Of course you do.
Season two can deal with all that. What I loved so much about the one-shot was was that it was dealing with the rise of women's role in American society. Peggy wasn't supposed to go on that mission and was degraded for being a woman. She proved them wrong. I, and a lot of other people, really liked that and want to see more of it.
I liked it too, but how many times can you do the same story and theme before it gets stale? And by doing the same formula the Agent Carter One Shot had, whereby she secretly takes on missions behind her supervisor's back, it makes the events of the One Shot far less noteworthy. It also makes just about everyone at the SSR look like complete idiots since these missions are just magically being completed.
I think there's far more material to mine in showing her not only as one of the leading and founding SHIELD agents, but building the organization from the ground up, embarking on missions, etc, as opposed to more of the exact same thing we saw in the One Shot.
Are we sure Iron Man 1 takes place in 2008 and not 2010? It doesn't make much sense for the next three MCU installments to occur 3 years later. That leaves a lot of dead space.
IM1 definitely occurs in 2008. There is an onscreen date shown on Tony's computer screen with a May ?, 2008 date (can't remember the specific day off the top of my head).
The events of the Iron Man 2 - Public Identity and IM2 - Agents of SHIELD comics also occur during that time.
I just wrote a long post defending IM1's placement in 2008, but you know what? I'm actually willing to entertain this possibility. Remember when we moved TIH and IM2 up from 2008 and 2010, respectively, to 2011 in order to overlap with Thor as shown in Fury's Big Week? We assumed that the "6 Months Later" shown at the beginning of IM2 was retconned. But what if we had that wrong? What if we should have just moved IM1 up with TIH and IM2 to take place in late 2010?
I've said this multiple times: the way the timeline views the "Six Months Later" date in IM2 is that of being six months after the time Vanko spends building his armor, which he begins immediately after the ending of IM1. It can safely be assumed that since he doesn't have the wealth, access to materials and high tech tools, nor being quite as intelligent as Tony is, that it took him a good year or two to get his armor up and running. The six month later tag would then pick up 6 months after he got it working, placing the Stark Expo in May, 2011, and Vanko spending May, 2008 to December, 2010 getting his armor built.
DIB said he based the placement of IM1 on the fact that
"The Iron Man 1 dates are confirmed in the movie itself.". I can't recall from my last re-watch what those dates were, though.
Watch it again. Its there, and its pretty noticeable. Its how I derived the specific month and days/dates instead of just using the year. Its definitely there, and other than the Avengers (which features a date of May, 2012 on a banner in the museum scene but is extremely hard to see or notice--the only reason the date was able to be determined was due to behind the scenes photos which more clearly showed it). Really none of the other films feature dates, IM1 is essentially the only one, and which really all dates are derived from based on dialogue mentions or director/Feige interviews of how long ago something happened.
If anything, it would make more sense to move the events of IM2, IH, and Thor back to 2009, along with Avengers to 2010, and so on. However, there is a running theme of the films occurring more or less around their time of release (IM2 and IH being the exceptions due to the retconning done by Fury's Big Week), hence the placements being as they are.
Guardians of the Galaxy has also firmly placed itself in 2014, with the "1988" opening scene and the "26 years later" tag firmly placing it in 2014. Cap - TWS also firmly occurs in 2014 due to mentions of it happening two years after the events of Avengers.
No need to complicate it further, guys. This is something I've given a lot of thought and consideration to over the years. If you can find hard evidence on why things should be moved, I'm all for it, but remember I'm not placing things randomly. Almost every placement is placed as such for a reason, whether based on evidence in the films themselves (like IM1), comics (hence placing IM2, Thor, and IH in 2011 and overlapping them), dialogue from the films (firmly setting Avengers a year after Thor), information provided by the filmmakers and behind the scenes material (determining Tony Stark's birthday in terms of placing the scene in IM2), etc.
I'm only going by memory since I don't have the DVD in front of me to check, but the date I believe is May 4, 2008, shown on a computer or television screen (think its a computer screen) during the "Home" chapter (ch. 7) of Iron Man. I can verify the exact time placement if necessary, but I assure you, its there, and its pretty obvious. Not sure how people are not seeing it.
