Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Adding link
Changed line(s) 60 (click to see context) from:
to:
* ''Headscratchers/{{Echo|2024}}''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Adding Link
Changed line(s) 59 (click to see context) from:
to:
* ''Headscratchers/{{The Marvels|2023}}''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 58,59 (click to see context) from:
* ''Headscratchers/SecretInvasion2023''
to:
* ''Headscratchers/SecretInvasion2023''
''Headscratchers/{{Secret Invasion|2023}}''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 58,59 (click to see context) from:
* ''Headscratchers/SecretInvasion''
to:
* ''Headscratchers/SecretInvasion''
''Headscratchers/SecretInvasion2023''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 58 (click to see context) from:
to:
* ''Headscratchers/SecretInvasion''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Meta questions aren’t allowed
Deleted line(s) 182,189 (click to see context) :
[[folder:Continuity Questions]]
* On the NonSerialMovie page it says this about the Franchise/MarvelCinematicUniverse: "Inverted and subverted with the Franchise/MarvelCinematicUniverse, in which the films are the prime continuity, and the spinoff shows are, in a sense, Non-Serial ''Series''. ''Series/AgentsOfShield'', ''Series/AgentCarter'', ''Series/JessicaJones2015'', ''Series/{{Daredevil|2015}}'' and so forth '''are''' officially part of the MCU, and repeatedly confirmed to be so. At the same time, however, the events of television productions have almost no impact on the direction of the films and their MythArc. This has caused significant friction between the two studios, especially as the films can upset the status quo of the world at any time, and the showrunners are often left scrambling to keep up.[[note]]As happened following the massive shakeup caused by ''Film/CaptainAmericaTheWinterSoldier'', which actually ''dismantled S.H.I.E.L.D.''. While ''Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'' was still airing its first season.[[/note]] Meanwhile, it's been made clear numerous times that the films have no intent on using or referencing developments from the television side of things.[[note]]Case in point, the resurrection of EnsembleDarkHorse Phil Coulson in ''Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'', and Whedon explicitly stating the films will carry on as if Coulson is DeaderThanDead."[[/note]] Does this mean that these series are a sub-continuity, and also due to the Disney/Fox deal, will the X-Men series continue to be an AlternateContinuity from the Franchise/MarvelCinematicUniverse (with its ComicBookTime, etc.)?
** According to Jeph Loeb the Marvel TV shows and the Marvel Studio movies are in the same continuity, with the current crop of shows all happening before the "snap" at the end of ''Avengers 3''. As for the X-Men, who knows how that will play out after the deal.
** Going forward, what may happen is the set up of alternate timelines and realities may be the only excuse anyone needs to say a particular show or event they did not like is not a part of the primary continuity. That being said, there was one minor crossover from TV into the films in Endgame when Jarvis from Series/AgentCarter was opening the door for Howard, that was the same actor and character from the show making his first appearance in the films.
** Originally they intended them to be but the realities of the studios working together and creative differences have pretty much made this a problem that will one day need to be explicitly addressed. As of now, the movie-based team can produce TV shows that do what they originally thought these shows could be. They are going to have to choose to just use the characters and retcon whatever things the other studio did they didn't want, or just declare all these series What ifs and redo them in the main timeline. I'd wager them not branding Helstrom into the MCU brand is testing the waters for the later possibility when someone really wants to use a character sent off to these shows but doesn't want the version that the show had.
* I don't really understand why this is even a question; it seems like the only real evidence the "non canon" camp has is that the MCU movies do not reference the tv shows, but this alone is not really compelling evidence of the shows being non-canon, especially with how much the shows themselves make it clear that they are taking place in the MCU. ''Series/AgentsOfShield'' and ''Series/AgentCarter'' especially not only are shows revolving around movie specific characters (Agent Coulson and Peggy Carter) played by the same actors as in the movies, but also featured multiple appearances by movie characters in supporting and cameo roles, also played by their movie actors (Nick Fury, Mariah Hill, Lady Sif, Gideon Malik, Dr. List, President Ellis, Agent Sitwell, Agent Blake, the Howling Commandos; in AOS, and Young Tony Stark, Zola, and the Commandos again in Agent Carter). These are clearly unmistakably meant to be the same characters that we saw from the movies, and all the marvel TV shows make multiple references to the larger MCU world, including in a few cases on Agents of Shield, being influenced by movie events, so the idea that the tv shows are non-canon kind of doesn't make sense, even with the lack of references in the movies. As long as the films don't do anything that would directly make the TV shows impossible (which, they don't), there is no reason to NOT consider the shows canon. And even if the movies did blatantly contradict the shows, it would only just make them AU, but still existing in a universe where some version of the MCU movies clearly occurred as part of their world.
[[/folder]]
* On the NonSerialMovie page it says this about the Franchise/MarvelCinematicUniverse: "Inverted and subverted with the Franchise/MarvelCinematicUniverse, in which the films are the prime continuity, and the spinoff shows are, in a sense, Non-Serial ''Series''. ''Series/AgentsOfShield'', ''Series/AgentCarter'', ''Series/JessicaJones2015'', ''Series/{{Daredevil|2015}}'' and so forth '''are''' officially part of the MCU, and repeatedly confirmed to be so. At the same time, however, the events of television productions have almost no impact on the direction of the films and their MythArc. This has caused significant friction between the two studios, especially as the films can upset the status quo of the world at any time, and the showrunners are often left scrambling to keep up.[[note]]As happened following the massive shakeup caused by ''Film/CaptainAmericaTheWinterSoldier'', which actually ''dismantled S.H.I.E.L.D.''. While ''Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'' was still airing its first season.[[/note]] Meanwhile, it's been made clear numerous times that the films have no intent on using or referencing developments from the television side of things.[[note]]Case in point, the resurrection of EnsembleDarkHorse Phil Coulson in ''Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'', and Whedon explicitly stating the films will carry on as if Coulson is DeaderThanDead."[[/note]] Does this mean that these series are a sub-continuity, and also due to the Disney/Fox deal, will the X-Men series continue to be an AlternateContinuity from the Franchise/MarvelCinematicUniverse (with its ComicBookTime, etc.)?
** According to Jeph Loeb the Marvel TV shows and the Marvel Studio movies are in the same continuity, with the current crop of shows all happening before the "snap" at the end of ''Avengers 3''. As for the X-Men, who knows how that will play out after the deal.
