Marvel Cinematic Universe - Timeline

[DIrishB]

I have just got back from watching the midnight release of Age of Ultron in the UK. Below are spoilers, not for the film details but for the timeline. So if you don't want to know then ignore

Spoiler

The film happens in one time frame, there is nothing to split it up. The closest to a flashback isn't quite what it seems and if taken out would make no sense anyway given its context. Unless an episode of AoS happens during the film, it can stay where it is. No sign of dates that I caught so will just go as the most recent thing on the timeline

Cool.

If you're able, I'd love as detailed a run down of the film as you're able to provide. What was the mid-credits scene?

 

[crafty100]

Cool.

If you're able, I'd love as detailed a run down of the film as you're able to provide. What was the mid-credits scene?

That would be too long, a lot happens with small complexities and it really hits the ground running.

Spoiler

The mid-credit scene is simply Thanos getting hold of the Infinite Gauntlet

 

[TalonCard]

I've gotta say, I've been following this timeline for a while and I really appreciate it. It's the most reliable one I've been able to find online. It's really annoying to find a promising timeline only to realize that, say, they're not including Agents of SHIELD or haven't updated it since 2013. Really excellent work all around, guys.

I promise you, there are no other time gaps. Also, remember, you're likely attempting to override the scripted intent (regarding the passage of time over the show--meaning I think it was always intended to take place over only about a month) with the reality of the shooting schedule: filming from July to December is inevitably going to show some signs of winter. I think they tried to minimize that as much as possible (we never see snow, despite it certainly snowing at the point in December in NY when they were finishing up filming), but the reality is short of digitally altering the breath you see when they breathe (due to the cold), or having the actors dress in out of season clothes (no jackets), you can't pull that off.

I would argue, though, that in this case the more-or-less consistent environment should probably override the one on-screen date we got in Daredevil. Much like the newspaper dates from Iron Man 3 that were recently discussed, I think the most likely explanation is that the on-screen date was just wrong in that case. I think you're absolutely right that the scripted intent was that the show only takes place over about a month, but I doubt the writers intended the early episodes to take place in August--that was probably just something the editors didn't catch. (There are lots of explanations for this--someone used an actual cell phone on set, a temp graphic made it into the final episode, no one actually thought that hard about the date on the graphic, etc.)

One of the earlier episodes has Owlsley complaining about the cold--I think if the writers had intended that scene to be set in August, he probably would have complained that it was unseasonably cold. I realize it was unusually cold that Fall/Winter, but everyone I've talked to says that it has yet to be that cold in late summer.

It's really a nitpick, though, especially since we're only talking about a couple of months difference here.

There is another question that I've been dying to ask since I re-watched the Marvel movies in preparation for AoU: Why is the first Iron Man movie locked in at 2008, with most of Iron Man 2 in 2011? Iron Man 2 definitely takes place the year after Iron Man. You make a really good argument for not interpreting the "six months" after the opening scene as happening strictly six months after the first movie because of the montage, but there's an exchange later in the film that indicates how much time has passed.

I don't have the movie with me, so I can't give you time codes, but it's in the restaurant in Monaco, right before the race begins. Fortunately, IMDB has the quote:

"Justin Hammer: [about Christine Everhart] She's actually doing a big spread on me for Vanity Fair. I thought I'd throw her a bone, you know. Right?

Pepper Potts: Right. Well, she did quite a spread on Tony last year.

Tony Stark: And she wrote a story as well. "

That's pretty clearly referring to Tony and Christine's tryst in the first movie. You can fudge that a little, depending on when her story on Tony was published, but I don't think it'll stand up to a two year fudge. Is it a reference to Howard Stark's death, or one of those pesky on-screen dates that keeps Iron Man in 2008? This being Tony Stark, I think innuendo trumps those, especially coming from Pepper.

BTW, are we ever going to find out who made that fake end credits scene? It was pretty clever in capturing the feel of the MCU, and presenting it as a fake theater bootleg (which would cover any flaws in the video) and in the timing of its release.

TC

 

[DIrishB]

I've gotta say, I've been following this timeline for a while and I really appreciate it. It's the most reliable one I've been able to find online. It's really annoying to find a promising timeline only to realize that, say, they're not including Agents of SHIELD or haven't updated it since 2013. Really excellent work all around, guys.

Thanks!

