rounding. You let me know who you know that rounds down by an entire year. Again, that's ILLOGICAL/BASELESS/UNJUSTIFIABLE/UNSOUND (thanks for that thesaurus, Uncle Aloysius!).

Really, because you've used up a lot of time defending it. See above.

Because it's a ridiculous claim on your part. Rounding down by a year? Come on! Lol

Convenient to who?

Convenient to you, obviously. You're a smart guy, you don't require any hand holding. Let's stop with the pedantic crap, please.

I'm not ignoring the all winter line. If you can prove to me whether or not it was winter of 2014 or winter of 2015 I'll drop it. Because, if you use that very strange gap that you used in the middle of season 2 of AOS and just put it between the seasons instead, giving Coulson time to,actually build a BRAND NEW SHIELD instead of the what, three months you gave him?

You mean the SHIELD Coulson was still very much in process of rebuilding? Skye's training supports my placement as well. If she'd been training for a year with May, as you posit, she'd be much better by time season picks up. Yet the few months (enough time for WINTER to pass) makes more sense in that regard.

And here's the most obvious aspect of all. The fact Talbot had been chasing them all winter which you claim not to have ignored. Well, that's a specific reference. That means Talbot has only chased them over Winter. Are you really presuming they only began chasing Coulson's team 9 months or so after end of first season? How does that make any sense?

Further, you're also posting moving AoS Season 2 up to beginning in 2015? Am I reading you right, on that one? If so, you're then forcing entirety of Season 2 into only a couple months as well (presumably after winter, so March at earliest, and AoU in April?). So your theory is to do exactly with Season 2 what you're complaining about with Season 1? Am I reading that right or just misunderstanding you again?

Also, why is that gap there? To buy time to get to Age of Ultron? When you could just use the all winter line to put you at the Beginning of 2015 and be done with it?

Except, doesn't make sense to do that. See above.

The latter half has to be later than July 2014, but earlier than July, 2015 anyway.

Which it is. Thanks.

Well, I'm sorry you feel discredited. I may have said it again up above, but I'll end it here.

Hey, whatever makes you feel better man. Do what you gotta do.

Wait. If Ultron is mid 2015, wouldn't a year ago be 2014, since you are saying that WS and by association SHIELD end October 2013, what were they doing for half a year, dicking around?

This is that hyperbole I'm talking about, the answer should be obvious. They were on the run from Talbot, rebuilding SHIELD, Simmons infiltrating Hydra, and Skye training. How is that a mystery to you?

But, if it ends in 2014, it makes sense that Coulson would start on recruiting and such right away, not hang out for a bit. I'm confused by the placement of the flashback on the timeline though. Why is it directly above Shadows?

Because it literally leads directly into 2x01. The flashback in 2x20 talks specifically about the new recruits (Hunter and Isabelle who, if I recall correctly, had literally JUST joined the team in 2x01). That's also when Coulson gets the Helicarrier (Theta protocol).

Well.....not really

Yes, truly really deeply, yo.

I guess so...still some questions here...




We have fun here. Right.

The pithiness never ends! Lol

So the all winter line would work in January/Feburary of 2015.

Not really. Not unless you think the US government was just sitting around and not pursuing Coulson for almost entirety of 2014 and began to finally chase them around December, 2014. It doesn't make sense.

Season 2 doesn't cover that year, the flashback takes place between seasons 1 and 2 due to the fact that Hartley is alive.

Um... Hartley dies in 2x01, so what point you making there? The flashback at start of 2x20 literally leads directly into 2x01. If I recall correctly Coulson literally

2x01 clearly indicates Hunter and Isabelle are new recruits. The 2x20 flashback reflects they've just been recruited. Logic would dictate the 2x20 flashback occurs not long before.

The Hellicarrier when they leave to obtain Loki

I'll check that, thanks. The current dating is from the dates seen on the museum gala banners, though they're not directly seen on screen.

What exactly is the 14th month again? 14/11/2013.

So, I explicitly made it clear I saw no date and therefore could not say whether or not that would work, but you have to go out of your way to twist it, I guess in attempt to make me look stupid? Lol. Ok.

Again, clearly said I didn't see any date and didn't know what date was:

But again I have to look at it again

Also, the DATE ISN'T SEEN IN THE FILM ITSELF!

No specific dialog against specific dates.

Dialogue is specific enough. Especially since the 12 option isn't viable, and 14 years is never mentioned or floated as an option, which it would need to be to get to end of 2013.

This again.

Lol, you say this as if you haven't been doing exact same thing.

One against five.

No. Four. You need to stop counting the Thor-TDW date that isn't even visible in the film itself.

Not ignoring it.



Agree that it exists just not the placement.

Except the all winter comment implies Talbot has been chasing them only all winter, not all year. Unless you actually think the US government adopted an "eh, we'll get to that later" approach? Like 9 months later? Seriously? That makes sense to you? Come on, you've proven yourself smarter than that.

Once again wrong, takes place between seasons one and two. Must not have gotten to season 2 yet. You'll see.

I agree it happens between the seasons, as the timeline reflects. It just doesn't happen that long before 2x01 since the flashback mentions the new recruits (and Koenig's reluctance about them), and the fact 2x01 shows them to still be new/green/not used to SHIELD approach/still learning ropes (for SHIELD, as they are still experienced mercenaries).

If I did that my bad. Iron Man 3 only happens after Dark World, but before WS AND AOS CROSSOVER

But still after the AoS Pilot which doesn't make sense and flies directly in face of the intended chronology. Again, the Pilot episode specifically utilized the Extremis plotline for a reason. IM3 had already happened at that point.

I refuse to accept them, because I don't see them as correct due to evidence I have presented.

Ditto. To your approach, anyway.

I'm really trying to add photos I have taken, but I don't know how to. You're in the right spot for that Dark World date. Just not looking hard enough.

That was clearest shot of the page in that entire scene. I think you're using a close up shot of the prop not actually seen in the ful itself. Again, no date is visible in the shot due to distance of the camera. Further, if it's not seen in the film it can be used as long as it doesn't contradict what IS seen (or said) in other films. But this does. And it's not actually shown in the film. So...

But, five dates...

Four. And most from IM3 itself which directly contradicts itself (that's why I let WS's date override IM3's, in addition to the AoS setting and Extremis plot point in Pilot). Again, IM3 literally contradicts itself between dialogue and prop date, by a week shy of an entire year. But we've been down that road ad nauseam.

You're killing me here.

I am Machiavellian as heck then.

Correct. She turns 26 on July 2014.



It's in the episode where Skye talks to Calvin. I'm pretty sure, I'll look it up.



Except that couple months line.

Hey, if you can round down by an entire year, I can round up by a couple weeks.

Still waiting on the,name of that 14th month.

It's called Flectember. Look it up.

But seriously, either you skipped over part where I literally said I didn't see any date so couldn't say for sure, or you're just going out of your way to troll.

Yeah, it does, so I guess if we can't trust the dialog we would trust.............

We can trust dialogue. And utilize common sense to accept people round up or down to closest whole number. Which means IM3 isn't 14 years after New Years Eve 1999, as the dialogue in the movie reflects, and that the couple months comment can be viewed as a month and a half and they're rounding up.

............
............
PROP DATES

Which are always used long as they don't cause more problems then they solve.

But, if your rules apply, the 2010 date while Tony is researching Vanko would stand dispite FBW....right? Films are the ultimate cannon?

Sure, except when they're clearly retconned by other canon. Films will override in case of dispute, but the retcon is obvious and accepted, so there is no dispute. Otherwise it requires ignoring a canon comic prequel which isn't logical.

Such as?

Lol, do I really need to repeat myself? This'll be literally 42nd time we've gone over this.

They weren't though....Dark World proves it.

Except it doesn't, since the date is never seen/isn't even visible in the film itself.

As well as SEEDS

Again, your approach requires pushing AoS Season 2 to 2015, creating an inexplicable gap and making the all winter comment make no sense.

When on Earth?! WHO TOLD YOU THIS?!

Again, misunderstood your intention. My bad. Seriously, tho, relax.

Assumption. And I assume the date on the SHIELD computer is just data. We both have no proof. Weird to argue when there ls no proof.

Your assumption requires ignoring the fact an interrogation would reflect an accurate date and time for conviction purposes and court records, etc. Not to mention, as the pre-eminent world intelligence agency, you'd think they'd keep accurate date for such things.

And you know, that one is actually visible.

Or it could be the actual date....who knows.

Logic would dictate an intelligent agency's interrogation video is likely more reliable than an old date on a random white board in a hospital, but I get you refuse to acknowledge that.

Or it could be data. No proof though right?

Data? Lol. Besides the info gleaned from such interrogation, the date it occurs is a principle and important aspect also. And again, it's clearly a date, but sure, confound and deny that all you like. Whatever.

I am, I have the photo, I just don't know how to post it...

I literally told you how.

First, upload the pic to a file hosting site like photobucket.

Once that's done, copy the photo link.

Type:

insert the photo link here [/ img]

(Remove the space between the / and img).