** Going forward, what may happen is the set up of alternate timelines and realities may be the only excuse anyone needs to say a particular show or event they did not like is not a part of the primary continuity. That being said, there was one minor crossover from TV into the films in Endgame when Jarvis from Series/AgentCarter was opening the door for Howard, that was the same actor and character from the show making his first appearance in the films.
** Originally they intended them to be but the realities of the studios working together and creative differences have pretty much made this a problem that will one day need to be explicitly addressed. As of now, the movie-based team can produce TV shows that do what they originally thought these shows could be. They are going to have to choose to just use the characters and retcon whatever things the other studio did they didn't want, or just declare all these series What ifs and redo them in the main timeline. I'd wager them not branding Helstrom into the MCU brand is testing the waters for the later possibility when someone really wants to use a character sent off to these shows but doesn't want the version that the show had.
* I don't really understand why this is even a question; it seems like the only real evidence the "non canon" camp has is that the MCU movies do not reference the tv shows, but this alone is not really compelling evidence of the shows being non-canon, especially with how much the shows themselves make it clear that they are taking place in the MCU. ''Series/AgentsOfShield'' and ''Series/AgentCarter'' especially not only are shows revolving around movie specific characters (Agent Coulson and Peggy Carter) played by the same actors as in the movies, but also featured multiple appearances by movie characters in supporting and cameo roles, also played by their movie actors (Nick Fury, Mariah Hill, Lady Sif, Gideon Malik, Dr. List, President Ellis, Agent Sitwell, Agent Blake, the Howling Commandos; in AOS, and Young Tony Stark, Zola, and the Commandos again in Agent Carter). These are clearly unmistakably meant to be the same characters that we saw from the movies, and all the marvel TV shows make multiple references to the larger MCU world, including in a few cases on Agents of Shield, being influenced by movie events, so the idea that the tv shows are non-canon kind of doesn't make sense, even with the lack of references in the movies. As long as the films don't do anything that would directly make the TV shows impossible (which, they don't), there is no reason to NOT consider the shows canon. And even if the movies did blatantly contradict the shows, it would only just make them AU, but still existing in a universe where some version of the MCU movies clearly occurred as part of their world.
[[/folder]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Meta questions aren’t allowed
Changed line(s) 136,142 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Inhumans rights]]
* How does Marvel have the rights to the Inhumans? They should have been covered by the FF rights Fox has (While the Inhumans have major connections to Cosmic Marvel, those connections are roughly the same age or younger than the Fantastic Four Movie)
** It all depends on how the original contracts and rights-sales were negotiated and worded. Since both Marvel-Disney and Fox have specialist entertainments-rights lawyers on staff, and they've concluded that Marvel-Disney has the rights then that is simply how it is. Short of seeing the actual documents, we'll just have to take their word for it.
** It might be because the In humans have had their own book, and developed mythos separate from the Four. Either that or Fox had the rights and failed to use them.
** Then why doesn't Marvel have back the rights to characters like the Badoon or the Shi'ar, who have not been used at all by Fox?
** Because the Inhumans are not directly linked to a franchise owned by another studio. They are their own separate group. The Shi'ar are enemies/allies of the X-Men, while the Badoon are connected primarily to the Fantastic Four (just like the Skrulls). Fox doesn't have to use every character/race to still have the rights to them.
** Although it's a moot point now since Disney bought Fox (and by extension, regained all rights that Fox had), I'd imagine that it was a similar situation to Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch -- Fox and Marvel could use both, but Fox could only use elements that were introduced/happened in X-Men[=/=]F4 storylines, but ones introduced in series Marvel owns the film rights to or the Inhumans own series go to Marvel -- i.e., Fox could use Medusa as a member of the Frightful Four (since that happened in the Fantastic 4 Comics), but they could not use Quicksilver and Crystal's relationship (since that happened when Quicksilver was an Avenger).
* How does Marvel have the rights to the Inhumans? They should have been covered by the FF rights Fox has (While the Inhumans have major connections to Cosmic Marvel, those connections are roughly the same age or younger than the Fantastic Four Movie)
** It all depends on how the original contracts and rights-sales were negotiated and worded. Since both Marvel-Disney and Fox have specialist entertainments-rights lawyers on staff, and they've concluded that Marvel-Disney has the rights then that is simply how it is. Short of seeing the actual documents, we'll just have to take their word for it.
** It might be because the In humans have had their own book, and developed mythos separate from the Four. Either that or Fox had the rights and failed to use them.
** Then why doesn't Marvel have back the rights to characters like the Badoon or the Shi'ar, who have not been used at all by Fox?
** Because the Inhumans are not directly linked to a franchise owned by another studio. They are their own separate group. The Shi'ar are enemies/allies of the X-Men, while the Badoon are connected primarily to the Fantastic Four (just like the Skrulls). Fox doesn't have to use every character/race to still have the rights to them.
** Although it's a moot point now since Disney bought Fox (and by extension, regained all rights that Fox had), I'd imagine that it was a similar situation to Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch -- Fox and Marvel could use both, but Fox could only use elements that were introduced/happened in X-Men[=/=]F4 storylines, but ones introduced in series Marvel owns the film rights to or the Inhumans own series go to Marvel -- i.e., Fox could use Medusa as a member of the Frightful Four (since that happened in the Fantastic 4 Comics), but they could not use Quicksilver and Crystal's relationship (since that happened when Quicksilver was an Avenger).
to:
*
** It all depends on how the original contracts and rights-sales were negotiated and worded. Since both Marvel-Disney and Fox have specialist entertainments-rights lawyers on staff, and they've concluded that Marvel-Disney has the rights then that is simply how it is. Short of seeing the actual documents, we'll just have to take their word
**
** Gems is more specific. You can stretch the definition of "stone" to stuff like Aether or Tesseract, but with Gem that would be trickier.
** "Gem" also implies somebody ''carved'' the thing to have
** Then why doesn't Marvel have back the rights to characters like the Badoon or the Shi'ar, who have not been used at all by Fox?