I would argue, though, that in this case the more-or-less consistent environment should probably override the one on-screen date we got in Daredevil. Much like the newspaper dates from Iron Man 3 that were recently discussed, I think the most likely explanation is that the on-screen date was just wrong in that case. I think you're absolutely right that the scripted intent was that the show only takes place over about a month, but I doubt the writers intended the early episodes to take place in August--that was probably just something the editors didn't catch. (There are lots of explanations for this--someone used an actual cell phone on set, a temp graphic made it into the final episode, no one actually thought that hard about the date on the graphic, etc.)

I find it hard to believe they'd intentionally program a date on the phone, have that date extremely visible and noticeable in the shot, and then just say, "whoops".

I doubt anyone "missed" it since it's pretty front and center, even more noticeable than many of the newspaper dates or other dates seen on various items throughout the series.

One of the earlier episodes has Owlsley complaining about the cold--I think if the writers had intended that scene to be set in August, he probably would have complained that it was unseasonably cold. I realize it was unusually cold that Fall/Winter, but everyone I've talked to says that it has yet to be that cold in late summer.

He also mentions it's "cold up here" if I recall correctly, due to the height. As someone who lives in Florida, I can assure you even down here, in late summer/early fall, that 10-20 stories up makes for a noticeable difference in temperature (especially a place like NYC that has a cold front blowing in off the ocean).

It's really a nitpick, though, especially since we're only talking about a couple of months difference here.

The problem with that is it requires ignoring an onscreen hard date in favor of no hard dates.

There is another question that I've been dying to ask since I re-watched the Marvel movies in preparation for AoU: Why is the first Iron Man movie locked in at 2008, with most of Iron Man 2 in 2011? Iron Man 2 definitely takes place the year after Iron Man. You make a really good argument for not interpreting the "six months" after the opening scene as happening strictly six months after the first movie because of the montage, but there's an exchange later in the film that indicates how much time has passed.

Because of the timeline surrounding Iron Man 2, Thor, and Incredible Hulk (and the Fury's Big Week tie in comic, which retconned them all to occur at the same time--more or less). Originally it was simple to place Iron Man 2 in early 2009 (before the retcon) and it worked fine.

But after the retcon, and factoring in the fact Iron Man 2, Thor, and Incredible Hulk occur a year before Avengers, that would require placing Avengers in 2010, and thus moving up all following movies afterward (putting Iron Man 3 in December, 2010, which doesn't work with the dialogue in that film placing New Years 1999 13 years before), Captain America - The Winter Soldier in 2011 (instead of the 2013 onscreen date seen in the film), etc.

I don't have the movie with me, so I can't give you time codes, but it's in the restaurant in Monaco, right before the race begins. Fortunately, IMDB has the quote:

"Justin Hammer: [about Christine Everhart] She's actually doing a big spread on me for Vanity Fair. I thought I'd throw her a bone, you know. Right?

Pepper Potts: Right. Well, she did quite a spread on Tony last year.

Tony Stark: And she wrote a story as well. "

That's pretty clearly referring to Tony and Christine's tryst in the first movie. You can fudge that a little, depending on when her story on Tony was published, but I don't think it'll stand up to a two year fudge. Is it a reference to Howard Stark's death, or one of those pesky on-screen dates that keeps Iron Man in 2008? This being Tony Stark, I think innuendo trumps those, especially coming from Pepper.

How do you know Tony didn't sleep with her a second time? Christine didn't seem like the most moral of people, so something tells me after Tony outing himself as Iron Man at the end of the first movie, the media, including Christine, would be interested in follow up pieces exploring his life as Iron Man. Granted it's just a made up explanation, but one that works and is necessary to lay out and explain things in the timeline like that.

BTW, are we ever going to find out who made that fake end credits scene? It was pretty clever in capturing the feel of the MCU, and presenting it as a fake theater bootleg (which would cover any flaws in the video) and in the timing of its release.

TC

I don't know, honestly.

 

[DIrishB]

That would be too long, a lot happens with small complexities and it really hits the ground running.

Spoiler

The mid-credit scene is simply Thanos getting hold of the Infinite Gauntlet

No need, now that it's released I've been able to read detailed summaries. Thanks!

 

[dsethlewis]

Because of the timeline surrounding Iron Man 2, Thor, and Incredible Hulk (and the Fury's Big Week tie in comic, which retconned them all to occur at the same time--more or less). Originally it was simple to place Iron Man 2 in early 2009 (before the retcon) and it worked fine.

