• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

What grade would you give the Marvel Cinematic Universe? (Ever-Changing Question)

  • Total voters
    188
I'm pretty sure Agent Carter would be canon, it was created by Markus and McFeely, and they brought James D'Arcy as Jarvis into Endgame, and as far as I know it has never been contradicted by anything that's come after it.
theenglish said:
Originally, The Runaways, SHIELD, Cloak & Dagger, and Inhumans were all supposed to be part of the same MCU and were removed from canon when Marvel Studios published their MCU timeline (EDIT: this is from my failing memory and could be incorrect in how we learned they were not part of the MCU.)
Click to expand...
Does it actually say point blank that that stuff was not canon, or just that they chose to only focus on other stuff for the book?
 
JD said:
I'm pretty sure Agent Carter would be canon, it was created by Markus and McFeely, and they brought James D'Arcy as Jarvis into Endgame, and as far as I know it has never been contradicted by anything that's come after it.
Click to expand...

It isn't, although Brad Winderbaum wants to find a way to make it Canon.

JD said:
Does it actually say point blank that that stuff was not canon, or just that they chose to only focus on other stuff for the book?
Click to expand...

The Official Timeline book's list of Canon MCU material covers the Sacred Timeline through Phase 4 and does not contain any mentions of or references to any of the following:
Agent Carter (the TV Series)
Agents of SHIELD
Cloak and Dagger
Daredevil
The Defenders
Helstrom
Inhumans
Iron Fist
Jessica Jones
Luke Cage
The Punisher
Runaways

We know, though, that, despite their exclusion from the book, Daredevil, The Defenders, Iron Fist, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and The Punisher are all Sacred Timeline Canon thanks to the announcement declaring them as such and their inclusion in the Disney+ Complete Timeline category.
 
That's right. They're not canon until they are. Just like Gunn's rule with DC. One thing I really like about Gunn's methods is that he did not change the ending of the final episode of season 1 but revised it in the flashbacks for the first episode of season 2. I hate going back and switching out footage from previous works just to fit with the new vision. Give the audience some credit. I hope he doesn't change that.
 
The Disney+ Complete Timeline category isn't perfect, but it's still the most current indicator we have of what is officially Canon to the MCU and what isn't.

theenglish said:
They're not canon until they are
Click to expand...

There are elements of Agent Carter, Agents of SHIELD, Helstrom, Inhumans, and Runaways that conflict with the established details of the Sacred Timeline, but that fact wouldn't necessarily stop them from being made Multiversally Canon at some point in the same way that Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man is MCU Canon despite A) not being set on the Sacred Timeline and B) not being listed in the Disney+ Complete Timeline category.

Time will tell.
 
DigificWriter said:
The Disney+ Complete Timeline category isn't perfect, but it's still the most current indicator we have of what is officially Canon to the MCU and what isn't.



There are elements of Agent Carter, Agents of SHIELD, Helstrom, Inhumans, and Runaways that conflict with the established details of the Sacred Timeline, but that fact wouldn't necessarily stop them from being made Multiversally Canon at some point in the same way that Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man is MCU Canon despite A) not being set on the Sacred Timeline and B) not being listed in the Disney+ Complete Timeline category.

Time will tell.
Click to expand...
I would agree, but it would be different than Spider-Man. Right now, in continuity Spider-Man does exist. After Secret Wars, any of the other shows could be included in continuity with an on screen explanation of how they're incorporated into a new universe. Assuming of course, that Secret Wars follows the comic story's premise in some way.
 
JD said:
I'm pretty sure they've said that they'll be introducing new versions of the X-Men in the new movies. I could maybe see Jackman surviving Secret Wars and popping occaisionally as a recurring supporting character, but I can't see him being the main Wolverine. I just can't see him wanting to get into Wolverine shape many more times at his age, and we've already gotten 9 movies with Jackman's Wolverine. The MCU reboot is the perfect opportunity to finally give us a chance to get a new actor's take on the character.
Click to expand...

'New versions of the X-Men' is not the same as 'a new version of Logan'. Feige himself said they want to keep him and there's so far no indication of Jackman being inclined to say no. He seems to have really enjoyed the DaW experience.

Like I said, I'd prefer a new take as well, but I really don't see don't see them doing two competing versions of Logan simultaneously. Not unless Batman: The Brave and the Bold and The Batman II are both massive smash hits, then maybe it would seem more worth the risk. But otherwise, they've got Jackman for the big ticket films and if they want a more team player oriented Wolverine they can easily use Laura who would be better differentiated and add an extra layer of character work. And she also gives them an easy excuse to bring in Jackman on the X-Men films when they want without having to make him part of the main cast who's always expected to be there.

Plus that doesn't even take any future options off the table. When the day eventually comes that Jackman actually leaves, they can still introduce a new version then. Since Jackman is obviously going to be a multiversal holdover (like Miles Morales in the comics), they can just say the new version is the original '616' Logan and he's just been trapped in Weapon X/living in the woods for years.
 
theenglish said:
Me too. And I really like The Runaways. The discussion isn't whether these series are any good or worth watching, it is just about what is canon in the MCU.
Click to expand...

Does it matter? This is entertainment, not study materials for an exam. We don't work for the creators of fiction. We don't have to follow their orders or wait for their permission. They create stories for our enjoyment; if anything, they work for us. So we're free to decide how we interpret the stories they tell us.