** Because the Inhumans are not directly linked to a franchise owned by another studio. They are their own separate group. The Shi'ar are enemies/allies
** Although it's a moot point now since Disney bought Fox (and by extension, regained all rights that Fox had), I'd imagine that it was a similar situation to Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch -- Fox and Marvel could use both, but Fox could only use elements that were introduced/happened in X-Men[=/=]F4 storylines, but ones introduced in series Marvel owns the film rights to or the Inhumans own series go to Marvel -- i.e., Fox could use Medusa as a member of the Frightful Four (since that happened in the Fantastic 4 Comics), but they could not use Quicksilver and Crystal's relationship (since that happened when Quicksilver was an Avenger).
Changed line(s) 145,148 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Spidey Tv]]
* Since Disney/Marvel owns Spider-Man for TV, does that mean, hypothetically, he could legally appear in a Netflix series without Sony's okay?
** Someone should really look into this.
** No longer required. Marvel and Sony have reached a deal that allows for Spider-Man to be used in MCU films.
* Since Disney/Marvel owns Spider-Man for TV, does that mean, hypothetically, he could legally appear in a Netflix series without Sony's okay?
** Someone should really look into this.
** No longer required. Marvel and Sony have reached a deal that allows for Spider-Man to be used in MCU films.
to:
*
** Because he wants to protect his face too from damage.
** Considering half of the time he takes the helmet/mask off, I'm not sure I agree.
** Well, HelmetsAreHardlyHeroic.
** He's only twice willingly taken it off during combat: once when fighting Batroc and that
** Fighting killer robots for an hour is exhausting and he might've simply been overheating, taking it off to cool off a little.
** The very first costume he had was just a piece of propaganda, so the mask was there just for him to look heroic, maybe without
** Someone should really look into this.
** No longer required. Marvel and Sony have reached
** Also, [[RuleOfCool because it's cool]].
Changed line(s) 151,153 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Shared characters]]
* According to the main page here, FOX and Marvel worked out a deal for shared characters, like Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. I guess the question is, who else is shared?
** None that is publicly known. As it stands if there was one it would be either an X-Men or Fantastic Four character who has a substantial enough history in the comics with ones Marvel still owns the rights to (Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch where due to their extensive history with the Avengers) for that to happen, though it would seem that there aren't any such characters that either company cares enough about to look into it, assuming a line hasn't been drawn already on what belongs to who.
* According to the main page here, FOX and Marvel worked out a deal for shared characters, like Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. I guess the question is, who else is shared?
** None that is publicly known. As it stands if there was one it would be either an X-Men or Fantastic Four character who has a substantial enough history in the comics with ones Marvel still owns the rights to (Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch where due to their extensive history with the Avengers) for that to happen, though it would seem that there aren't any such characters that either company cares enough about to look into it, assuming a line hasn't been drawn already on what belongs to who.
to:
*
** None
** The Avengers aren't going after criminals. They go after world-level threats, like Hydra and Ultron. Also, yes. This is basically the plot of the upcoming Civil War movie.
** I think it's mentioned that NATO apprehended Strucker's HYDRA men after the Avengers captured the base. So they might be one of the Avengers' overseers or affiliates.
Changed line(s) 156,158 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Character rights]]
* So, which characters rights does Marvel not have. I know that adds up to the X-Men, Deadpool, their pals and foes, the Fantastic Four and most of their allies and foes (bar the Inhumans for some reason), the Badoon, sort of Namor and Man-thing, and Gladiator (along with possibly the rest of the Shi'ar). Any I missed?
** Silver Surfer.
* So, which characters rights does Marvel not have. I know that adds up to the X-Men, Deadpool, their pals and foes, the Fantastic Four and most of their allies and foes (bar the Inhumans for some reason), the Badoon, sort of Namor and Man-thing, and Gladiator (along with possibly the rest of the Shi'ar). Any I missed?
** Silver Surfer.
to:
*
** You're mixing everything up and then claiming confusion. In ''Ant-Man'', Malick and Ward are running separate cells, so it's not hard to believe the former at least might be interested. In ''Civil War'', the guy behind the plot isn't HYDRA, and the one guy that is is in hiding and not part of any cell. ''Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'' is just exploiting the holes.
** Also keep in mind that it is very difficult to completely eradicate any major terror organization in real life and even harder in fiction. The idea that they are cutting off the last of the
** Silver Surfer.
Changed line(s) 161,164 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Spider-Man supporting characters]]
* So, with the deal from Sony, can Spider-Man supporting characters and baddies, like Rhino, Mary Jane, and Uncle Ben, show up in the MCU?
** Since the next Spider-Man movie will be part of the MCU, they probably can. However, since the Sinister Six film might still happen, we can't be sure about those characters.
*** Seemingly confirmed with Vulture and Mysterio in Spider-Man: Homecoming and Spider-Man: Far From Home respectively.
* So, with the deal from Sony, can Spider-Man supporting characters and baddies, like Rhino, Mary Jane, and Uncle Ben, show up in the MCU?
** Since the next Spider-Man movie will be part of the MCU, they probably can. However, since the Sinister Six film might still happen, we can't be sure about those characters.
*** Seemingly confirmed with Vulture and Mysterio in Spider-Man: Homecoming and Spider-Man: Far From Home respectively.
to:
*
** It's seems that the end scene in ''Ant-Man'' with Luis wasn't meant to be them specifically calling him for help with Bucky, but just an indication that they have considered his worth and
** Since the next Spider-Man movie will be part of the MCU, they probably can. However, since the Sinister Six film might still happen, we can't be sure about those characters.
*** Seemingly confirmed with Vulture and Mysterio in Spider-Man: Homecoming and Spider-Man: Far From Home respectively.
Changed line(s) 167,169 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:She-Hulk film rights]]
* SO, if Universal is the reason why no Hulk films have come out, is She-Hulk similarly troubled. I'd say rights to the characters in general, but Talbot has clearly proved that wrong.
** Universal doesn't hold any rights to any Marvel characters. However, they do have the right of first refusal on the distribution of any Hulk movies -- that is, if Marvel put out The Incredible Hulk 2, Universal would be the first choice of studio to distribute the movie (which Disney would want to avoid because then Universal would profit). This is due to Marvel Studios' origins since they were formed purely as a movie-making company, which needed other studios to distribute their movies for them. Since their purchase by Disney before the release of Iron Man 2, all MCU movies have been distributed by Disney themselves, but the deal made with Universal has not been reversed. So basically, the MCU is free to use any Hulk characters like Bruce Banner, Talbot, or She-Hulk... just as long as they aren't making a Hulk movie. It's not clear whether the same would apply to a She-Hulk movie or TV series.