But after the retcon, and factoring in the fact Iron Man 2, Thor, and Incredible Hulk occur a year before Avengers, that would require placing Avengers in 2010, and thus moving up all following movies afterward (putting Iron Man 3 in December, 2010, which doesn't work with the dialogue in that film placing New Years 1999 13 years before), Captain America - The Winter Soldier in 2011 (instead of the 2013 onscreen date seen in the film), etc.



How do you know Tony didn't sleep with her a second time? Christine didn't seem like the most moral of people, so something tells me after Tony outing himself as Iron Man at the end of the first movie, the media, including Christine, would be interested in follow up pieces exploring his life as Iron Man. Granted it's just a made up explanation, but one that works and is necessary to lay out and explain things in the timeline like that.

Also, we talked about this pretty in depth already.

And what's immoral about sleeping with Tony a second time? It seemed consensual. Or is a follow-up immoral? :?

 

[Captain Canuck]

And what's immoral about sleeping with Tony a second time? It seemed consensual.

I guess it depends on your standard of morality. As a Bible-believing Christian, mutual consent seems like a low moral bar to me. But I know we aren't going to agree on that.

The argument could be made that she's getting her interviews by sleeping with her interviewees, which (I think) most people would see as an immoral business practice, even if they don't see it as sexually immoral. But I really don't think it's fair to single her out as immoral in these movies (I'm not sure DIB was trying to single her out, though).

 

[TalonCard]

Sorry, I don't think I phrased my initial question correctly: I agree that 2011 is probably the best placement for IM2, Hulk, etc., I'm just wondering why Iron Man 1 needs to be in 2008 instead of 2010 when there are two indications in Iron Man 2 that only a year or so has passed since the first movie.

I did read most of the discussion at one point, but I don't recall the Everhart dialogue being addressed.

 

[DIrishB]

Also, we talked about this pretty in depth already.

And what's immoral about sleeping with Tony a second time? It seemed consensual. Or is a follow-up immoral? :?

I'm saying sleeping with Tony merely for the sake of getting the story is immoral. And the way she was presented in the films makes it seem that approach may be a regular thing for her. Especially after the way he treated her after their first encounter.

I guess it depends on your standard of morality. As a Bible-believing Christian, mutual consent seems like a low moral bar to me. But I know we aren't going to agree on that.

The argument could be made that she's getting her interviews by sleeping with her interviewees, which (I think) most people would see as an immoral business practice, even if they don't see it as sexually immoral. But I really don't think it's fair to single her out as immoral in these movies (I'm not sure DIB was trying to single her out, though).

No more so than necessary to prove my point. Tony was pretty immoral both before (especially before) and after his kidnapping by the Ten Rings. He was quite the womanizer up until the end of Iron Man 2 when he and Pepper got together.

Womanizing itself is immoral, because it ultimately requires a certain objectification of your various sexual partners.

But yes, sleeping with your interview subjects regularly enough for it to become a character trait, even when yes, the sex is consensual, is pretty textbook scumbag behavior, as is repeated one night stands (in Tony's case).

Of course, that's part of the fun of the Marvel characters, in that they're pretty much all flawed in some way.

 

[DIrishB]

Sorry, I don't think I phrased my initial question correctly: I agree that 2011 is probably the best placement for IM2, Hulk, etc., I'm just wondering why Iron Man 1 needs to be in 2008 instead of 2010 when there are two indications in Iron Man 2 that only a year or so has passed since the first movie.

I did read most of the discussion at one point, but I don't recall the Everhart dialogue being addressed.

Mainly because there's a few blatant onscreen dates for Iron Man being set in 2008.

Putting it in 2010 (as you're suggesting) requires blatantly ignoring those dates.

I try not to ignore stuff like that if there's a way to make it work (hence the few explanations I use to explain otherwise unexplainable gaps in time like that).

 

[dsethlewis]

Sorry, I don't think I phrased my initial question correctly: I agree that 2011 is probably the best placement for IM2, Hulk, etc., I'm just wondering why Iron Man 1 needs to be in 2008 instead of 2010 when there are two indications in Iron Man 2 that only a year or so has passed since the first movie.

I did read most of the discussion at one point, but I don't recall the Everhart dialogue being addressed.