Or just press the photo option and insert link (it'll do the coding for you), as 64SuperNintendo suggested.




[quote]You've been pretty condescending. But, it's all good. By gones.[/quote]

As have you, man.





[quote]How many years specifically, 12 or 13? You can't answer that, due to the fact that it isn't specific enough..[/quote]

How many times do you need this repeated? We CAN answer that since the 12 option doesn't work due to occurring BEFORE Avengers, which wouldn't make sense since the PTSD plot arose due to events at end of Avengers.

Thus, only other option is the 13, right? And thirteen years after New Year's Eve 1999/New Year's Day 2000 would specifically be New Year's Eve 2012/New Year's Day 2013. So following the newspaper dates (with exception of the 2013 date, in favor of 2012) makes most sense, since that is literally a week shy of 13 years.

I mean, you've got to be tired of hearing me repeat same thing over and over. I know I'm tired of typing it.



[quote]Not true, could also be in Early 2015 to maintain that all winter line, and eliminate your incorrect gapping of season 2.[/quote]

But that requires assuming the US government say on their hands for a good nine months or so before sending Talbot after them, which makes no sense. It also implies Coulso isn't that good at his job if he's been recruiting non stop for a year and only has a few new recruits to show for it.




[quote]No I'm not at all, I've answered everything you've said. What SHIELD source?[/quote]

The all winter line. The new recruits in Season 2. Etc, etc, etc.




[quote]That's what I'm saying to you. You can't take the Shane interview for fact without taking the Scarlett one as fact. That's the point I'm making, you're picking an choosing. I don't take the Scarlett interview as accurate just like you shouldn't take the Black interview...[/quote]

Good thing I'm not basing my reasoning on that, lol. I'm basing my reasoning on the favored I've laid out dozens of times already.


[quote]Like Iron Man 3?

But I agree that interviews shouldn't count.[/quote]

Yeah, IM3, which directly contradicts itself between dialogue and the prop dates. And that's the thing, I retained as much of the info as possible, keeping the days/dates, but shifting the year back by one because it's necessary to make sense of the dialogue in IM3 itself, and... aw screw it, we've been over this a million times already.



[quote]BINGO! I won. It's a really nice cigar box. See above.


There is though. I'm really trying to put this up. Is there a button? IS THERE A PHOTO BUTTON?![/QUOTE]

Yes. And I literally explained in previous email how to post it.

Just remember you need to upload it to a photo hosting site and get direct link to insert it between the [img] and [/ img] tags (just remove the space between the / and img, I have to include that space so the tags show).

But again, realize that date isn't visible or seen in the film itself. Thus, no dice.



And with that, I'm done with this debate. It's going nowhere. We keep repeating same points we each made in initial posts. It's become a waste of time.

Just agree to disagree. You have complete control of your own version, do what you like, more power to you. This one will stay as is.

I promise you, you're not the first of us to notice the hiccups about IM3. Again, literally, go back through the thread and you can read about why we placed the stuff as we did, why we shifted the IM3 dates back a year. I mean, I'vealready explained why, but it's all there to read if you'd like to pick apart the logic utilized to come to those conclusions.

 

[DIrishB]

Posted previous response before I saw this post.

I'm calm, man, I'm good. Also, that it is completely crazy to think that the Earth is flat, I mean, to each their own beliefs but the proof is So accessible. Like, look anywhere!

This is why I said, some people are willing to believe anything, even in direct opposition to all available evidence that disproves their claims. Some people are just contrarians by their nature. Flat Earthers, anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers... Some just choose to ignore evidence that doesn't fit their preconceptions.

Admittedly, we're both doing that here, but again, the order of IM3 and AoS Pilot episode is pretty clear.

Tell you what... you try to get official word from the Agents of SHIELD showrunners. If they agree IM3 happens AFTER the AoS pilot episode, I'll change it. I know they won't, but its a fair compromise based on intention of the ones who run the show and would have a definitive answer. They're on Twitter somewhere.

https://twitter.com/jedwhedon?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

https://twitter.com/motancharoen?lang=en

Alright, so... First the December date in Avengers

Then, contradicting that date, are these banners for the event in Germany

So who knows which one is right? Last I checked, no evidence confirms either one of these...but one of them is on a SHIELD computer...

Next, these are the Dark World photos, you had the right one, it just wasn't zoomed in properly, sorry for the picture quality, pictures of monitors never come out well.

I have more of you want them, I took a lot because I wasn't sure how the photos would look. If you want to see for yourself, this is at 1:10:49

This is going to sound sarcastic, I promise it is not, would you like the Iron Man 3 dates as well, or do you already have them?

No I know the Iron Man dates. Thanks for the Avengers one, I missed the date on the computer screen. But the weather in New York during Battle of NY indicates it's likely not December, and thus the May 4 date is likely better option. Especially since the gallery opening was that night I believe, which definitively places it on May 4.

Also, the date on the discharge papers in Thor-TDW very likely doesn't reflect current date, given its positioned at middle of page.

His birthday is listed above that, I'd posit that the Nov 14, 2013 date could be viewed as his intended release date for a period of observation. Such mental breakdowns usually require anywhere from a few weeks to months for more severe cases (as his perceived case of delusion would likely be).

That doesn't denote itself as current date. Fact it's in middle of page very likely may reflect the intended release date. Then again, maybe not.

Further, I COULD even argue its not even a date and is just some Patient ID number, as you did with the Winter Soldier date.

I don't think that is the case, but is what it is.

As you pointed out in case of Avengers, and I pointed out in case of IM3, the films even contradict their own dates.

Truth is, the filmmakers and even prop makers don't necessarily pay attention in same degree us obsessive compulsive fans do.

There is always going to be some stuff that doesn't jive. Just the way it is.

But the intention seems pretty clear that IM3 occurs before AoS's Pilot episode. That was intent of the writer (Whedon) and showrunners (Whedon/Tanchaereon). The episode itself even hints at that without outright saying so.

Go ahead and ask them on Twitter so we can put this debate to rest.

 

[DE23111]

Speaking of twisting and ignoring... you continually refuse to acknowledge the fact it's a week shy of 14 years. Most people round up in such a case. It's a common practice. Whether you acknowledge it or not doesn't change that fact.

You didn't really acknowledge my examples, you insist that the majority of people would round, despite having no data to back that claim up. And what I'm saying, is that 13 years have PASSED. The actual definition of "ago" backs that up, "before the present" not "before the present, but first you have to round up a week."

Fair point. Important difference to note is that what I'm suggesting is true, though. Most people DO round up or down to nearest whole number in such instances. If it's alsmost 14 years, I and most people in my experience would say "14 years", not round it down by almost an entire year (51 weeks) to 13 years.

Again, if you have any proof of that that you are willing to share with the group, I will look, but from the two roommates, and chick I asked agreed that 13 years have gone by between 2000 and 2013. I don't see us really agreeing on this though. You insist on rounding, I don't see it as nessesary, we should probably stop going back and forth on it.

That's a hell of a false analogy there. Course you'd want a specific date for future death to specifically avoid it. Meanwhile, this is a debate about a line in the film between two characters who hadn't seen each other in 12-13 years. And again, DEDUCTIVE LOGIC shows it can't be 12 years since that would, due to simple math, place it in December 2011 (which also goes against your proposed Dec 2013 dates as newspaper props show). 13 years later is Dec, 2012.

I'm using it as an example of how, if you were trying to pin point a date, you would want an exact date, not a vague estimate. I choose to go with specifics, especially ones that, from my point of view, don't contradict anything. I'll address the 12 in a minute.

It simply is. You're rounding down BY AN ENTIRE YEAR.

If I round up like you are doing for some reason...but, I'm not because nothing in the actual film tells me that Killian has rounded up a week. I'm using the actual definition of "ago" as my logic here. See my examples from the last post, that's just how it's done. But, I did say I don't want to argue this anymore, so, sorry. It has told me however that the film takes place in 2013, and no line of dialog contradicts that.

Not if we utilize your approach of extreme rounding down. Could only be a day or two.

It seems as though we are equally sarcastic.

What evidence is there he's capture for awhile? From what I recall that was all of a few days max. Granted it has been awhile and if anything, you've motivated me to rewatch AoS from beginning.

Pretty sure it was a few days, actually, feel like there was a line where he said a week, but I don't have the resources to back that up.

We know those episodes weren't meant as any form of crossover thematically or timeline wise though, else they'd have advertised it as such for ratings boost purposes (ABC is very cognizant of fact the crossover episodes on AoS tend to see noticeably viewership increase, so they aren't going to ignore such an opportunity).

I mean, I guess I could then argue that Winter Soldier was INTENDED to be after IM3 and DW. Seeing as that is how it is released, but that is clearly not how you see it. Again, maybe it wasn't the intention when the Pilot aired, but who's to say someone didn't look at the IM3 dates,and try to fix it. Again, I'm saying SEEDS is a solid explanation for the clear as day 2013 dates in Iron Man 3. Maybe, not intention, who knows, but thematically and the incredibly random mention of AIM back it up.