* SO, if Universal is the reason why no Hulk films have come out, is She-Hulk similarly troubled. I'd say rights to the characters in general, but Talbot has clearly proved that wrong.
** Universal doesn't hold any rights to any Marvel characters. However, they do have the right of first refusal on the distribution of any Hulk movies -- that is, if Marvel put out The Incredible Hulk 2, Universal would be the first choice of studio to distribute the movie (which Disney would want to avoid because then Universal would profit). This is due to Marvel Studios' origins since they were formed purely as a movie-making company, which needed other studios to distribute their movies for them. Since their purchase by Disney before the release of Iron Man 2, all MCU movies have been distributed by Disney themselves, but the deal made with Universal has not been reversed. So basically, the MCU is free to use any Hulk characters like Bruce Banner, Talbot, or She-Hulk... just as long as they aren't making a Hulk movie. It's not clear whether the same would apply to a She-Hulk movie or TV series.
to:
*
** Universal doesn't hold any rights to any Marvel characters. However, they do have
** S.H.I.E.L.D. often knows things the general public doesn't. Most of season 3 is about them trying to keep the full extent of the Inhuman situation quiet because they
** Considering Iron Man voluntarily revealed his own identity to the public early on in his career as a
Changed line(s) 172,174 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Immortus Film Rights]]
* If Kang's film rights are owned by Fox, does that mean Immortus's are as well?
** Chances are, Fox owns all the Kangs, possibly including Iron Lad. Technically, it's the same guy, just different versions of him. For instance, if Sony still had exclusive ownership over Spider-Man, I don't think Marvel could have gotten away with a Ben Reilly Scarlet Spider character.
* If Kang's film rights are owned by Fox, does that mean Immortus's are as well?
** Chances are, Fox owns all the Kangs, possibly including Iron Lad. Technically, it's the same guy, just different versions of him. For instance, if Sony still had exclusive ownership over Spider-Man, I don't think Marvel could have gotten away with a Ben Reilly Scarlet Spider character.
to:
*
** Chances are, Fox owns all
** All this is in fact a RealLife headscratcher already. The UsefulNotes/FermiParadox discusses it.
Changed line(s) 177,181 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Why "stones" and not "gems"?]]
* Why are the infinity gems referred to as "stones"? Did Marvel really think "infinity gems" was too corny-sounding? The objects even appear gem-like, so why the need for this unnecessary term change?
** Possibly because infinity stone rolls off the tongue better than infinity gem? Sounds better spoke, I guess.
** Gems is more specific. You can stretch the definition of "stone" to stuff like Aether or Tesseract, but with Gem that would be trickier.
** "Gem" also implies somebody ''carved'' the thing to have specific facets and angles. Nobody was around ''to'' carve the Stones when they coalesced from the fundamental forces of the universe.
* Why are the infinity gems referred to as "stones"? Did Marvel really think "infinity gems" was too corny-sounding? The objects even appear gem-like, so why the need for this unnecessary term change?
** Possibly because infinity stone rolls off the tongue better than infinity gem? Sounds better spoke, I guess.
** Gems is more specific. You can stretch the definition of "stone" to stuff like Aether or Tesseract, but with Gem that would be trickier.
** "Gem" also implies somebody ''carved'' the thing to have specific facets and angles. Nobody was around ''to'' carve the Stones when they coalesced from the fundamental forces of the universe.
to:
* On the NonSerialMovie page it says this about the Franchise/MarvelCinematicUniverse: "Inverted and
* Why
** According to Jeph Loeb the Marvel TV shows and the Marvel Studio movies are in the same continuity, with the current crop of shows all happening before the "snap" at the end of ''Avengers 3''. As for the X-Men, who knows how that will play out after the deal.
** Going forward, what may happen is the set up of alternate timelines and realities may be the only excuse anyone needs to say a particular show or event they did not like is not a part of the primary continuity. That being said, there was one minor crossover from TV into the films in Endgame when Jarvis from Series/AgentCarter was opening the door for Howard, that was the same actor and character from the show making his first appearance in the films.
** Originally they intended them to be but the realities of the studios working together and creative differences have pretty much made this a problem that will one day need to be explicitly addressed. As of now, the movie-based team can produce TV shows that do what they originally thought these shows could be. They are going to have to choose to just use the characters and retcon whatever things the other studio did they didn't want, or just declare all these series What ifs and redo them in the main timeline. I'd wager them not branding Helstrom into the MCU brand is testing the waters for the later possibility when someone really
* I don't really understand why this is even
** Possibly because infinity stone rolls off
** Gems is more specific. You can stretch the definition of "stone" to stuff like Aether or Tesseract, but
** "Gem" also implies somebody ''carved''
Changed line(s) 184,192 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Captain America mask]]
* Steve Rogers' identity as Captain America has always been public in the MCU, so why does he bother with the mask at all? The helmet is one thing, but what's the point of covering the top of his face with it? Obviously, it's because it's part of the Captain America costume and audiences expect it, but what's the in-universe justification?
** Because he wants to protect his face too from damage.
** Considering half of the time he takes the helmet/mask off, I'm not sure I agree.
** Well, HelmetsAreHardlyHeroic.
** He's only twice willingly taken it off during combat: once when fighting Batroc and that was just to make the fight even, and two when defending Sokovia because... actually the film doesn't say why. Must have been one of those bits cut out of the movie. Either way, after that it's either been in a situation where he wasn't fighting or because it was torn off of him.
** Fighting killer robots for an hour is exhausting and he might've simply been overheating, taking it off to cool off a little.
** The very first costume he had was just a piece of propaganda, so the mask was there just for him to look heroic, maybe without attaching a specific person to the "Captain America" persona. The uniforms after that probably kept the general aesthetics because Steve wanted to keep the Captain America symbol alive, and that had already become part of it.
** Also, [[RuleOfCool because it's cool]].
* Steve Rogers' identity as Captain America has always been public in the MCU, so why does he bother with the mask at all? The helmet is one thing, but what's the point of covering the top of his face with it? Obviously, it's because it's part of the Captain America costume and audiences expect it, but what's the in-universe justification?