Clearly we're trying to decide on IM placement based on a bunch of problematic evidence. There is a prop date on-screen in IM placing it in 2008, but we've since seen internal inconsistencies between prop dates, casting doubt on them in general. There's the "Six Months Later" date on-screen in IM2, but that doesn't make it clear whether everything in IM2 is six months later, or just the scene where Vanko is introduced. We also have the Everhart discussion from IM3, but we don't know how many times she slept with Stark or how many articles she wrote about him.

The only argument consistent with all this evidence, after some wrangling, is that IM took place in 2008. Any other time retcons the IM prop date.

On the other hand, placing IM later requires less wrangling. If we want to minimize wrangling with strong evidence (e.g. from the script) and don't mind ignoring weak evidence (e.g. from props), then it makes more sense to put IM later.

Ultimately, this is a philosophical discussion about what we do when we have some information but not quite enough.

 

[Captain Canuck]

Womanizing itself is immoral, because it ultimately requires a certain objectification of your various sexual partners.

But yes, sleeping with your interview subjects regularly enough for it to become a character trait, even when yes, the sex is consensual, is pretty textbook scumbag behavior, as is repeated one night stands (in Tony's case).

I know this is taking this off-topic, but people's perception of morality fascinates me. I agree that womanizing objectifies women and is immoral. Do you see it as more immoral than occasional casual hook-ups? What about ****? (EDIT: huh, i didn't know that would get censored - p***ography.) What about having sex with someone you know and care about but haven't committed yourself to? Where does sexual activity become immoral and why? I'm really not asking to be judgemental, I just really like these conversations.

 

[DIrishB]

I know this is taking this off-topic, but people's perception of morality fascinates me. I agree that womanizing objectifies women and is immoral. Do you see it as more immoral than occasional casual hook-ups? What about ****? (EDIT: huh, i didn't know that would get censored - p***ography.) What about having sex with someone you know and care about but haven't committed yourself to? Where does sexual activity become immoral and why? I'm really not asking to be judgemental, I just really like these conversations.

Look, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to come off as a prude or anything, as I'm pretty liberal with my views on just about everything, including sex.

But as I said, someone who habitually engages in one night stands is immoral basically because of the objectification involved. Someone who uses sex as means of propping up their career is also pretty immoral (and apparently talentless).

Casual hook ups I don't see as outright immoral. If you're doing it often enough where you fall into that objectification view, or it's just a notch on the belt thing, that's a different story. But everyone has needs, after all.

P0rn I don't see as immoral (well, unless it's stuff like child p0rn or a snuff film or something where someone isn't willfully involved). It's probably a safer outlet than random hook ups are, at least regarding STDs (condoms sometimes break, after all).

Having sex with someone who care about but haven't committed to yet isn't immoral at all. In fact it's an essential step in building a relationship, I'd say. The reality is most couples had sex long before they were technically in love.

Sexual activity becomes immoral when it involves objectification (this is a sociopathic trait which involves lessening the human aspect of your sexual partners to nothing more than conquests, narcissistic belt notching, or just something to fill the time). It's also immoral when regularly used as a tool or even an emotional weapon used to control the weaker partner. It's immoral when those involved aren't involved consensually (rape, child molestation, etc).

 

[Captain Canuck]

Look, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to come off as a prude or anything, as I'm pretty liberal with my views on just about everything, including sex.

But as I said, someone who habitually engages in one night stands is immoral basically because of the objectification involved. Someone who uses sex as means of propping up their career is also pretty immoral (and apparently talentless).

Casual hook ups I don't see as outright immoral. If you're doing it often enough where you fall into that objectification view, or it's just a notch on the belt thing, that's a different story. But everyone has needs, after all.

P0rn I don't see as immoral (well, unless it's stuff like child p0rn or a snuff film or something where someone isn't willfully involved). It's probably a safer outlet than random hook ups are, at least regarding STDs (condoms sometimes break, after all).

Having sex with someone who care about but haven't committed to yet isn't immoral at all. In fact it's an essential step in building a relationship, I'd say. The reality is most couples had sex long before they were technically in love.

Sexual activity becomes immoral when it involves objectification (this is a sociopathic trait which involves lessening the human aspect of your sexual partners to nothing more than conquests, narcissistic belt notching, or just something to fill the time). It's also immoral when regularly used as a tool or even an emotional weapon used to control the weaker partner. It's immoral when those involved aren't involved consensually (rape, child molestation, etc).

Thanks for the clarification, DIB.