Not seen in the film itself. I clearly showed the only frames of the discharge paperwork and nothing is even legible. If it's not seen IN the film, it doesn't count, even if the prop did indeed reflect that date.

It is visible in the film. I know I saw it. And have an hq image of it.

??? Um... no it isn't.

Phase 2 release order: Iron Man 3, Thor-TDW, CA-WS, GotG, Avengers - AoU, Ant-Man.

Whatcu talkin' bout Willis? How is it wrong based "on release order"? It literally exactly follows release order.

Sorry, getting your order mixed up with mine. My mistake.

The films are generally released in an order reflecting their chronological order, with the exceptions of Captain America - The First Avenger (since it's mostly set in WWII, though it's modern bookend scenes do indeed occur in release chronology with other films) and IM2/Thor/IH merely due to the retcon in Fury's Big Week. Literally every single film released since the first Avengers has been released in chronological order in terms of in universe events, which makes sense as overall the universe is building towards the Infinity War film(s)--whatever Avengers 4 ends up being.

Doesn't Antman happen in October of 2015 despite it's earlier release date. Also, didn't Dr. Strange leap forward by an entire year?

Illogical to equate the cure for Extremis with cure for Centipede formula. Not the same thing, so not the same cure, right? So logical that Fitz and Simmons wouldn't have the cure, they'd need to come up with a new one, possibly building on the Extremis cure created by Stark.

They weren't trying to cure Centipede, they were trying to neutralize the Extremis within him. If they had a cure, they would have mentioned it. Also, when Coulson says Extremis, no one has a clue what it is not even Simmons. despite the fact that a terrorist used it to try to burn the president of the United States alive.

Only the 1991 date is what's being questioned. I'm the one who provided the photo links that showed the 1988/1989 dates.

Did you watch the scene yet, she's to the far right of the wall, it's pretty clear. Plus, Lumley left after Avery was killed, 23 years ago from SEEDS. If we use 89 as her death that puts us in 2012. And we know that isn't right. And since there is no evidence except Avery's placement on the wall to determine her death, that's what we have to go with.

Because it's a ridiculous claim on your part. Rounding down by a year? Come on! Lol

Dormammu, I've come to bargain!

Convenient to you, obviously. You're a smart guy, you don't require any hand holding. Let's stop with the pedantic crap, please.

Thanks man, I can feel the friendship budding here.

You mean the SHIELD Coulson was still very much in process of rebuilding? Skye's training supports my placement as well. If she'd been training for a year with May, as you posit, she'd be much better by time season picks up. Yet the few months (enough time for WINTER to pass) makes more sense in that regard.

Skye has zero combat training at all, and she's pretty damn solid in Dirty Half Dozen, so she has learned something. Also, the first episode has Skye taking on a bunch of dudes in the first scene, during an op that she is at the front of. They must be pretty confident in her.

And here's the most obvious aspect of all. The fact Talbot had been chasing them all winter which you claim not to have ignored. Well, that's a specific reference. That means Talbot has only chased them over Winter. Are you really presuming they only began chasing Coulson's team 9 months or so after end of first season? How does that make any sense?

Well, in the other side of that coin, maybe they interacted many times between the first and second season, and Coulson stopped taking his calls at the beginning of winter, I don't know what happened because we're not shown.

Further, you're also posting moving AoS Season 2 up to beginning in 2015? Am I reading you right, on that one? If so, you're then forcing entirety of Season 2 into only a couple months as well (presumably after winter, so March at earliest, and AoU in April?). So your theory is to do exactly with Season 2 what you're complaining about with Season 1? Am I reading that right or just misunderstanding you again?

You're not, but hear me out, Season 2, if I remember is much tighter then season 1, in terms of everything happening sort of back to back, due to the fact that they are not flying around doing random missions for SHIELD. By your season 1 logic everything that happened in season 1 just happened to all happen at the same time. Loreli, the 084, Peterson, Dr. Hall's abduction, The "ghost guy", Scortch, The Chiauri helmet virus, the asgardian staff, Amador, etc, etc. In the span of five weeks, and if we take away the minimum of 2 weeks that Garrett went on the search for Peterson after TRACKS, we have three weeks. Everything after,TRACKS probably takes a bit of time, maybe a week at least, might have to consult my notes. And then the six days it took for just the first TWO episodes, that puts everything else just kind of conveniently happening, in the same week or so. That just seems really convenient and squashed together. Everything SHIELD related in my notes before the Lady Sif episode got deleted, so I have to go back and take those notes again, but I'll count the dates and keep you posted.

Except, doesn't make sense to do that. See above.

Debateable.

Which it is. Thanks.

I see.

This is that hyperbole I'm talking about, the answer should be obvious. They were on the run from Talbot, rebuilding SHIELD, Simmons infiltrating Hydra, and Skye training. How is that a mystery to you?

Because it literally leads directly into 2x01. The flashback in 2x20 talks specifically about the new recruits (Hunter and Isabelle who, if I recall correctly, had literally JUST joined the team in 2x01). That's also when Coulson gets the Helicarrier (Theta protocol).

I'll just get both of these at once, I think the flashback is being misinterpreted. It does in fact say "one year ago" in the flash back, but then it cuts back to Coulson with the same font and sound saying "Present day" insinuating that that flashback takes place a year before that episode, which if Ultron takes place in April 2015, that puts that flashback in April 2014. And the flashback doesn't lead directly into the first episode, Coulson is wearing a different outfit. Plus, what is listed above.

Yes, truly really deeply, yo.

Nah, dawg.

Not really. Not unless you think the US government was just sitting around and not pursuing Coulson for almost entirety of 2014 and began to finally chase them around December, 2014. It doesn't make sense.

I mean, I'm sure the US government was dealing with the biggest security breach in US history, and again, no one is saying that he hadn't been chasing him, just that Coulson got away during the winter at some point. You added the only.

Um... Hartley dies in 2x01, so what point you making there? The flashback at start of 2x20 literally leads directly into 2x01. If I recall correctly Coulson literally.

It doesn't though. It happens a year before the events of Ultron.

2x01 clearly indicates Hunter and Isabelle are new recruits. The 2x20 flashback reflects they've just been recruited. Logic would dictate the 2x20 flashback occurs not long before.

You're ignoring the "one year ago" "present day" pairing, clearly intended to play off of each other. Because why have,both of that is not,the intention, we would know,it was the present day without them telling us. Meant to indicate where the flashback takes place. Definately not directly before 02x01. Also, New could anything. Several weeks, months, they're all newer than his old team.

No. Four. You need to stop counting the Thor-TDW date that isn't even visible in the film itself.

Can I count it now that I have given photographic evidence?

Except the all winter comment implies Talbot has been chasing them only all winter, not all year. Unless you actually think the US government adopted an "eh, we'll get to that later" approach? Like 9 months later? Seriously? That makes sense to you? Come on, you've proven yourself smarter than that.

You added the only. I have addressed this above though.

I agree it happens between the seasons, as the timeline reflects. It just doesn't happen that long before 2x01 since the flashback mentions the new recruits (and Koenig's reluctance about them), and the fact 2x01 shows them to still be new/green/not used to SHIELD approach/still learning ropes (for SHIELD, as they are still experienced mercenaries).

Right, but we're not told when they were hired, or how long they have been there, all we have is a flashback placed in 2014.

But still after the AoS Pilot which doesn't make sense and flies directly in face of the intended chronology. Again, the Pilot episode specifically utilized the Extremis plotline for a reason. IM3 had already happened at that point.

I've argued this one a lot.

Four. And most from IM3 itself which directly contradicts itself (that's why I let WS's date override IM3's, in addition to the AoS setting and Extremis plot point in Pilot). Again, IM3 literally contradicts itself between dialogue and prop date, by a week shy of an entire year. But we've been down that road ad nauseam.

5. 4 dates to one line. Illogical. Sorry. But it is.

Hey, if you can round down an entire year, I can round up by a couple weeks.

Dormammu, I've come to bargain!

But seriously, either you skipped over part where I literally said I didn't see any date so couldn't say for sure, or you're just going out of your way to troll.

There is a picture now.

We can trust dialogue. And utilize common sense to accept people round up or down to closest whole number. Which means IM3 isn't 14 years after New Years Eve 1999, as the dialogue in the movie reflects, and that the couple months comment can be viewed as a month and a half and they're rounding up.

Dormammu! Just kidding. We can't though. Killian doesn't even know how long ago it was haha

Which are always used long as they don't cause more problems then they solve.

I see no problems here at all.

Sure, except when they're clearly retconned by other canon. Films will override in case of dispute, but the retcon is obvious and accepted, so there is no dispute. Otherwise it requires ignoring a canon comic prequel which isn't logical.

I understand that, but if your stone rule is that films have the final say in everything, why would you change it for a piece of canon further down the ladder. It just seems like it's a rule you created and just break when it's convenient. That isn't a shot at you, it just contradicts a rule you set up. The IM2 would stand despite FBW. I'm just curious about when your rules can be broken.

Again, your approach requires pushing AoS Season 2 to 2015, creating an inexplicable gap and making the all winter comment make no sense.