** Because he wants to protect his face too from damage.
** Considering half of the time he takes the helmet/mask off, I'm not sure I agree.
** Well, HelmetsAreHardlyHeroic.
** He's only twice willingly taken it off during combat: once when fighting Batroc and that was just to make the fight even, and two when defending Sokovia because... actually the film doesn't say why. Must have been one of those bits cut out of the movie. Either way, after that it's either been in a situation where he wasn't fighting or because it was torn off of him.
** Fighting killer robots for an hour is exhausting and he might've simply been overheating, taking it off to cool off a little.
** The very first costume he had was just a piece of propaganda, so the mask was there just for him to look heroic, maybe without attaching a specific person to the "Captain America" persona. The uniforms after that probably kept the general aesthetics because Steve wanted to keep the Captain America symbol alive, and that had already become part of it.
** Also, [[RuleOfCool because it's cool]].
to:
*
** Because he wants to protect his face too
**
** Well, HelmetsAreHardlyHeroic.
** He's only twice willingly taken it off during combat: once when fighting Batroc
** Explicitly putting in
** Fighting killer robots for an hour is exhausting and he might've simply been overheating,
** The very first costume he had was just a piece of propaganda, so the mask was there just for him to look heroic, maybe without attaching a specific person to the "Captain America" persona. The uniforms after
*** In the case of
** Also, [[RuleOfCool because
Changed line(s) 195,198 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Avengers legality]]
* So now that S.H.I.E.L.D. has folded (which the Avengers was initially a branch of and thus had someone to hold them responsible for in the eyes of the government), what is the legal jurisdiction for the Avengers? It seems that Stark Industries has picked up a lot of the slack for S.H.I.E.L.D.'s brand of peacekeeping (even though that means global security goes from a public sector to a private one which has its own problems, especially with someone as infamously reckless as Stark), but from most of the world governments' viewpoints, the Avengers are just a bunch of friends of Stark's that he funds to run around and beat up criminals. Who's arresting and detaining the criminals the Avengers defeat (especially superhuman ones like the Abomination), or debriefing them so they aren't just killing people in droves during missions and causing tons of casualties? Age Of Ultron has Mariah Hill mention that Banner is possibly going to be arrested for the incident in Africa, but that's the only thing we get. Otherwise, the world governments seem to just let them run loose and make their own rules.
** The Avengers aren't going after criminals. They go after world-level threats, like Hydra and Ultron. Also, yes. This is basically the plot of the upcoming Civil War movie.
** I think it's mentioned that NATO apprehended Strucker's HYDRA men after the Avengers captured the base. So they might be one of the Avengers' overseers or affiliates.
* So now that S.H.I.E.L.D. has folded (which the Avengers was initially a branch of and thus had someone to hold them responsible for in the eyes of the government), what is the legal jurisdiction for the Avengers? It seems that Stark Industries has picked up a lot of the slack for S.H.I.E.L.D.'s brand of peacekeeping (even though that means global security goes from a public sector to a private one which has its own problems, especially with someone as infamously reckless as Stark), but from most of the world governments' viewpoints, the Avengers are just a bunch of friends of Stark's that he funds to run around and beat up criminals. Who's arresting and detaining the criminals the Avengers defeat (especially superhuman ones like the Abomination), or debriefing them so they aren't just killing people in droves during missions and causing tons of casualties? Age Of Ultron has Mariah Hill mention that Banner is possibly going to be arrested for the incident in Africa, but that's the only thing we get. Otherwise, the world governments seem to just let them run loose and make their own rules.
** The Avengers aren't going after criminals. They go after world-level threats, like Hydra and Ultron. Also, yes. This is basically the plot of the upcoming Civil War movie.
** I think it's mentioned that NATO apprehended Strucker's HYDRA men after the Avengers captured the base. So they might be one of the Avengers' overseers or affiliates.
to:
* So now that S.H.I.E.L.D. has folded (which the Avengers was initially a branch of
* In real life, wrestlers, authors, celebrities, and rappers use fake names and pseudonyms. Would it really be ridiculous and silly for a costumed criminal to give himself a codename in the
** Wrestlers, authors, celebrities, and rappers do that
** The Avengers aren't going after criminals. They go after world-level threats, like Hydra and Ultron. Also, yes. This is basically the plot of the upcoming Civil War movie.
** I think
** It'd be
Changed line(s) 201,204 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Status of HYDRA]]
* So ''Series/AgentsOfSHIELD'' keeps showing [[{{Recap/AgentsOfSHIELDS2E11Aftershocks}} Coulson's revived S.H.I.E.L.D.]] and [[{{Recap/AgentsOfSHIELDS3E18TheSingularity}} Talbot's ATCU]] frequently dealing HYDRA [[CurbStompBattle curbstompings]] to the point that "the heads aren't growing back", and yet in the MCU films, HYDRA still retains enough clout, influence and resources to [[Film/AntMan1 buy Pym Particle technology]] to [[SequelHook some unspecified end]] and [[{{Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar}} meddle with the Avengers]] in a case of LetsYouAndHimFight. I get that HYDRA has been [[AncientConspiracy enduring for centuries if not millennia]] and they have cells, factions, and benefactors [[WeAreEverywhere all over the world]], but what's with the increasingly divergent portrayals and narratives? Is it genuine [[InternalReveal in-universe confusion and ambiguity]], or is it just another case of [[RightHandVersusLeftHand the film and television series]] [[ArmedWithCanon refusing to play nice with one another]]?
** You're mixing everything up and then claiming confusion. In ''Ant-Man'', Malick and Ward are running separate cells, so it's not hard to believe the former at least might be interested. In ''Civil War'', the guy behind the plot isn't HYDRA, and the one guy that is is in hiding and not part of any cell. ''Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'' is just exploiting the holes.
** Also keep in mind that it is very difficult to completely eradicate any major terror organization in real life and even harder in fiction. The idea that they are cutting off the last of the heads could be amended to cutting off the last of the heads 'that they know about'. And season 5 of SHIELD basically shows that HYDRA is not only still around in some form, but is still working plots that will be bad for humanity in the end... even tho they always seem to claim they are doing it for humanity.
