That's not how Canon works.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
That's not how Canon works.
That's not how canon works. Canon is the official body of work and fans are not official arbiters of anything.
You can make you're own continuity but that lends no credence to any arguments.
So here's a thought.....
How about you guys start a completely new topic on this nonsense and leave this topic to what it's about? MCU spoilers and speculation for upcoming movies? Not speculation for what happened in the past movies?
Literally pages of topic have been used for this debate and it will literally go no where. That is not a bad thing in itself, but every time I see this thread bumped I'm hoping about something new for Doomsday or the new Spidey movie or something like that. Not a topic that has been talked about to death when Endgame was released.
I hope the mods can back me up on this because honestly guys..... NO ONE HERE IS BEING INVENTIVE. YOU ARE REHASHING THE SAME SHIT OVER AND OVER AND OVER. IT'S BORING AND DULL!!!
How about you guys start a completely new topic on this nonsense and leave this topic to what it's about? MCU spoilers and speculation for upcoming movies? Not speculation for what happened in the past movies?
Literally pages of topic have been used for this debate and it will literally go no where. That is not a bad thing in itself, but every time I see this thread bumped I'm hoping about something new for Doomsday or the new Spidey movie or something like that. Not a topic that has been talked about to death when Endgame was released.
I hope the mods can back me up on this because honestly guys..... NO ONE HERE IS BEING INVENTIVE. YOU ARE REHASHING THE SAME SHIT OVER AND OVER AND OVER. IT'S BORING AND DULL!!!
...and it's completely drowning other content in the thread.
This is the purpose of the thread as it was written back in 2014:
Well, that's convenient.
But it sounds almost like someone going, "You'll never give a presentation refuting my theory, because I'll grab you in the parking lot!"
And somehow that's even worse. Now the incipient time-traveler, by this line of reasoning, pre-emptively already exists at all conceivable points he could choose to travel to in space and time, just to cover the sacred timeline's ass!
It is the Twelve Monkeys version of time travel.
Exactly.
As I continually reference, Canon only matters to creators. To everyone else, it's a meaningless and irrelevant concept.
She doesn't say that taking an Infinity Stone is the only way to create a new timeline, it's just the example she's using in that instance because Bruce is there to take the Infinity Stone. We saw tones of new timelines being created in Loki and I'm pretty sure they didn't all involve Infinity Stones. We also saw several dozen different timelines in What If...? and all or most of them didn't involve the Infinity Stones.
Where was this said? I don't remember there being anything that directly contradicted anything we saw in 616 movies or shows.
This movie isn't Back to the Future, it's Sliders.
They can't go to their own past, they can only go to parallel worlds that look like their history, and they can't return to the same parallel word again, because rather than returning to somewhere where they have been, they can only create yet another new parallel world.
Movie or series? The movie used a fixed-timeline model where the time traveler's actions had always been part of the past and nothing could be changed. The TV series adopted the more series-friendly approach that it was possible to change history but extremely difficult, because events had multiple causes and changing one small thing wouldn't necessarily overcome historical inertia.
No, that's backward. Creators rarely give a thought to canon, because what they create is the canon by definition. "Canon" is a term used by outside observers to describe a body of fictional works. But you're right that it's irrelevant, because it is merely a description of a category, not a seal of approval or a standard of quality. It basically just means the works of the original creators of a series as opposed to derivative works by outside creators. The only time it really becomes a question at all is when certain derivative works (e.g. tie-in novels and comics, or TV series based on movies) are approached as an extension of the canon, but usually so-called "canonical" tie-ins turn out not to be canonical after all when new canon comes along and simply ignores them.
Canon and continuity are often confused with each other but at the same time I don't see it as a big deal. Feels like semantics to fight over which word someone uses. It's not hard to see the context of what someone is saying.
In this regard canon would be anything marvel that takes place instead the MCU. Some marvel stuff doesn't. Though I guess when you add a multiverse everything sort of becomes part of the MCU. Except the Inhumans show. Everyone has done the best they can to pretend that never happened.
In this regard canon would be anything marvel that takes place instead the MCU. Some marvel stuff doesn't. Though I guess when you add a multiverse everything sort of becomes part of the MCU. Except the Inhumans show. Everyone has done the best they can to pretend that never happened.
Modern Trek such as Picard got absolutely terrible for pages and pages of stuff on instragram and other places that is never mentioned on-screen e.g. Picard being the Captain of the USS Verity.
Which is why it matters to them and them only.
BTW, Lucasfilm Story Group member Matt Martin is the originator of the 'Canon only matters to creators' comment, and I happened to be in the room when he made it (he was appearing as a Panel guest at my local comic convention).
I never saw the series and am only vaguely aware of its existence.
Yeah we're just screaming in the nothingness my friend.
It gave us Terry Matalas, but don't hold that against it.