It most certainly does not.

Your assumption requires ignoring the fact an interrogation would reflect an accurate date and time for conviction purposes and court records, etc. Not to mention, as the pre-eminent world intelligence agency, you'd think they'd keep accurate date for such things.

I mean, that date in Avengers is on a SHIELD computer, and we have decided that that is incorrect. So, why wouldn't that date be? Also, what if they aren't dates at all? Hear me out, what if they are file names. It makes sense that it would be present during the video, it makes sense with where it is placed on the Loki computer on the tab, and it makes sense that I saw numbers in that same format as SHIELD went through its files to find Banner in Incredible Hulk. The proof is there, just a thought.

Logic would dictate an intelligent agency's interrogation video is likely more reliable than an old date on a random white board in a hospital, but I get you refuse to acknowledge that.

Avengers screenshot shows that SHIELD "dates" are innaccurate

Data? Lol. Besides the info gleaned from such interrogation, the date it occurs is a principle and important aspect also. And again, it's clearly a date, but sure, confound and deny that all you like. Whatever.

Or file name, I don't think it's that crazy, explains the innaccuracy. Just trying to think outside the box here.

How many times do you need this repeated? We CAN answer that since the 12 option doesn't work due to occurring BEFORE Avengers, which wouldn't make sense since the PTSD plot arose due to events at end of Avengers.

What I'm saying is, if you are ONLY using the statement, ONLY THE STATEMENT, no other information to answer the question how long was,it since Killian saw Tony. You would say 12 or 13. Because that is the only information you have. You can't say 12, you can't say 13. Because you don't know. Because the information in the statement itself is not specific. Which is what I am argueing. Dates are specific, no guessing room, just a hard, set date. Also, PTSD isn't an immeadiatelt set on anxiety disorder.

Good thing I'm not basing my reasoning on that, lol. I'm basing my reasoning on the favored I've laid out dozens of times already.

But, you did try and use it as proof for your points, which is not valid. You actually did that.

Yeah, IM3, which directly contradicts itself between dialogue and the prop dates. And that's the thing, I retained as much of the info as possible, keeping the days/dates, but shifting the year back by one because it's necessary to make sense of the dialogue in IM3 itself, and... aw screw it, we've been over this a million times already.

I'm just choosing to go with the more concrete, apparent data. You are going off of one line. We don't have to,argue this anymore. Clearly you are not willing to take the more logical approach. Agree to disagree.

 

[DE23111]

That feels like a really hard swerve around the DW date. I'll take as an actual date seeing as it is the form Darcy and Lewis are given to sign him out. And because there is no evidence that that is not an actual date. But, hey, we both have our own timelines. And this has been a pretty cool way to,bounce perspectives off of someone else.

 

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

@DE23111

Just face it man. We don't agree with you. Please accept that. The more you press your point the more unreasonable you look. Seriously I don't think D (and the larger forum participants are going to come your way.) you keep using very small very hard to notice props that were likely never meant to be noticed as the basis of your argue nets while ignoring obvious dialague and large banners. Seriously give it a rest. Let's agree to disagree and move on. Keep your head cannon as you like but let's stop forcing it on others who have heard your arguments and rejected it. Move on.

 

[DIrishB]

You didn't really acknowledge my examples, you insist that the majority of people would round, despite having no data to back that claim up. And what I'm saying, is that 13 years have PASSED. The actual definition of "ago" backs that up, "before the present" not "before the present, but first you have to round up a week."

Right, just as it would require 13 years and 51 weeks to have passed for the 2013 dates to work. That's literally days shy of a year. Yes, most people would round that up, again least in my experience they do. Again, given principle of using whole numbers and not specifics like exact number of years plus months, days, weeks, hours, minutes, and seconds passing like an android would (Data from ST-TNG is a perfect example). Instead, most humans round to nearest whole number, as that seems like a clear case of what they're doing there. 13 years and 51 weeks have passed. You're choosing to round down by a severe degree, merely to reinforce your approach, and ignoring the common approach of rounding to nearest whole number. Heck, if it was in the middle of the year your suggestion would make sense, but that 13th year is literally almost over. Most people aren't going to ignore that, in my experience.

And again, you continually accuse me of ignoring or not acknowledging your examples when I have acknowledged and disputed each one I disagree with. Merely not agreeing with you doesn't equate to ignoring or not acknowledging them. This is the hyperbole I'm talking about. It does nothing to serve the debate and ultimately causes loss of credibility overall.

Again, if you have any proof of that that you are willing to share with the group, I will look, but from the two roommates, and chick I asked agreed that 13 years have gone by between 2000 and 2013.

Given how you probably weren't specific and mention from first day of 2000 to last week of 2013, that doesn't hold much weight. You certainly keep ignoring that reality here in the thread.

I don't see us really agreeing on this though. You insist on rounding, I don't see it as nessesary, we should probably stop going back and forth on it.

But, you are rounding, but illogically rounding down by 51 weeks. So apparently you do see it as necessary. If you asked your roommates again utilizing those specifics, I doubt they'd still maintain only 13 years have passed. Because reality is, 13 years, 51 weeks had passed. Again, in my experience most folks round that up to 14 years, not rounding down to 13. That's illogical and far less accurate. You can lean on the "13 years have passed" excuse, but reality is 13 years and 51 weeks passed, which is literally just shy of 14 years. It's neither illogical or uncommon to round that up by a week to be 14 years.

You just refuse to acknowledge that because it works against your theory. I get it. No big deal.

I'm using it as an example of how, if you were trying to pin point a date, you would want an exact date, not a vague estimate. I choose to go with specifics, especially ones that, from my point of view, don't contradict anything. I'll address the 12 in a minute.

I get what you were trying to say, but it's no less a false analogy. You should be using an example of a past event and using memory to pin it down. Most people don't tend to be too specific in such instances when it's a past event. They'll refer to it usually as X amount of years ago, as was done in IM3 (even less specific given the 12-13 line). But again, they didn't say 14, specifically because 14 years hadn't passed, and again, it would be common sense to round up by a mere week to account for 14 years.

If I round up like you are doing for some reason...but, I'm not because nothing in the actual film tells me that Killian has rounded up a week.

But you're rounding down to an extreme degree.

I'm using the actual definition of "ago" as my logic here.

Not really. You're ignoring the relevant 51 weeks that account for just under an extra year passing beyond your claim. That doesn't lean on logic, but pushing your theory in face of that logic.

See my examples from the last post, that's just how it's done.

It really isn't. Again, most round to nearest whole number. My niece was born in late August, 2013. Thus, she is exactly 3 years and 3 months old give or take a few days. Now, in case of an age I'd utilize your approach and say she is 3 years old, because she is. But I'd say she was born 3 years and 3 months ago. And in July of next year, you'd say she's three, but almost four, which would be accurate.

I severely broke my shoulders and shoulder blade when I was 17, in early 1999 (my birthday is also in late August). I am now 35. I would refer to that event as happening happening close to 18 years ago since it is close to 18 years ago. I wouldn't ignore the extra almost year and round down only to account for the completed years. Most especially if it requires rounding DOWN by 51 weeks instead of rounding up by one week. Again, in my experience, most people utilize the same approach to rounding up.

But, I did say I don't want to argue this anymore, so, sorry. It has told me however that the film takes place in 2013, and no line of dialog contradicts that.

Except the 12-13 actually does, as said. We know it can't be 12, so it must be 13. Just using Holmesian deductive logic there. And 13 years after late 1999/first day of 2000 is late 2012/early 2013... exactly as the timeline reflects. We're really beating a dead horse.

It seems as though we are equally sarcastic.

I enjoy sarcasm.

Pretty sure it was a few days, actually, feel like there was a line where he said a week, but I don't have the resources to back that up.

Thought you just watched them? I'm quite sure there was no such line, but you'd know better than me since its fresher in your mind than mine.

I mean, I guess I could then argue that Winter Soldier was INTENDED to be after IM3 and DW. Seeing as that is how it is released, but that is clearly not how you see it.

Why do you keep claiming that? The timeline reflects that's exactly how I see it. Granted release order doesn't necessarily always hold true (it didn't in Phase 1), but from Avengers onward that has been case ever since.

Again, maybe it wasn't the intention when the Pilot aired, but who's to say someone didn't look at the IM3 dates,and try to fix it. Again, I'm saying SEEDS is a solid explanation for the clear as day 2013 dates in Iron Man 3. Maybe, not intention, who knows, but thematically and the incredibly random mention of AIM back it up.

I don't remember the specific line, but why would the mention of AIM, which is directly tied to the Extremis formula that plays a large and recurring role throughout AoS Season 1, seem random?

Like I said, I linked to the AoS show runners Twitter accounts. If you won't ask them for clarification I will, so we can put this to bed.

It is visible in the film. I know I saw it. And have an hq image of it.



Sorry, getting your order mixed up with mine. My mistake.

No worries, I made same mistake.

Doesn't Antman happen in October of 2015 despite it's earlier release date. Also, didn't Dr. Strange leap forward by an entire year?