* So ''Series/AgentsOfSHIELD'' keeps showing [[{{Recap/AgentsOfSHIELDS2E11Aftershocks}} Coulson's revived S.H.I.E.L.D.]] and [[{{Recap/AgentsOfSHIELDS3E18TheSingularity}} Talbot's ATCU]] frequently dealing HYDRA [[CurbStompBattle curbstompings]] to the point that "the heads aren't growing back", and yet in the MCU films, HYDRA still retains enough clout, influence and resources to [[Film/AntMan1 buy Pym Particle technology]] to [[SequelHook some unspecified end]] and [[{{Film/CaptainAmericaCivilWar}} meddle with the Avengers]] in a case of LetsYouAndHimFight. I get that HYDRA has been [[AncientConspiracy enduring for centuries if not millennia]] and they have cells, factions, and benefactors [[WeAreEverywhere all over the world]], but what's with the increasingly divergent portrayals and narratives? Is it genuine [[InternalReveal in-universe confusion and ambiguity]], or is it just another case of [[RightHandVersusLeftHand the film and television series]] [[ArmedWithCanon refusing to play nice with one another]]?
** You're mixing everything up and then claiming confusion. In ''Ant-Man'', Malick and Ward are running separate cells, so it's not hard to believe the former at least might be interested. In ''Civil War'', the guy behind the plot isn't HYDRA, and the one guy that is is in hiding and not part of any cell. ''Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'' is just exploiting the holes.
** Also keep in mind that it is very difficult to completely eradicate any major terror organization in real life and even harder in fiction. The idea that they are cutting off the last of the heads could be amended to cutting off the last of the heads 'that they know about'. And season 5 of SHIELD basically shows that HYDRA is not only still around in some form, but is still working plots that will be bad for humanity in the end... even tho they always seem to claim they are doing it for humanity.
to:
* So ''Series/AgentsOfSHIELD'' keeps showing [[{{Recap/AgentsOfSHIELDS2E11Aftershocks}} Coulson's revived S.H.I.E.L.D.]] and [[{{Recap/AgentsOfSHIELDS3E18TheSingularity}} Talbot's ATCU]] frequently dealing HYDRA [[CurbStompBattle curbstompings]] to the point that "the heads aren't growing back", and yet in the MCU films, HYDRA
* Since their universe is inhabited by sorcerers, gods, aliens, Inhumans, and
** Regular magicians are entertainers that perform tricks for
** The sorcerers keep their existence on the
** Audiences in RealLife are impressed by magicians' ability to ''fake'' magic. MCU magicians can still impress with
**
** Also keep in mind
** Non powered magicians exist. A failing one uses real
Changed line(s) 207,209 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:Timeline of Ant-Man/Civil War]]
* Going by release date, ''Ant-Man'' takes place a couple of months or so after ''Age Of Ultron''. ''Ant-Man'' ends with Scott having dinner with his family, having just stopped Darren Cross and accepted the mantle of Ant-Man before he gets a call from Falcon to recruit Scott for helping with Bucky. Okay. But ''Civil War'' takes place a year after AOU. In fact, by the time ''Civil War'' happens, Scott has already learned how to transform into Giant-Man (given the timeline it's very unlikely he learned it offscreen during ''Ant-Man''). So does ''Ant-Man'' actually take place much later than its release date signifies?
** It's seems that the end scene in ''Ant-Man'' with Luis wasn't meant to be them specifically calling him for help with Bucky, but just an indication that they have considered his worth and might call upon him in the future.
* Going by release date, ''Ant-Man'' takes place a couple of months or so after ''Age Of Ultron''. ''Ant-Man'' ends with Scott having dinner with his family, having just stopped Darren Cross and accepted the mantle of Ant-Man before he gets a call from Falcon to recruit Scott for helping with Bucky. Okay. But ''Civil War'' takes place a year after AOU. In fact, by the time ''Civil War'' happens, Scott has already learned how to transform into Giant-Man (given the timeline it's very unlikely he learned it offscreen during ''Ant-Man''). So does ''Ant-Man'' actually take place much later than its release date signifies?
** It's seems that the end scene in ''Ant-Man'' with Luis wasn't meant to be them specifically calling him for help with Bucky, but just an indication that they have considered his worth and might call upon him in the future.
to:
*
**
** Answered in
** The question about the nature of her powers was answered in that
Changed line(s) 212,215 (click to see context) from:
[[folder:People Knowing About Ultron's Creation]]
* So when I saw ''Ant-Man'', and Hank made a remark blaming the Avengers for Sokovia, I just took that for his bias against the Stark family. But I'm watching through ''Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'' on Netflix, and there have been multiple references to people knowing that Tony created Ultron. How do they know that? Were the Avengers really stupid enough to just outright tell the public, and why isn't Tony in jail if people know?
** S.H.I.E.L.D. often knows things the general public doesn't. Most of season 3 is about them trying to keep the full extent of the Inhuman situation quiet because they are worried people will freak out when they realize alien-made human weapons are living among them (instead of just victims of an alien disease). That being said, it is possible that Tony publicly admitted to making Ultron and paid restitution. In ''Civil War'' it's unclear if people are blaming him for Ultron or just for his overly-destructive attempts to stop Ultron.
** Considering Iron Man voluntarily revealed his own identity to the public early on in his career as a superhero, it's not a stretch to imagine that he at least issued a press statement admitting partial involvement in the creation of Ultron.
* So when I saw ''Ant-Man'', and Hank made a remark blaming the Avengers for Sokovia, I just took that for his bias against the Stark family. But I'm watching through ''Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'' on Netflix, and there have been multiple references to people knowing that Tony created Ultron. How do they know that? Were the Avengers really stupid enough to just outright tell the public, and why isn't Tony in jail if people know?
** S.H.I.E.L.D. often knows things the general public doesn't. Most of season 3 is about them trying to keep the full extent of the Inhuman situation quiet because they are worried people will freak out when they realize alien-made human weapons are living among them (instead of just victims of an alien disease). That being said, it is possible that Tony publicly admitted to making Ultron and paid restitution. In ''Civil War'' it's unclear if people are blaming him for Ultron or just for his overly-destructive attempts to stop Ultron.
** Considering Iron Man voluntarily revealed his own identity to the public early on in his career as a superhero, it's not a stretch to imagine that he at least issued a press statement admitting partial involvement in the creation of Ultron.
to:
*
**
** Considering Iron Man voluntarily revealed his own identity to the public early on in his career
Changed line(s) 218,221 (click to see context) from:
[[folder: The Watchers]]
* How can Marvel be using the Watchers? Aren't they related to the Fantastic Four, and thus belong with FOX?
** Either they are a shared property like Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch or the two companies made a deal. They wouldn't have been used if Marvel couldn't use them.
