Do you have links, or can you summarize the 8 year quote from the Vision. For the intensive planning that goes in to these movies, I have a hard time believing that such a basic error, however minor, could make it into the final product.
Spider-Man: Homecoming' anticipation thread
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
Like he said, we're on a Star Trek board. How many times have you seen Berman or Braga burned in effigy around here?
Like he said, we're on a Star Trek board. How many times have you seen Berman or Braga burned in effigy around here?
Usually by people who are too lazy to read the credits and fail to realize that "Berman and Braga" was never really a thing except on Enterprise. Or who elevate Braga into an imperious auteur who imposes his personal vision on everything, when in fact his overall record shows that he's a career collaborator who has no signature style unifying his work and mostly just helps execute other creators' visions. I always find it ironic that the people who hate Braga the most insist on giving him more credit than he deserves, at the expense of his collaborators.
...he said without even a trace of irony...
Hmmm. The first four minutes (which are surprisingly spoiler free as they recap Peter's involvement in Civil War and have largely already been shown in previews) actually contradicts Civil War twice.
It lacks Peter's "Holy Shit!" reaction to Giant Man and he comes home from Germany without the black eye.
I fully understand I have "unreasonable" expectations here, but even if we didn't live in this strange fantasy world where all the things I liked as a kid are suddenly the hot thing in hollywood I would still grumble about inconsistent timelines in storytelling. What I don't get is people whose standards for basic things like internal consistency go out the window as soon as we enter said fantasy world. One can appreciate something while still being critical of it.
I'm not saying you can't be critical of it. I'm saying you're jumping to an unfair and unsupported conclusion about the reason for it. You're assuming the filmmakers were lazy or incompetent and failed to notice an obvious inconsistency. My point is that it's quite possible that they were aware of the inconsistency but chose to let it happen anyway because it served the story they were telling. Yes, sometimes mistakes slip through despite everyone's best efforts. Just a couple of hours ago on this very BBS, Enterprise1701 caught a major mistake in my latest Star Trek: DTI novella, though fortunately it's an e-book so they can fix it. But sometimes inconsistencies aren't mistakes. Sometimes they're allowed through on purpose because there's a more important consideration that overrides consistency.
For example: Sometimes in a TV show or movie, you'll see a shot printed backwards, a mirror image of the way it should be. A character's badge or shirt pocket or the part in their hair will be on the wrong side, or a sign or a map on the wall will be backwards. When this happens, it's not a mistake. It's a deliberate choice made by the editors because it's necessary to maintain the line of action, to have the character facing the right direction to make visual sense in context with the surrounding shots. Ideally they should've gotten it right on the set, but the director shooting the scenes doesn't necessarily know how they'll be put together in editing, and if an inconsistency shows up in editing, it's too late to go back and reshoot the scene. (Unless it's a huge blockbuster movies, where such reshoots are routine, even though the audience panics every time they're announced.) So they deliberately introduce a small error, the scene being backward, in order to avoid a larger problem in visual continuity. The hope is that most viewers will overlook the error, or that if they're perceptive enough to notice it, they're also perceptive enough to understand why it was necessary.
By the same token, a chronological inconsistency might be deliberately introduced as a retcon because it better serves the story they're telling. Maybe there's a reason why it was important for Peter to have been 7 years old during the Battle of New York, instead of 10 or whatever. You're assuming they just didn't notice the error, but it's possible they did it on purpose, and you don't know enough about the creative process to discount that possibility.
Math puts IM1 in 2009, the "Fury's Big Week" trilogy of Iron Man 2, Thor, and portions of TIH in 2011, TA in 2012, IM3 and TDW in 2013, TWS, GotG, and GotG v2 in 2014, AoU and AM in 2015, and CW and SMH in 2017, so where's the problem?
Last edited:
My expectations for internal consistency went out the window when reading the source material. Sliding timescales, forgotten plotlines, retcons, they made more continuity errors than the movies ever could. Hell, Kurt Busiek wrote an entire miniseries just to correct 50 years worth of Avengers continuity errors.
I've been a Marvel fan since 1980. I fear no sliding timescale.
Right. Really, given that the MCU is currently up to 16 feature films, 5 short films, 11 television seasons, and one webseries, it's amazing it doesn't have more internal contradictions than it does. Plenty of film series manage to have major contradictions among just 2-5 films -- like, say, Highlander or the original Planet of the Apes. Never mind older film series like the Universal Monsters, which rarely had any consistency beyond very broad strokes.
Aw, too bad. Not surprising, but still a little disappointing.
If I read right, the shot is kind of in the movie, just with the background changed. They took the element of Spidey and Iron Man from a different sequence at the Staten Island Ferry building and put it into Queens instead. At least, that's the impression I get from the quote.
"Hold your applause."
Last edited:
I love it! Give her an Oscar already!
I got my tickets today to see it tomorrow, seeing it in IMAX 3D with my two sons. Can't wait!
Because Homecoming makes out it is 8 years after the Avengers (2012) not Iron Man 1
And also two months after Civil War. So Civil War is also 8 years after The Avengers. And that IMO is a bit hard to swallow.
Especially since in Civil War, General Ross states that the Avengers have only been together for only four years.
Last edited:
Similar threads