Ant Man is released from prison in mid July, 2015, at beginning of film. He must spend a couple months working at Baskin Robbins before his manager finds out he's an ex-con and fires him, at which point it's likely sometime late September. Scott then spends a bit training under Pym and Hope and the climax occurs on October 9. Dr. Strange does jump forward to account for his recuperation time and training. Yet neither disputes the chronological release order reflecting intended internal chronological order. Least in terms of the bulk of the film. Doctor Strange's watch date at beginning puts it before Civil War, but only that portion. His recuperation and later journey to Kamar-Tej and training there all align with the release order. The mid credit scene likely is a scene lifted directly from Thor-Ragnarok just as Ant-Man's had the scene lifted from Civil War. That doesn't discount the fact the majority of the film, the main bulk and modern set portions, align more or less with release order. Not necessarily release DATE, but definitely the release order.

They weren't trying to cure Centipede, they were trying to neutralize the Extremis within him. If they had a cure, they would have mentioned it. Also, when Coulson says Extremis, no one has a clue what it is not even Simmons. despite the fact that a terrorist used it to try to burn the president of the United States alive.

Again, the Extremis wasn't the same as what was in Iron Man 3. It was clearly said to have been altered with gamma radiation, super soldier serum, etc. I'm not a chemist and it wouldn't help anyway if I was given we're talking about an imaginary substance with no actual chemical structure to be analyzed... but common sense would say an altered formula would require an altered formula to cure. Thus, the Extremis cure in IM3 wouldn't work for the Centipede formula that included Extremis in the AoS pilot.

Also, them not knowing means nothing. The Extremis soldiers in IM3 and attempt to kill president wouldn't mean the formula or specifics about its chemical structure or effects would be public knowledge. As far as the public knew they're just powered individuals. At that point in the MCU timeline there's been plenty of such instances.

Again, ask the show runners. I linked you their Twitter accounts. Ask them so we can put this to rest. If not, I will.

Did you watch the scene yet, she's to the far right of the wall, it's pretty clear. Plus, Lumley left after Avery was killed, 23 years ago from SEEDS.

Thought you said 24 years? Now it's 23? You keep changing these details...

1.) 1991
2.) 1992
3.) 1993
4.) 1994
5.) 1995
6.) 1996
7.) 1997
8.) 1998
9.) 1999
10.) 2000
11.) 2001
12.) 2002
13.) 2003
14.) 2004
15.) 2005
16.) 2006
17.) 2007
18.) 2008
19.) 2009
20.) 2010
21.) 2011
22.) 2012
23.) 2013 <----- Which is exactly where it's placed on my timeline. Not 2014 as you posit.

If we use 89 as her death that puts us in 2012. And we know that isn't right. And since there is no evidence except Avery's placement on the wall to determine her death, that's what we have to go with.

Again, look above. Your math seems to be off, man.

Dormammu, I've come to bargain!



Thanks man, I can feel the friendship budding here.[/quot]

I'm sorry you're taking the debate personally. I hold no ill will towards you.

Skye has zero combat training at all, and she's pretty damn solid in Dirty Half Dozen, so she has learned something.

Right. And after 6 months or so training between Seasons 1 and 2 with one of the deadliest and major brutal human combatants in the MCU (May), you think she wouldn't have managed that in that time?

Also, the first episode has Skye taking on a bunch of dudes in the first scene, during an op that she is at the front of. They must be pretty confident in her.

Possibly. Also, let's not forget she WAS training, and putting her front and center in actual ops is a part of that, so it makes perfect sense, especially after around half a year of intense combat training under May and ops procedures, etc.

Well, in the other side of that coin, maybe they interacted many times between the first and second season, and Coulson stopped taking his calls at the beginning of winter, I don't know what happened because we're not shown.

But... they're fugitives. Talbot isn't calling and checking in, nor is there ANY evidence to support that supposition. The evidence clearly shows the US government set Talbot after Coulson's team as a result of events in Winter Soldier and fall of SHIELD. Again, it makes not a whit of sense to add at least 9 extra months to push Season 2 into starting 2015 (which then does exactly the same thing you complained about with season 1 and condensing it to a couple month period).

You're not, but hear me out,

Have been the whole time. I promise I am listening.

Season 2, if I remember is much tighter then season 1, in terms of everything happening sort of back to back, due to the fact that they are not flying around doing random missions for SHIELD. By your season 1 logic everything that happened in season 1 just happened to all happen at the same time. Loreli, the 084, Peterson, Dr. Hall's abduction, The "ghost guy", Scortch, The Chiauri helmet virus, the asgardian staff, Amador, etc, etc. In the span of five weeks, and if we take away the minimum of 2 weeks that Garrett went on the search for Peterson after TRACKS, we have three weeks. Everything after,TRACKS probably takes a bit of time, maybe a week at least, might have to consult my notes. And then the six days it took for just the first TWO episodes, that puts everything else just kind of conveniently happening, in the same week or so. That just seems really convenient and squashed together. Everything SHIELD related in my notes before the Lady Sif episode got deleted, so I have to go back and take those notes again, but I'll count the dates and keep you posted.

Please do. And also ask the show runners on Twitter which happens first, IM3 or AoS Pilot episode. I'm quite sure of what they'll say, but want you to see for yourself.

Debateable.

Anything is, even shape of the Earth, lol.

I see.




I'll just get both of these at once, I think the flashback is being misinterpreted. It does in fact say "one year ago" in the flash back, but then it cuts back to Coulson with the same font and sound saying "Present day" insinuating that that flashback takes place a year before that episode, which if Ultron takes place in April 2015, that puts that flashback in April 2014. And the flashback doesn't lead directly into the first episode, Coulson is wearing a different outfit. Plus, what is listed above.

Actually, Coulson is wearing exact same outfit and tie in both scenes, he just has his jacket off and sleeves rolled up in 2x01 scene he's first seen in. Look closer. Koenig is wearing a different tie, though. It's not necessarily the exact same day, but occurs soon before due to, again, mentions of the new recruits and the fact they're still portrayed as new recruits in 2x01.

Nah, dawg.

See? We can have fun.

I mean, I'm sure the US government was dealing with the biggest security breach in US history, and again, no one is saying that he hadn't been chasing him, just that Coulson got away during the winter at some point. You added the only.

"Chasing us all winter" is clear. Once again you're leaning on illogical suppositions. Yes, I too am sure the US government was dealing with that security breach. Part of dealing with that problem was tracking down and taking the former SHIELD members out of commission. Nowhere is it said they "got away during Winter", you're merely inserting your own suppositions to support your theory. The dialogue makes it clear Talbot had chased them all winter, and still was as evidenced by him doing just that in the early parts of AoS Season 2.

It doesn't though. It happens a year before the events of Ultron.

I know that. That's exactly how it's listed on the timeline. You saw that, right? It seems like you didn't based on this statement.

You're ignoring the "one year ago" "present day" pairing, clearly intended to play off of each other.

Except I'm not ignoring those at all. The timeline clearly shows that.

Because why have,both of that is not,the intention, we would know,it was the present day without them telling us. Meant to indicate where the flashback takes place. Definately not directly before 02x01. Also, New could anything. Several weeks, months, they're all newer than his old team.

I'm even willing to agree it could be a few weeks or months. They're still presented as green and new to the team in 2x01. And again, Coulson's outfit is exactly the same. Could be a coincidence, could be intentional. But beyond that, the new recruits indicate its recent.

Can I count it now that I have given photographic evidence?

You can. I don't. Just like I don't count the 2010 date in IM2, cuz we know it's been retconned.

You added the only. I have addressed this above though.

I added the only to specifically point out the dialogue reflects they've ONLY been chased by Talbot all winter. Not "all year", not "past 6 months". It's very specific and clear, but you don't want to accept it since it disputes your theory. Again, you're doing exactly what you faulted me for regarding AoS Season 1.

Right, but we're not told when they were hired, or how long they have been there, all we have is a flashback placed in 2014.

That flashback clearly indicates they were recently hired, just as 2x01 implies.

I've argued this one a lot.

I know. Still waiting on you to ask the show runners on those Twitter links I gave you. Get the answer straight from the horses' mouths, so to speak.

5. 4 dates to one line. Illogical. Sorry. But it is.

This is more of that hyperbole I'm talking about. Far more than one line. AoS has multiple instances of it disputing that.

Dormammu, I've come to bargain!

Bargain and dictate are not the same thing.

There is a picture now.

Dormammu! Just kidding. We can't though. Killian doesn't even know how long ago it was haha





I see no problems here at all.

AoS Season 2, the WS date, the intended chronology. Seriously, ask the AoS show runners.

I understand that, but if your stone rule is that films have the final say in everything, why would you change it for a piece of canon further down the ladder. It just seems like it's a rule you created and just break when it's convenient. That isn't a shot at you, it just contradicts a rule you set up. The IM2 would stand despite FBW. I'm just curious about when your rules can be broken.

Let me say exact same thing again and see if you understand this time:

Films will override in case of dispute, but the retcon is obvious and accepted, so there is no dispute. Otherwise it requires ignoring a canon comic prequel which isn't logical. Further down the line or not the comic intentionally retconned those events to occur at same time, and thus either it overrides that prop date in IM2 or we ignore that part of canon.