** Even though Fox is now owned by Disney, I think the only one explicitly connected to the F4 was Utau. Marvel could use the Watchers as a race from day 1, but Utau himself was off the table until Fox was bought by Disney.
* How can Marvel be using the Watchers? Aren't they related to the Fantastic Four, and thus belong with FOX?
** Either they are a shared property like Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch or the two companies made a deal. They wouldn't have been used if Marvel couldn't use them.
** Even though Fox is now owned by Disney, I think the only one explicitly connected to the F4 was Utau. Marvel could use the Watchers as a race from day 1, but Utau himself was off the table until Fox was bought by Disney.
to:
* How can Marvel be using
* Are they
** According to
** Either
** Even though Fox is now owned by Disney, I think the only one explicitly connected to the F4 was Utau. Marvel could use the Watchers as a race from day 1, but Utau himself was off the table until Fox was bought by Disney.
Deleted line(s) 223,273 (click to see context) :
[[folder: Scale of MCU universe]]
* Consider the following: Most of the stuff in both Guardians movies happens in Andromeda galaxy (M31), including the war between Xandar and Kree. However, Kree, Ego, and Ravagers visit Earth, and it's apparently no big deal. Nine Realms are located in unknown parts of the universe, but apparently, access to just nine planets is enough to plunge the entire universe into darkness using Aether. Sakaar lies in an unknown part of the universe but is connected by wormholes (a limited, if large, number of them) to pretty much the entire universe. Ego, Knowhere, Chitauri space, and Thanos's flying place (IF it isn't in Chitauri space) are outside Milky Way and/or Andromeda galaxy, judging by coordinates. Specifically, Ego was located "at the edge of the known universe." Ego visited enough worlds to talk about consuming the whole universe, and so says Quill, but Rocket is instantly talking about "saving the Galaxy" -- note the singular -- even though they are presumably in a separate galaxy altogether. However, Ego presumably didn't visit Asgard (no blue tumor is visible in Thor: Ragnarok). Problem is, impregnating the WHOLE universe would take Ego trillions of years even with his super-fast FTL. Asgardians are known as far as Sakaar and have come in contact with Kree. Sakaarians and presumable Asgardians are aware of Xandar. This raises a question: is MCU space really small (Local Group, maybe a few more nearby galaxies (probably fictional) or M81 group), or most villains just don't care about things beyond that? Granted, extinguishing all light in Local Group would indeed make the night sky pitch black, as everything else is beyond visibility, AFAIK, and Ego might have only known about the universe as learned from other civilizations -- and apart from the M81 group, everything beyond Local Group is REALLY far away. Although this in turn raises a question of how on Earth did all seven universal aspects end up in such a microscopic bit of the universe.
** All this is in fact a RealLife headscratcher already. The UsefulNotes/FermiParadox discusses it.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Continuity Questions]]
* On the NonSerialMovie page it says this about the Franchise/MarvelCinematicUniverse: "Inverted and subverted with the Franchise/MarvelCinematicUniverse, in which the films are the prime continuity, and the spinoff shows are, in a sense, Non-Serial ''Series''. ''Series/AgentsOfShield'', ''Series/AgentCarter'', ''Series/JessicaJones2015'', ''Series/{{Daredevil|2015}}'' and so forth '''are''' officially part of the MCU, and repeatedly confirmed to be so. At the same time, however, the events of television productions have almost no impact on the direction of the films and their MythArc. This has caused significant friction between the two studios, especially as the films can upset the status quo of the world at any time, and the showrunners are often left scrambling to keep up.[[note]]As happened following the massive shakeup caused by ''Film/CaptainAmericaTheWinterSoldier'', which actually ''dismantled S.H.I.E.L.D.''. While ''Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'' was still airing its first season.[[/note]] Meanwhile, it's been made clear numerous times that the films have no intent on using or referencing developments from the television side of things.[[note]]Case in point, the resurrection of EnsembleDarkHorse Phil Coulson in ''Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'', and Whedon explicitly stating the films will carry on as if Coulson is DeaderThanDead."[[/note]] Does this mean that these series are a sub-continuity, and also due to the Disney/Fox deal, will the X-Men series continue to be an AlternateContinuity from the Franchise/MarvelCinematicUniverse (with its ComicBookTime, etc.)?
** According to Jeph Loeb the Marvel TV shows and the Marvel Studio movies are in the same continuity, with the current crop of shows all happening before the "snap" at the end of ''Avengers 3''. As for the X-Men, who knows how that will play out after the deal.
** Going forward, what may happen is the set up of alternate timelines and realities may be the only excuse anyone needs to say a particular show or event they did not like is not a part of the primary continuity. That being said, there was one minor crossover from TV into the films in Endgame when Jarvis from Series/AgentCarter was opening the door for Howard, that was the same actor and character from the show making his first appearance in the films.
** Originally they intended them to be but the realities of the studios working together and creative differences have pretty much made this a problem that will one day need to be explicitly addressed. As of now, the movie-based team can produce TV shows that do what they originally thought these shows could be. They are going to have to choose to just use the characters and retcon whatever things the other studio did they didn't want, or just declare all these series What ifs and redo them in the main timeline. I'd wager them not branding Helstrom into the MCU brand is testing the waters for the later possibility when someone really wants to use a character sent off to these shows but doesn't want the version that the show had.
* I don't really understand why this is even a question; it seems like the only real evidence the "non canon" camp has is that the MCU movies do not reference the tv shows, but this alone is not really compelling evidence of the shows being non-canon, especially with how much the shows themselves make it clear that they are taking place in the MCU. ''Series/AgentsOfShield'' and ''Series/AgentCarter'' especially not only are shows revolving around movie specific characters (Agent Coulson and Peggy Carter) played by the same actors as in the movies, but also featured multiple appearances by movie characters in supporting and cameo roles, also played by their movie actors (Nick Fury, Mariah Hill, Lady Sif, Gideon Malik, Dr. List, President Ellis, Agent Sitwell, Agent Blake, the Howling Commandos; in AOS, and Young Tony Stark, Zola, and the Commandos again in Agent Carter). These are clearly unmistakably meant to be the same characters that we saw from the movies, and all the marvel TV shows make multiple references to the larger MCU world, including in a few cases on Agents of Shield, being influenced by movie events, so the idea that the tv shows are non-canon kind of doesn't make sense, even with the lack of references in the movies. As long as the films don't do anything that would directly make the TV shows impossible (which, they don't), there is no reason to NOT consider the shows canon. And even if the movies did blatantly contradict the shows, it would only just make them AU, but still existing in a universe where some version of the MCU movies clearly occurred as part of their world.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Avoiding current years]]
* Why do all the MCU movies set in the year they were released or close go so hard out of their way to avoid showing when they occur? Like, even when Nick Fury "died" in Winter Soldier and we see his gravestone, the camera pans as to obscure the year of his "death". This makes no sense considering whenever they show a flashback into the past they don't shy away from showing when it was set and you can do simple math if they mention how much time had passed since. Considering these connections to the past, both fictional and RealLife events, and a clear aversion to ComicBookTime, it's not like they're trying to make these movies "timeless" or anything.