No, I don't think you're a prude at all. I got married in July. I was 28. I was a virgin. So if anyone here is a prude, it's me. I believe that sex is designed to be a way to give your whole self to someone. To be completely vulnerable with them and share your life with them, to create new life with them and create a family. Anything outside of that is immoral in my understanding of sex. Again, I don't say that to be judgemental, like I'm moral and the rest of you aren't. I haven't lived up to my own standard in a lot of ways. It just seems to me that casual sex and p*rn because "I have needs" is still a form of objectification. And sex as a way to build a relationship and get to know someone seems sad to me. Dating is such a stressful game of uncertainty. I would hate to make myself that vulnerable to someone that was still unsure about me. That actually sounds awful.

I know this is by far a minority point of view, and I'm not trying to push this view on anyone or bash anyone who disagrees.

Sorry for the way off-topic digression. I'm done. If anyone wants to chat more, feel free to PM me!

 

[DIrishB]

Looks like the AoS tie in episodes with AoU do indeed place the latter portion of AoS Season 2 in 2015...

Certainly isn't definitive but it is beginning to shape up that way.

Clearly we're trying to decide on IM placement based on a bunch of problematic evidence. There is a prop date on-screen in IM placing it in 2008, but we've since seen internal inconsistencies between prop dates, casting doubt on them in general. There's the "Six Months Later" date on-screen in IM2, but that doesn't make it clear whether everything in IM2 is six months later, or just the scene where Vanko is introduced. We also have the Everhart discussion from IM3, but we don't know how many times she slept with Stark or how many articles she wrote about him.

The only argument consistent with all this evidence, after some wrangling, is that IM took place in 2008. Any other time retcons the IM prop date.

On the other hand, placing IM later requires less wrangling. If we want to minimize wrangling with strong evidence (e.g. from the script) and don't mind ignoring weak evidence (e.g. from props), then it makes more sense to put IM later.

Ultimately, this is a philosophical discussion about what we do when we have some information but not quite enough.

Well said. Ultimately it's also the fact 2008 was essentially the start date for the MCU, both in general in terms of the real world and in terms of the events in the MCU itself, with all the heroes and villains coming into being.

And the prop dates, while not infallible, are at least something that can be used to narrow things down some. It's not perfect and sometimes dates shown in the films/props must be ignored to retain a general logic (like the various dates shown in the first episode of Agent Carter).

Thanks for the clarification, DIB.

No, I don't think you're a prude at all. I got married in July. I was 28. I was a virgin. So if anyone here is a prude, it's me. I believe that sex is designed to be a way to give your whole self to someone. To be completely vulnerable with them and share your life with them, to create new life with them and create a family. Anything outside of that is immoral in my understanding of sex. Again, I don't say that to be judgemental, like I'm moral and the rest of you aren't. I haven't lived up to my own standard in a lot of ways. It just seems to me that casual sex and p*rn because "I have needs" is still a form of objectification. And sex as a way to build a relationship and get to know someone seems sad to me.

I'm not talking about getting to know them completely that way. But you're kidding yourself if you think you don't learn more about a person when you're in bed with them. In fact I'd argue it's one of the more honest encounters you can have with a person if you're genuinely interested in that person romantically.

Conversely, I find it sad that some (usually religious people) see sex as nothing more than a means of procreation and as otherwise "dirty". That's a limited view, in my opinion.

Dating is such a stressful game of uncertainty. I would hate to make myself that vulnerable to someone that was still unsure about me. That actually sounds awful.

Actually dating is a lot of fun. There's an undeniable aspect of adventure, the unknown, etc concerning those new people you date. If you're secure in yourself vulnerabilities aren't much of an issue. In fact revealing them at key times goes a long way in furthering relationships and understanding between two people.

I know this is by far a minority point of view, and I'm not trying to push this view on anyone or bash anyone who disagrees.

Sorry for the way off-topic digression. I'm done. If anyone wants to chat more, feel free to PM me!

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Back on topic...

 

[Bob_A_Mickelson]

I suggest we change:

????
????
Daredevil 1x08: "Shadows in the Glass" (0:11:13 - 0:14:25)

to 1972

Based on the following two pieces of evidence.

Bill Fisk is working on election signs and Brown Sugar is playing on the radio. The song is obviously intended to clue us in as to an approximate time period. Further 1972 is the first election year past when Brown Sugar debuted in April of 1971. The next (mid-term) election year would be 1974 and that wouldn't jive with the "over 40 years comment" thus 1972 is the only reasonable year this event could be in given the current on screen evidence. Further we can reasonably deduce that its not early spring since the tree leaves are full and summer is past since all the people on the streets are wearing jackets. This leads me to believe its actually Fall 1972.