Which seems more logical to you? You're literally arguing just to argue at this point man.

It most certainly does not.





I mean, that date in Avengers is on a SHIELD computer, and we have decided that that is incorrect.

Because the weather clearly shows it's not December. Because the conflicting date of May better aligns with that portrayed weather and temperature.

So, why wouldn't that date be? Also, what if they aren't dates at all? Hear me out, what if they are file names. It makes sense that it would be present during the video, it makes sense with where it is placed on the Loki computer on the tab, and it makes sense that I saw numbers in that same format as SHIELD went through its files to find Banner in Incredible Hulk. The proof is there, just a thought.

It's certainly possible, but again ignores fact interrogation videos tend to be dated specifically for record keeping and court/legal proceedings. It's clear that date was intended, just as the IM3 newspaper dates were intended. Except the WS date hasn't been later overridden or disputed by dialogue within the film itself and events occurring in other entires, as IM3 has.

Avengers screenshot shows that SHIELD "dates" are innaccurate

Not necessarily. Who is to say that file wasn't created or last updated on Feb 12, 2012? After all, it kind of makes sense that they'd have a file on Loki after events of first Thor. It wouldn't make sense if it was a Dec date, but it's possible they're using the more commonly used day/month/year date approach most of world uses seeing as SHIELD is an international agency. And maybe reason the video feed in WS used the month/day/year is due to software that was coded for use in US dating system specifically due to use in US court system.

Or file name, I don't think it's that crazy, explains the innaccuracy. Just trying to think outside the box here.

Sure. But it was a live video feed I believe.

What I'm saying is, if you are ONLY using the statement, ONLY THE STATEMENT, no other information to answer the question how long was,it since Killian saw Tony. You would say 12 or 13. Because that is the only information you have. You can't say 12, you can't say 13. Because you don't know. Because the information in the statement itself is not specific. Which is what I am argueing. Dates are specific, no guessing room, just a hard, set date. Also, PTSD isn't an immeadiatelt set on anxiety disorder.

Yes, dates are specific, but have already been proven not to be binding and have already been retconned in IM2's case. It's not outside realm of possibility same is true with Iron Man 3, especially since the dialogue supports that. And again, we know the 12 doesn't work. Why would you intentionally limit the information sources? Merely because it disputes your approach? We aren't ONLY using the statement. And even IF WE WERE, we'd know it wouldn't work as 12 years, since 12 years after early 2000 is early 2012. Before Avengers occurs. So, we know the 12 guesstimation wasn't accurate, but the 13 very well can be.

But, you did try and use it as proof for your points, which is not valid. You actually did that.

Nope. I never claimed the interview had any bearing on the placement. I just said it aligned with my placement, but never used outside sources like that. Only use what's shown in the films themselves. Sometimes there are discrepancies. We just have to accept that.

I'm just choosing to go with the more concrete, apparent data.

But, it's not more concrete. It requires reordering chronology of films that clearly wasn't intended. It requires ignoring or making up illogical suppositions to explain dialogue in AoS Season 2.

You are going off of one line.

More of that hyperbole. Nope, also going off the multiple lines in AoS, date in WS, intended chronological order.

We don't have to,argue this anymore. Clearly you are not willing to take the more logical approach. Agree to disagree.

More logical approach in your mind.

Again, as the AoS show runners what intention was. I notice you chose not to address that, so I'll do it for you.

@DE23111

Just face it man. We don't agree with you. Please accept that. The more you press your point the more unreasonable you look. Seriously I don't think D (and the larger forum participants are going to come your way.) you keep using very small very hard to notice props that were likely never meant to be noticed as the basis of your argue nets while ignoring obvious dialague and large banners. Seriously give it a rest. Let's agree to disagree and move on. Keep your head cannon as you like but let's stop forcing it on others who have heard your arguments and rejected it. Move on.

This. Well said.




Anyway, I'm asking the AoS show runners directly. Will post when and if they respond.

 

[DE23111]

And again, you continually accuse me of ignoring or not acknowledging your examples when I have acknowledged and disputed each one I disagree with. Merely not agreeing with you doesn't equate to ignoring or not acknowledging them. This is the hyperbole I'm talking about. It does nothing to serve the debate and ultimately causes loss of credibility overall.

I don't think you're ignoring anything. I just think you repeatiately miss the points that I am trying to make. You can disagree all you want, that's what makes discussions discussions.

Given how you probably weren't specific and mention from first day of 2000 to last week of 2013, that doesn't hold much weight. You certainly keep ignoring that reality here in the thread.

Not ignoring anything cheif, just disagreeing.

I'm not ignoring anything, you're just unessisarily rounding based on assumptions you have created. I'm using ONLY what he has said, not assumptions of how people speak, not assumptions about whether people decide to round or not. Just the cold hard dialog, which on it's own, supports my stance.

You just refuse to acknowledge that because it works against your theory. I get it. No big deal.

Ugh. There's that condeseding attitude again.

I get what you were trying to say, but it's no less a false analogy. You should be using an example of a past event and using memory to pin it down. Most people don't tend to be too specific in such instances when it's a past event. They'll refer to it usually as X amount of years ago, as was done in IM3 (even less specific given the 12-13 line). But again, they didn't say 14, specifically because 14 years hadn't passed, and again, it would be common sense to round up by a mere week to account for 14 years.

Most people don't tend to be too specific? Specific like rounding up a week for no reason? And right, 14 years hadn't passed, 13 have 2000-2013. You're rounding under assumption that that is what he did. I am taking his statement at his simplest form. No assumptions, just his phrase.

But you're rounding down to an extreme degree.

No one is rounding down, 13 years ago, 13 years have passed, 2013 doesn't count, I'm not rounding down, I'm just not falsly assuming that I have to round up.

Not really. You're ignoring the relevant 51 weeks that account for just under an extra year passing beyond your claim. That doesn't lean on logic, but pushing your theory in face of that logic.

I'm not though. You're rounding is unnecessary and completely unsupported by evidence. I am taking what he said at it's base meaning and using it. You deal in assumptions, I do not.

It really isn't. Again, most round to nearest whole number. My niece was born in late August, 2013. Thus, she is exactly 3 years and 3 months old give or take a few days. Now, in case of an age I'd utilize your approach and say she is 3 years old, because she is. But I'd say she was born 3 years and 3 months ago. And in July of next year, you'd say she's three, but almost four, which would be accurate.

Every time some one asks how old she is, for the rest of her life you're going to answer with the year and the month? And that logic would stick if he said 12, almost 13 years. But he didn't he said 12-13 years ago, 13 years had passed.

I severely broke my shoulders and shoulder blade when I was 17, in early 1999 (my birthday is also in late August). I am now 35. I would refer to that event as happening happening close to 18 years ago since it is close to 18 years ago. I wouldn't ignore the extra almost year and round down only to account for the completed years. Most especially if it requires rounding DOWN by 51 weeks instead of rounding up by one week. Again, in my experience, most people utilize the same approach to rounding up.

But he didn't say CLOSE to 13 years like you have. He said 12-13 years ago. No assumptions here

Except the 12-13 actually does, as said. We know it can't be 12, so it must be 13. Just using Holmesian deductive logic there. And 13 years after late 1999/first day of 2000 is late 2012/early 2013... exactly as the timeline reflects. We're really beating a dead horse.

Hey man, I've said we can agree to disagree on this, and you have just kept going...

I enjoy sarcasm.

One of life's great joys.

Thought you just watched them? I'm quite sure there was no such line, but you'd know better than me since its fresher in your mind than mine.

I just watched season one, started season 2, I feel like the line happened in a later season hence the lack of memory of it. We'll see as I go through.

Why do you keep claiming that? The timeline reflects that's exactly how I see it. Granted release order doesn't necessarily always hold true (it didn't in Phase 1), but from Avengers onward that has been case ever since.

But again, Dr. Strange started in the past, early 2016 right? And then ended in the future, late 2017 right? It's not unheard of. Plus, isn't Guardian 2 still going to in 2014? These movies are all over the place.

I don't remember the specific line, but why would the mention of AIM, which is directly tied to the Extremis formula that plays a large and recurring role throughout AoS Season 1, seem random?

Because it isn't mentioned in the Extremis episode at all. And if there was a place to mention it, it would be there. But instead, if the wall evidence is to be believed and this is taking place in early 2014, which is when the episode was released (not saying to go off of release date, but the in canon evidence backs it up), and Iron man 3 is dated to end at the end of 2013, they just happen to mention it in the episode that is placed, date wise, right after its. Plus, it isn't AIM that is mention, it is the RECENT EVENTS at AIM. Pretty huge coincidence.

Like I said, I linked to the AoS show runners Twitter accounts. If you won't ask them for clarification I will, so we can put this to bed.

I'll ask them. Need to dig out the old Twitter password.