** Explicitly putting in dates, like the prologue taking place "Eight Years Ago" in ''Spider-Man: Homecoming'' that Marvel admitted didn't make sense and retconned in ''Infinity War'', seems to lead to screwups. Also, while some movies take place in the year they were released, not all of them do. ''Thor: Ragnarok'' was released in 2017, but ''Infinity War'', released in 2018, picks up immediately afterward. It is probably possible to make a coherent timeline of the MCU ''because'' they don't throw in dates all the time without the various directors consulting with each other, which would lead to a ContinuitySnarl. Remember, WritersCannotDoMath.
*** In the case of ''Thor: Ragnarok'', it's possible that the post-credits scene leading into ''Infinity War'' is meant to take place several months after the main events of the film, so the 2017 date could still work.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Heroes and villains rarely use codenames]]
* In real life, wrestlers, authors, celebrities, and rappers use fake names and pseudonyms. Would it really be ridiculous and silly for a costumed criminal to give himself a codename in the MCU?
** Wrestlers, authors, celebrities, and rappers do that because they ''want'' publicity. Criminals, on the whole, ''don't want'' publicity because publicity means they're going to get caught. There's one criminal who gives himself a codename -- Starlord, and the best response he gets early on amounts to, "[[SarcasmMode Oh, yeah, sure, it's not silly and dumb that you have a codename.]]"
** It'd be more typical for a criminal to use a "supervillain name" as an ''alias'' than a boast.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Do non-powered human magicians still exist]]
* Since their universe is inhabited by sorcerers, gods, aliens, Inhumans, and mutants, does that mean regular magicians are now obsolete? In-universe, wouldn't people be less impressed with human magicians now they know that aliens and gods walk among them? Wouldn't MCU's Criss Angel be out of a job?
** Regular magicians are entertainers that perform tricks for an audience, few people believe they have real magic powers. The presence of real magic wouldn't really affect them.
** The sorcerers keep their existence on the down-low. The Ancient One was in business for hundreds (if not thousands) of years without the general public knowing, & she wasn't even the first Sorcerer Supreme.
** Audiences in RealLife are impressed by magicians' ability to ''fake'' magic. MCU magicians can still impress with their performances because audiences can admire how skillfully they do so. It's just like how one can be impressed by someone doing advanced calculus in their head despite the existence of calculators and computers.
** This is something brought up in the ''TabletopGame/SentinelsOfTheMultiverse'' podcast where, in a similarly comic-book world where all those things are known entities, the superheroine speedster Tachyon ''loves'' stage magic. With her superspeed, she could ''easily'' replicate all the tricks, but she loves the presentation of it and the talent needed to pull it off, and she ''especially'' loves when a magician pulls a trick she can't immediately figure out. The writers have said that when she fights an illusionist-type villain, she sometimes stops to banter things like, "Oh wow, that was a really good trick, how did you do that?" completely unironically.
** Non powered magicians exist. A failing one uses real magic to spice up his act in one episode of Series/SheHulkAttorneyAtLaw.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:What exactly are the Scarlet Witch's powers?]]
* In ''Age of Ultron'', besides her telekinesis, Wanda clearly has some kind of psychic powers, as she manipulates the minds of the Avengers. And on top of that, her manipulation causes Tony to have a vision of the future, which is proven to be correct in ''The Infinity War'' and ''Endgame''. However, in the later movies, Wanda is shown to use only her telekinesis. Why doesn't she attack enemies with her telepathy, as she did with the Avengers? And what about Tony's vision? If Wanda can make someone else see the future, shouldn't she be able to do that herself too?
** She was only able to attack the Avengers psychically because she caught them off guard, and had to do it one at a time. Doing so leaves her vulnerable. And she did not give Tony a vision of the future at all. She gave him a vision of his own worst fears. Note that the vision has all the other Avengers dying (which doesn't happen), does not show Thanos, and depicts an invasion of only the Chitauri.
** Answered in Series/WandaVision - further headscratchers go over there.
** The question about the nature of her powers was answered in that series, but there's still no explanation why she didn't use her psychic powers in the movies preceding it.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:What qualifies something or someone as a god]]
* It’s not clear what a god is in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Since it seems like Arishem from Film/{{Eternals}} essentially created the Universe, yet he’s never described as a god. While the first two [[ComicBook/TheMightyThor Thor]] movies clearly portray the Aesir as {{Sufficiently Advanced Aliens}} rather than gods but the last two characterize them as gods. Speaking of which in Film/ThorLoveAndThunder Eternity isn’t considered a god but it’s not clear why. Or for that matter how Gorr determines who is or isn’t a god as part of his deicidal killing spree. Also Thanos with the Infinity Stones has the power to destroy the Universe and create a new one to replace it which raises the question of why he’s not considered a god but Thor is. Ditto for He Who Remains from Series/{{Loki|2021}}. With the Egyptian gods from Series/{{Moon Knight|2022}} they’ve got their own afterlife so it makes sense to count them as that but Rapu from {{Film/Thor Love and Thunder}} explicitly says that his pantheon doesn’t have an Afterlife. So I want to know in the MCU, what is a god?
** The Asgardians are considered gods because they visited Earth, and humans worshipped them as gods and based an entire religion around them. The same doesn't apply to Arishem, Thanos, He Who Remains, etc. It seems godhood is defined by someone being worshipped as one, not by their power level.
[[/folder]]
[[folder:Sokovia Accords after the Blip]]
* Are they still in effect?
** According to ''[=WandaVision=]'', they are.
[[/folder]]