Likewise it seems that Bill being called a loser and the repayment to the loan shark would likely follow the election quickly. For that reason I suggest we refer to the following scenes as Ca. November 1972.

Daredevil 1x08: "Shadows in the Glass" (0:26:02 - 0:29:21)
Daredevil 1x08: "Shadows in the Glass" (0:35:04 - 0:36:20)
Daredevil 1x08: "Shadows in the Glass" (0:38:23 - 0:40:53)

 

[DIrishB]

I suggest we change:

????
????
Daredevil 1x08: "Shadows in the Glass" (0:11:13 - 0:14:25)

to 1972

Based on the following two pieces of evidence.

Bill Fisk is working on election signs and Brown Sugar is playing on the radio. The song is obviously intended to clue us in as to an approximate time period. Further 1972 is the first election year past when Brown Sugar debuted in April of 1971. The next (mid-term) election year would be 1974 and that wouldn't jive with the "over 40 years comment" thus 1972 is the only reasonable year this event could be in given the current on screen evidence. Further we can reasonably deduce that its not early spring since the tree leaves are full and summer is past since all the people on the streets are wearing jackets. This leads me to believe its actually Fall 1972.


Likewise it seems that Bill being called a loser and the repayment to the loan shark would likely follow the election quickly. For that reason I suggest we refer to the following scenes as Ca. November 1972.

Daredevil 1x08: "Shadows in the Glass" (0:26:02 - 0:29:21)
Daredevil 1x08: "Shadows in the Glass" (0:35:04 - 0:36:20)
Daredevil 1x08: "Shadows in the Glass" (0:38:23 - 0:40:53)

Well done. I'll change that.

 

[TalonCard]

I find it hard to believe they'd intentionally program a date on the phone, have that date extremely visible and noticeable in the shot, and then just say, "whoops".

I doubt anyone "missed" it since it's pretty front and center, even more noticeable than many of the newspaper dates or other dates seen on various items throughout the series.

*Shrugs* I think you're thinking that far more thought goes into these props than actually does--in TV it varies wildly on how much time they had, how much money they had, and how detail-oriented whoever happens to be in charge of that particular shot is. It's possible they carefully programed the date into a special phone or put the information seen on it later in post. It's equally possible that they just shot a PA's phone on August 22 and never got around to changing it/didn't bother changing it/never intended to change it.

I'm not saying dates on props shouldn't be taken into account, but they seem to clash with the other on-screen evidence and dialogue in the MCU often enough to bring their reliability into question when conflicts arise.

(Not that dialogue is a perfect means of determining dates either--in Iron Man 3 when Tony is talking about fixing Pepper's Extremis condition he says that he "almost had this twenty years ago" when he was drunk, referring to the 1999/2000 scenes at the beginning of the movie. )

He also mentions it's "cold up here" if I recall correctly, due to the height. As someone who lives in Florida, I can assure you even down here, in late summer/early fall, that 10-20 stories up makes for a noticeable difference in temperature (especially a place like NYC that has a cold front blowing in off the ocean).

Ah ha, fair point. The height thing didn't occur to me.

How do you know Tony didn't sleep with her a second time? Christine didn't seem like the most moral of people, so something tells me after Tony outing himself as Iron Man at the end of the first movie, the media, including Christine, would be interested in follow up pieces exploring his life as Iron Man. Granted it's just a made up explanation, but one that works and is necessary to lay out and explain things in the timeline like that.

Given the way the topic digressed on the Tony/Christine front, I'm reluctant to even follow this up, lol. But I bring it up strictly in the interests of chronology. Given that Pepper seemed to be deliberately bringing up Christine's previous experience with Tony and that she had been present during the immediate aftermath...it just seems pretty obvious that the script intended to refer back to what we had seen in the first movie. Coupled (no pun intended) with the "six months later" title at the beginning of the movie, placing it more than a year and change after the end of IM at most seems odd, especially if it's just due to a date seen on a couple of computer screens.

On the other hand, placing IM later requires less wrangling. If we want to minimize wrangling with strong evidence (e.g. from the script) and don't mind ignoring weak evidence (e.g. from props), then it makes more sense to put IM later.

That's the way I would see it, though I do see why there's disagreement.