"Canon" is not permission or official sanction. It's merely a description, a word for a unified body of stories. As long as a story isn't contradicted by the existing canon, we're free to count it as part of the continuity if we like. I've been doing that most of my life with Star Trek novels and comics -- if they don't conflict with the existing canon, I count them in my personal continuity, and if later canon contradicts them, then I remove them -- which doesn't detract from their worth or enjoyability as stories at all, since it's all equally make-believe anyway and it's just a matter of categorization, not value judgment.

I don't need a label to decide for myself whether I count the Marvel TV shows. I'm fine to count them as long as they haven't been contradicted. Now, Agents of SHIELD is difficult to reconcile with the film canon in some ways, but I've suggested handwaves before for how it could be reconciled, so I'm still willing to count it. As for Runaways, I have a problem with its third season, whose depiction of how time travel works is incompatible with the Endgame/Loki model. But the same goes for the X-Men movies, yet apparently we have to count them as part of the same multiverse as the MCU now. So I guess that's not a deal-breaker.

Okay, yes, future canon could overtly contradict those stories, but why anticipate a problem before it comes? I base my view of a continuity on the way things stand in the present, and I adapt to changes when they happen, not before.
 
Christopher said:
Does it matter? This is entertainment, not study materials for an exam. We don't work for the creators of fiction. We don't have to follow their orders or wait for their permission. They create stories for our enjoyment; if anything, they work for us. So we're free to decide how we interpret the stories they tell us.

"Canon" is not permission or official sanction. It's merely a description, a word for a unified body of stories. As long as a story isn't contradicted by the existing canon, we're free to count it as part of the continuity if we like. I've been doing that most of my life with Star Trek novels and comics -- if they don't conflict with the existing canon, I count them in my personal continuity, and if later canon contradicts them, then I remove them -- which doesn't detract from their worth or enjoyability as stories at all, since it's all equally make-believe anyway and it's just a matter of categorization, not value judgment.

I don't need a label to decide for myself whether I count the Marvel TV shows. I'm fine to count them as long as they haven't been contradicted. Now, Agents of SHIELD is difficult to reconcile with the film canon in some ways, but I've suggested handwaves before for how it could be reconciled, so I'm still willing to count it. As for Runaways, I have a problem with its third season, whose depiction of how time travel works is incompatible with the Endgame/Loki model. But the same goes for the X-Men movies, yet apparently we have to count them as part of the same multiverse as the MCU now. So I guess that's not a deal-breaker.

Okay, yes, future canon could overtly contradict those stories, but why anticipate a problem before it comes? I base my view of a continuity on the way things stand in the present, and I adapt to changes when they happen, not before.
Click to expand...
Ms Marvel had a contradictory style of time travel as well. I just figured that a fictional universe has fictional rules of science and and each different method of time travel comes with its own rules and limitations. The strictly science-based approach from Endgame results in the rules that that movie had. Other more mystical methods of time travel have different rules. It's not a perfect fix but it works well enough to keep the story moving. Of course, that still doesn't explain the X-Men movies. I just squint, smile and shrug. I've been doing that with continuity issues with Star Trek for decades.
 
Last edited:
Turtletrekker said:
Ms Marvel had a contradictory style of time travel as well. I just figured that a fictional universe has fictional rules of science and and each different method of time travel comes with its own rules and limitations. The strictly science-based approach from Endgame results in the rules that that movie had. Other more mystical methods of time have different rules. It's not a perfect fix but it works well enough to keep the story moving.
Click to expand...

It's just that the Endgame model actually makes a modicum of sense, while the usual "changing history" model is logically self-contradictory and impossible. (Change requires a before and an after. A single moment in time cannot come after itself. By definition, the only way two different versions of a single moment can exist is if they exist simultaneously in parallel. "Erasing" a moment in time is nonsense -- it can't happen.) It's so rare to see good science in mass-media fiction that I hate it when later works inevitably bulldoze over the good science with the usual stupidity.

Besides, even a pure fantasy universe should follow rules that are consistent within themselves. If one story says a fantasy phenomenon works a certain way, later stories should respect that. Changing the rules at the convenience of the story is lazy writing.
 
Grendelsbayne said:
'New versions of the X-Men' is not the same as 'a new version of Logan'. Feige himself said they want to keep him and there's so far no indication of Jackman being inclined to say no. He seems to have really enjoyed the DaW experience.

Like I said, I'd prefer a new take as well, but I really don't see don't see them doing two competing versions of Logan simultaneously. Not unless Batman: The Brave and the Bold and The Batman II are both massive smash hits, then maybe it would seem more worth the risk. But otherwise, they've got Jackman for the big ticket films and if they want a more team player oriented Wolverine they can easily use Laura who would be better differentiated and add an extra layer of character work. And she also gives them an easy excuse to bring in Jackman on the X-Men films when they want without having to make him part of the main cast who's always expected to be there.

Plus that doesn't even take any future options off the table. When the day eventually comes that Jackman actually leaves, they can still introduce a new version then. Since Jackman is obviously going to be a multiversal holdover (like Miles Morales in the comics), they can just say the new version is the original '616' Logan and he's just been trapped in Weapon X/living in the woods for years.
Click to expand...
They can do a movie titled "A Wolverine". ;)
 
I really should have remembered what Lucasfilm's Matt Martin said several years ago and not let myself have fallen into the 'Canon Trap', but I'm trying to pull back from the edge now.

Re: time travel, I'll say it again: Explicitly Canon stuff proves that, to borrow a phrase from Geoffrey Rush's Captain Barbosa, Endgame's 'rules' were "more of a guideline than actual rules".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top