Again, the Extremis wasn't the same as what was in Iron Man 3. It was clearly said to have been altered with gamma radiation, super soldier serum, etc. I'm not a chemist and it wouldn't help anyway if I was given we're talking about an imaginary substance with no actual chemical structure to be analyzed... but common sense would say an altered formula would require an altered formula to cure. Thus, the Extremis cure in IM3 wouldn't work for the Centipede formula that included Extremis in the AoS pilot.

Yeah, but you keep saying cure, they don't cure it, the Extremis is the only unstable part, and they seem to have a really difficult time neutralizing it, especially if SHIELD had files on it after the events of Iron Man 3. But, there is no data, they seem to be completely flying in the dark, which is odd considering this stuff almost contributed to a dead president. SHIELD should have some info on it. Plus, the way Coulson announced what it was was weird.

"Extremis, it's new, completely unstable."

Why does he feel the need to tell everyone, if it's been all over the news? Maybe they cut another line

Coulson: Extremis, it's new, completely unstable

Everyone else: Yeah dude, we know, it was, like, all over the news, SHIELD brought it in a researched it, there's a ton of files on our computers. Extremis, yeah.

Also, them not knowing means nothing. The Extremis soldiers in IM3 and attempt to kill president wouldn't mean the formula or specifics about its chemical structure or effects would be public knowledge. As far as the public knew they're just powered individuals. At that point in the MCU timeline there's been plenty of such instances.

Yeah, but SHIELD SHOULD have that information. I'm saying it's weird that Coulson is the only one who has a clue what it is.

Again, ask the show runners. I linked you their Twitter accounts. Ask them so we can put this to rest. If not, I will.

I will.

Thought you said 24 years? Now it's 23? You keep changing these details...

1.) 1991
2.) 1992
3.) 1993
4.) 1994
5.) 1995
6.) 1996
7.) 1997
8.) 1998
9.) 1999
10.) 2000
11.) 2001
12.) 2002
13.) 2003
14.) 2004
15.) 2005
16.) 2006
17.) 2007
18.) 2008
19.) 2009
20.) 2010
21.) 2011
22.) 2012
23.) 2013 <----- Which is exactly where it's placed on my timeline. Not 2014 as you posit.

Oh man, this is going to spark an argument I'm kind of over. 23 years have passed, counting 2013 because it is in fact the 23rd year that passed. Putting it in 2014. 23 YEARS AGO. Also, Lumley went off the grid 23 years after Avery was killed. Coulson starts his story about the destruction of the village with 24 years ago. Two different lines, I haven't changed anything. You're ending it on 2013, which would mean that 22 years have passed, and that is not the line.

Again, look above. Your math seems to be off, man.

Incorrect

I'm sorry you're taking the debate personally. I hold no ill will towards you.

Who told you that? I'm having a blast, not a lot of people have enough knowledge on the subject to debate any of this.

Right. And after 6 months or so training between Seasons 1 and 2 with one of the deadliest and major brutal human combatants in the MCU (May), you think she wouldn't have managed that in that time?

She does though, first episode she is pretty solid combat wise. Especially since she,had no experience. She holds her own pretty well.

Possibly. Also, let's not forget she WAS training, and putting her front and center in actual ops is a part of that, so it makes perfect sense, especially after around half a year of intense combat training under May and ops procedures, etc.

If it was a year, which the placement of the flashback contradicts.

But... they're fugitives. Talbot isn't calling and checking in, nor is there ANY evidence to support that supposition. The evidence clearly shows the US government set Talbot after Coulson's team as a result of events in Winter Soldier and fall of SHIELD. Again, it makes not a whit of sense to add at least 9 extra months to push Season 2 into starting 2015 (which then does exactly the same thing you complained about with season 1 and condensing it to a couple month period).

The phone call thing wasn't literal. I'm saying, he could have been persuing them multiple times, and the Coulson just happened to get away around winter. There's no way to say. But the flashback puts us in April of 2014. So, even then, why wouldn't Talbot acknowledge all the time after winter if we're in April, and the first episode potentially happens later?

Actually, Coulson is wearing exact same outfit and tie in both scenes, he just has his jacket off and sleeves rolled up in 2x01 scene he's first seen in. Look closer. Koenig is wearing a different tie, though. It's not necessarily the exact same day, but occurs soon before due to, again, mentions of the new recruits and the fact they're still portrayed as new recruits in 2x01.

I assure you they are different ties, I looked at that multiple times. Plus, New is relative.

"Chasing us all winter" is clear. Once again you're leaning on illogical suppositions. Yes, I too am sure the US government was dealing with that security breach. Part of dealing with that problem was tracking down and taking the former SHIELD members out of commission. Nowhere is it said they "got away during Winter", you're merely inserting your own suppositions to support your theory. The dialogue makes it clear Talbot had chased them all winter, and still was as evidenced by him doing just that in the early parts of AoS Season 2.

Yeah, but you're doing the same by insinuating it was ONLY winter. Neither of us can argue this though, given that it isn't shown.

I know that. That's exactly how it's listed on the timeline. You saw that, right? It seems like you didn't based on this statement.

I just have yet to hear any evidence that the flash back is right before the first episode. They mention that Simmons has just started with Hydra, but when we pick up, she seems to have quite the routine, insinuating that she had been there for awhile. If what you're saying is correct, she had been there for a couple of days. Which isn't realistic given how she is acting.

I'm even willing to agree it could be a few weeks or months. They're still presented as green and new to the team in 2x01. And again, Coulson's outfit is exactly the same. Could be a coincidence, could be intentional. But beyond that, the new recruits indicate its recent.

Few months, maybe, which would work with this flashback happening in early 2014 right after season 1 and Fury gives him the cube. Making it that season 1 ends in 2014. But, if it was a few months gap, which you said you would be willing to say, Talbot would have been chasing them longer than all winter..

You can. I don't. Just like I don't count the 2010 date in IM2, cuz we know it's been retconned.

No one retconned it. No piece of canon states that DW didn't happen on this date. C'mon man. Just your assumption on SHIELDS placement does that, and the Simmons we've been together a few months line disproves that. Nothing disproves Thor's date.

I added the only to specifically point out the dialogue reflects they've ONLY been chased by Talbot all winter. Not "all year", not "past 6 months". It's very specific and clear, but you don't want to accept it since it disputes your theory. Again, you're doing exactly what you faulted me for regarding AoS Season 1.

He says, you avoided me all winter, again, we don't know what happened, we're both assuming.

That flashback clearly indicates they were recently hired, just as 2x01 implies.

All they say about them is that they are drinking everyone's beer. No such indication is made.

I know. Still waiting on you to ask the show runners on those Twitter links I gave you. Get the answer straight from the horses' mouths, so to speak.

Why are you still waiting? This isn't an actual verbal conversation, I have to type all this out then send it to you. You're asking for info you,just asked me for. Easy.

This is more of that hyperbole I'm talking about. Far more than one line. AoS has multiple instances of it disputing that.

Such as...also, you have blatantly ignored that Simmons line multiple times. Just explain that.

AoS Season 2, the WS date, the intended chronology. Seriously, ask the AoS show runners.

The possibly innaccurate WS date, seeing as SHIELD dates are no longer reliable, way to go Avengers. But, I'm not sure what in AOS season 2 contradicts me here.

Let me say exact same thing again and see if you understand this time:

Films will override in case of dispute, but the retcon is obvious and accepted, so there is no dispute. Otherwise it requires ignoring a canon comic prequel which isn't logical. Further down the line or not the comic intentionally retconned those events to occur at same time, and thus either it overrides that prop date in IM2 or we ignore that part of canon.

I understand that. So, why wouldn't we ignore the WS date if we know that the events of SHIELD take place over the course of several months.

Because the weather clearly shows it's not December. Because the conflicting date of May better aligns with that portrayed weather and temperature.

Right.

It's certainly possible, but again ignores fact interrogation videos tend to be dated specifically for record keeping and court/legal proceedings. It's clear that date was intended, just as the IM3 newspaper dates were intended. Except the WS date hasn't been later overridden or disputed by dialogue within the film itself and events occurring in other entires, as IM3 has.

It has though. By Dark Worlds date and SHIELDS dialog

Not necessarily. Who is to say that file wasn't created or last updated on Feb 12, 2012? After all, it kind of makes sense that they'd have a file on Loki after events of first Thor. It wouldn't make sense if it was a Dec date, but it's possible they're using the more commonly used day/month/year date approach most of world uses seeing as SHIELD is an international agency. And maybe reason the video feed in WS used the month/day/year is due to software that was coded for use in US dating system specifically due to use in US court system.

That is DE23111 levels of assumption, but he's french, they're not going to try him in a US court, so that wouldn't make sense. So, if we're going off of what you said about Loki's file being not the US saying system, but the other, that would mean that WS date would be the same way, placing it in what March of 2013? So either that, or the Avengers date has discredited the WS date

Sure. But it was a live video feed I believe.

It is, but that doesn't mean the feed isn't still being archived, just because it's currently happening doesn't mean it wouldn't have a file destination.