TC

 

[TalonCard]

BTW, am I the only one who missed out on the news that a second Ant Man trailer had dropped? I understand that it might be overshadowed by Avengers at this point, but given how rabidly most sites seem to cover Marvel news I can't believe I didn't notice it.

I did love the surprise cameo by

Spoiler

Thomas the Tank Engine

. I love that character.

 

[DIrishB]

*Shrugs* I think you're thinking that far more thought goes into these props than actually does--in TV it varies wildly on how much time they had, how much money they had, and how detail-oriented whoever happens to be in charge of that particular shot is. It's possible they carefully programed the date into a special phone or put the information seen on it later in post. It's equally possible that they just shot a PA's phone on August 22 and never got around to changing it/didn't bother changing it/never intended to change it.

Of course that's possible. But as I've said from the beginning, the MCU releases generally take the approach of happening in the modern day (relative to their release). That's not exact, but generally the films/TV shows occur within about 6 months of the release date, or very close to the release date (like the first Iron Man). Sometimes there are exceptions, of course, but generally they do seem to be aiming for something close to current time with most releases (barring the Captain America/Agent Carter stuff set in the 1940's).

Even the most recent releases:

Captain America - The Winter Soldier (released April, 2014 / occurs October, 2013)

Thor - The Dark World (released November, 2013 / occurs presumably in November, 2013)

Daredevil (released April, 2015, occurs presumably in August - September, 2014)

Agents of SHIELD - Season 2 (released between September, 2014 to May, 2015 / occurs at presumably the same time)

and of course all the way back to the first release:

Iron Man (released in May, 2008 / occurs from January to May, 2008)

I'm not saying dates on props shouldn't be taken into account, but they seem to clash with the other on-screen evidence and dialogue in the MCU often enough to bring their reliability into question when conflicts arise.

Not at all, really. Dialogue always comes first (in terms of order of importance), then onscreen dates like given in Guardians of the Galaxy (the hard date of 1988 for the prologue and the 26 years later notation that firmly places the movie in 2014), and lastly dates on props (and that's ONLY when no other date evidence can be derived from dialogue and no onscreen dates are provided otherwise).

The only instance of that is Iron Man 2, and the reasoning for it has been explained ad nauseam. Either we can take the "six months later" thing as valid and place IM2, Thor, and Incredible Hulk all in 2009, and Avengers in 2010, and every other movie/TV show after would have to be moved up two years... which creates FAR more continuity problems than it solves.

(Not that dialogue is a perfect means of determining dates either--in Iron Man 3 when Tony is talking about fixing Pepper's Extremis condition he says that he "almost had this twenty years ago" when he was drunk, referring to the 1999/2000 scenes at the beginning of the movie. )

Stuff like that's forgivable, though, as it's just an obvious case of an off handed overestimation or hyperbole.

Ah ha, fair point. The height thing didn't occur to me.

Again, it's not perfect, but it works. And it's true. I used to do construction in college and was doing concrete finishing on condos on the ocean and intracoastal of Florida. I would do shifts Monday to Thursday (had classes at nights and all day Friday's), and during Fall, around October, that high up early in the morning or at night after the sun sets it gets chilly. There's a noticeable 10-20 degree difference, more with wind chill. By winter it was much worse, obviously.

But it wouldn't surprise me if by August in NYC, at that height, with winds coming off the water, it was chilly.

Given the way the topic digressed on the Tony/Christine front, I'm reluctant to even follow this up, lol. But I bring it up strictly in the interests of chronology. Given that Pepper seemed to be deliberately bringing up Christine's previous experience with Tony and that she had been present during the immediate aftermath...it just seems pretty obvious that the script intended to refer back to what we had seen in the first movie.

That's true. But since Pepper regularly "takes out the trash", if Christine and Tony had hooked up a second time, Pepper would've likely been the one shuffling her out then, too.

Coupled (no pun intended) with the "six months later" title at the beginning of the movie, placing it more than a year and change after the end of IM at most seems odd, especially if it's just due to a date seen on a couple of computer screens.

But it's not just that, as I've stated several times. It's all the corresponding dates in every movie, TV show, and One Shot that follows it, that reinforces the dates I used to set Iron Man 2, Thor, Incredible Hulk, Avengers, etc all in.

That's the way I would see it, though I do see why there's disagreement.

TC

If Fury's Big Week hadn't retconned the Iron Man 2, Thor, and Incredible Hulk all happening so close to each other, this wouldn't even be an issue.