Yes, dates are specific, but have already been proven not to be binding and have already been retconned in IM2's case. It's not outside realm of possibility same is true with Iron Man 3, especially since the dialogue supports that. And again, we know the 12 doesn't work. Why would you intentionally limit the information sources? Merely because it disputes your approach? We aren't ONLY using the statement. And even IF WE WERE, we'd know it wouldn't work as 12 years, since 12 years after early 2000 is early 2012. Before Avengers occurs. So, we know the 12 guesstimation wasn't accurate, but the 13 very well can be.

Seriously though. We're not going to see eye to eye on this. I'm just trying to comment on how unspecific the line is. But, you used Avengers to place it, meaning you didn't only use the line. Meaning you've missed my point completely.

But, it's not more concrete. It requires reordering chronology of films that clearly wasn't intended. It requires ignoring or making up illogical suppositions to explain dialogue in AoS Season 2.

If it wasn't intended. Why are the dates there. You can scream mistake all day, but the fact is it went through post, no one said anything, it,was printed. You're approach ignores AOS lines and prop dates, hard dates in IM3 and DW. With you also making up equally illogical suppositions to push my arguments aside.

Again, as the AoS show runners what intention was. I notice you chose not to address that, so I'll do it for you.

What is happening? You realise I respond to all this at once, right? You've given up on information you asked me for earlier in this same post.

This. Well said.

Okay, I'm not going to speak ill of this gentleman, but, you don't have to read this man. This is two people bouncing ideas and data off of each other to more understand something we all love. I'm not going to be criticised for putting forth an effort to look a little harder for information that helps the overall effort. Especially by some one who is not involved in the conversation and had contributed nothing to it. You don't like it, don't read it, that's it. If the date wasn't meant to be seen, why is it there? Why isn't it just a really random date. Couldn't have been a date they just wrote down during production because they were filming in 2012. And it's not the release date of the movie, so why would it be there. I work hard on this like everyone else here, and I don't think that just because you have to look a little harder for it, that eliminates the fact that it is there. Also, I'm getting all the flack for shooting these responses back, but Irish here is doing the same thing. I only respond to his responses. Irish, I'll say this right now, and I will stand by it, if you don't respond to this post, you will not see another post from me. But, I'm being criticised for responding to things that you are also responding to, and I don't think that's fair.

Anyway, I'm asking the AoS show runners directly. Will post when and if they respond.

Patience man.

 

[DIrishB]

Not responding anymore, not sure why you want to keep hammering same things into ground that we've gone back and forth on a dozen times already. It's going nowhere and is just a waste of time at this point. I'll see if we get a response back from Whedon and Tanchaereon. They may not answer, we'll see.

 

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

Agreed.

 

[DIrishB]

Don't forget Coulson referred to Extremis as "new" in AoS Pilot. But we know it's not new, actually. It's been around since at least 1999 in its unstable form. The stable form is relatively new, though. But again, it stands to reason after events of IM3 the formula and its effects were revealed to high ranking intelligence officials like Coulson (the rest of the team hadn't heard about it).

While we wait and see if the AoS show runners respond, let's try a simple Internet search to find answer, shall we?

http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline

http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:10549?useskin=oasis

http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D.

Its first season is set after the events of The Avengers and Iron Man 3 and concurrently with the events depicted in Thor: The Dark World and Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

https://m.reddit.com/r/marvelstudio...re_do_the_movies_fit_in_between_the_episodes/

https://www.quora.com/What-happened-between-Iron-Man-3-and-Avengers-Age-of-Ultron

https://www.quora.com/In-what-order-should-I-watch-the-Marvel-Cinematic-Universe

https://www.cnet.com/how-to/marvel-cinematic-universe-timeline-avengers/

https://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150429232123AA4QO2Y

http://overmental.com/content/the-d...order-for-the-marvel-cinematic-universe-16866

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/aven...viewing-order-of-the-marvel-cinematic-a120086


Literally every chronological order places Iron Man 3 before Agents of SHIELD even begins. Every single one.

I actually tried to find one that had Iron Man 3 placed during AoS Season 1. Doesn't seem to exist.

Again, the order has always been pretty clear, man. Think what you like but it seems to fly in face of intended order, and certainly messes up the intention of the AoS pilot and first season which lean on the Centipede plot which in turn leans on the Extremis, super soldier serum, gamma radiation, etc introduced as the origins of the various Avengers members powers.

And again, let's leave it at that. You have your opinion, but it conflicts with intended chronology. IM3 simply doesn't, nor was ever meant to occur during AoS Season 1.

 

[DE23111]

Don't forget Coulson referred to Extremis as "new" in AoS Pilot. But we know it's not new, actually. It's been around since at least 1999 in its unstable form. The stable form is relatively new, though. But again, it stands to reason after events of IM3 the formula and its effects were revealed to high ranking intelligence officials like Coulson (the rest of the team hadn't heard about it).

While we wait and see if the AoS show runners respond, let's try a simple Internet search to find answer, shall we?

http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline

http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:10549?useskin=oasis

http://marvelcinematicuniverse.wikia.com/wiki/Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D.



https://m.reddit.com/r/marvelstudio...re_do_the_movies_fit_in_between_the_episodes/

https://www.quora.com/What-happened-between-Iron-Man-3-and-Avengers-Age-of-Ultron

https://www.quora.com/In-what-order-should-I-watch-the-Marvel-Cinematic-Universe

https://www.cnet.com/how-to/marvel-cinematic-universe-timeline-avengers/

https://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20150429232123AA4QO2Y

http://overmental.com/content/the-d...order-for-the-marvel-cinematic-universe-16866

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/aven...viewing-order-of-the-marvel-cinematic-a120086


Literally every chronological order places Iron Man 3 before Agents of SHIELD even begins. Every single one.

I actually tried to find one that had Iron Man 3 placed during AoS Season 1. Doesn't seem to exist.

Again, the order has always been pretty clear, man. Think what you like but it seems to fly in face of intended order, and certainly messes up the intention of the AoS pilot and first season which lean on the Centipede plot which in turn leans on the Extremis, super soldier serum, gamma radiation, etc introduced as the origins of the various Avengers members powers.

And again, let's leave it at that. You have your opinion, but it conflicts with intended chronology. IM3 simply doesn't, nor was ever meant to occur during AoS Season 1.

I disagree. But, it's up to you whether or not I respond. I offered to end if you would, but you responded despite you saying you would not. I don't know why, whether or not it was to get the last word, I don't know. But, I intend to keep my word and not respond to your arguments unless requested. Thank you.

 

[DIrishB]

Great. Here's to hoping the AoS show runners respond. If they confirm AoS's Pilot is set AFTER Iron Man 3, are you going to disagree with them too? Just wondering.

I disagree. But, it's up to you whether or not I respond. I offered to end if you would, but you responded despite you saying you would not. I don't know why, whether or not it was to get the last word, I don't know. But, I intend to keep my word and not respond to your arguments unless requested. Thank you.

Irony.

 

[DE23111]

Great. Here's to hoping the AoS show runners respond. If they confirm AoS's Pilot is set AFTER Iron Man 3, are you going to disagree with them too? Just wondering.



Irony.

Guess it was. Sorry to take that from you. Respond again I'll leave it be. Seems important to you.

 

[DIrishB]

Dude, drop the ego. Seriously. I asked you a question and you conveniently ignored it in favor of personal attack.

And I told you I was done debating the same points, and I am. The question, while related to that, is a valid one.

If the AoS show runners confirm IM3 does indeed occur before AoS's Pilot episode, will you ignore them as well? It's a fair question.

It even perfectly sets you up to get that last word. I just am interested in your mindset there. Will you even ignore the ones who literally oversee the show and their intentions in favor of your own version?

I don't understand why you've taken this entire thing so personally. Simply put, if you can't stay civil, if you have to continue to resort to the underhanded insults and put downs, go elsewhere. That's not what this thread is for, and you're certainly bordering on crossing the line in terms of forum rules.

I have not once insulted you, not once put you down. I may have called your ideas illogical, as you did mine, but that's ok. That's part of any debate, most of time. You, unfortunately, are getting frustrated because I disagree with you, and are choosing to resort to personal attacks, something you've done several times now. Why? It's not that important. Relax.

 

[DE23111]

Dude, drop the ego. Seriously. I asked you a question and you conveniently ignored it in favor of personal attack.

And I told you I was done debating the same points, and I am. The question, while related to that, is a valid one.

If the AoS show runners confirm IM3 does indeed occur before AoS's Pilot episode, will you ignore them as well? It's a fair question.

It even perfectly sets you up to get that last word. I just am interested in your mindset there. Will you even ignore the ones who literally oversee the show and their intentions in favor of your own version?

Go ahead and continue insults, whatever. Just wanted to know the answer.

I will not argue. It will not change my mind on the Thor date, SEEDS being in 2014 or my stance on WS date. But, I will go with whatever the show runners say.

I'm not taking this personally, I'm giving back to you what you dish out. I'm not saying I haven't been a bit of a jerk, I have been, I'm puzzled by the notion that you don't think you have also. You want to play the victim game, sure, do it. But, we've both been jerks here. Two very large egos at work here.