Follow TV Tropes


Headscratchers / Marvel Cinematic Universe

Go To

New entries on the bottom.

For individual series, see their respective pages:

Phase One

Phase Two

Phase Three

Phase Four


    open/close all folders 

    S.H.I.E.L.D. Jurisdiction 

  • Just what exactly is S.H.I.E.L.D.'s jurisdiction anyways? They're implied to be a worldwide peacekeeping organization, though the "Homeland" portion of its acronym seems to imply that they're an American-run operation.
    • Pretty vague, it sounds. Even the Pentagon sounded confused as to what S.H.I.E.L.D. was, hence why they didn't back the film.
    • In a World... where the world is threatened by things from different planes of existence and the far reaches of space, the whole earth is their homeland.
    • My own take is that they are an American-originated organization that had a legacy of international involvement ( thanks to WWII and the SSR ), that various other nations have bought into. By joining the S.H.I.E.L.D. Convention or whatever it's called, they get involvement and some degree of executive say, in exchange for jurisdiction.
    • My personal belief is that S.H.I.E.L.D. is a multinational peacekeeping task force/Covert Intelligence Agency created, in secret, by the United Nations, hence why they answer to the World Security Council, instead of the Department of the Defense or Pentagon. I think what we are seeing in the movie is just the American Branch of S.H.I.E.L.D. And we only see the S.H.I.E.L.D. involvement in the U.S because of all the crazy superhero stuff that happens there.
    • Someone really wanted their initials to spell out "SHIELD".
    • Given that S.H.I.E.L.D. answers to the World Council I'd imagine that they're a multinational cooperative. That said, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. makes that seem less likely, given the constantly seem to have jurisdiction issues with people treating S.H.I.E.L.D. as simply American.
    • Even in the comics S.H.I.E.L.D. is sometimes a purely American organization, and sometimes is the super-spy branch of the United Nations. Sometimes it changes with no explanation at all.
    • I always thought that S.H.I.E.L.D. was just like WOOHP that goes to whether it finds crime. But instead of them all having the spy gene they're full of people like Kim Possible.
  • In WandaVision, they apparently have enough resources to send in an entire actual army. I kinda assume that S.H.I.E.L.D. just trains them though and that most of them have military training.

    World Security Council 
  • In the same vein... the World Security Council. So who are they? It sounds like they were going for the UN Security Council and simply didn't get the approval to just come out and say it. Pierce is called "Secretary", implying that he's part of the President's Cabinet, which would appear to back that up since the American UN Ambassador has a permanent seat on the Real Life Security Council... but then in Civil War when discussing the accords Tony seems to differentiate between the World Security Council and the UN. So, exactly who are they? Whence cometh their authority- if Pierce isn't a Cabinet member, who decided he gets to be in charge of a huge espionage network? Same question for all the other Council members.

    Avengers before the threat 
  • What was Fury even assembling the Avengers for, and who were his targets? When he asked Stark to join at the end of Iron Man, he told him he wasn't "the only superhero in the world". But according to the timeline Thor hadn't arrived yet, Cap was still frozen, Banner was still hiding in Brazil, and either S.H.I.E.L.D. hadn't found him or never approached him then, and the only other supers would have been Badass Normals Hawkeye and Black Widow. Who could he have been referring to, and what?
    • S.H.I.E.L.D. was aware of Banner, according to the in-canon comic prequels, S.H.I.E.L.D. has been watching over Banner, Natasha Romanoff was even present during the Culver University attack and in the Harlem battle according to the comics. Selvig even confirms in the Thor movie, that S.H.I.E.L.D. went to look for him and Banner wasn't heard ever since then.
    • Probably Cap, at this point it's still a case of Never Found the Body, meaning there's the potential for him to still live, and Nick Fury knew Howard Stark (the foremost surviving Super Serum scientist, and was likely Cap's closest male friend save for Bucky) very well.
    • Ant-man, probably. According to The Other Wiki, the Ant-man film is supposed to be set in the 60s.
    • Confirmed. An Ant-Man was operating in the '60s and the upcoming movie will focus on the second person to pick up that mantle.
    • In case you forgot, S.H.I.E.L.D. had the Tesseract. They knew it came from somewhere, and there could be other people with comparable power or artifacts.
    • So Thor was a potential Avengers from the start? Or any of the other Asgardians? Who knew...
    • He was assembling them just in case something like what happened happened. He didn't have a specific plan so much as it was becoming increasingly obvious that several powerful beings were wandering the planet. Just in official canon (mind you some of these are dead) Loki, the Abomination, the Leader, Ironman armors (which apparently have a relatively short learning curve) and that's just what we can prove. Magneto and other mutants and Spiderman and his rogues are probably floating around and when/if the copyrights are returned to marvel they'll show. The thing about the Avengers is if it's at all possible you want to get as many of these guys on speed dial as possible BEFORE needing them. It was mostly dumb luck that the Avengers in the movie (and to be fair in the comics) just sort of all fell together.
    • But none of those existed yet when he met with Tony. Loki was in Asgard, the Abomination and Leader weren't created yet, and neither were those Iron Man armors.
    • Fair enough. Red Skull is the only canon super-villain at the time. I'm sticking to my earlier assertion that just because we haven't confirmed (again due to copyright issues) doesn't mean they aren't there. Alternatively, they could have been gathering to bring in the Hulk who did exist, who at this point a force of nature wanted by the US government. The bottom line is we'll probably never know for sure.
    • I think Hulk was, indeed, an Avengers candidate. Black Widow did say they never lost track of him. And she and Hawkeye were also probably candidates.
    • As of the first Iron Man movie, the Hulk still existed (and depending on what was canon, almost assuredly tangled with some other super-powered villain. Red Skull did exist at some point, and the Tesseract's mere existence implied that there was... something unexplained out there. Given their lack of surprise at seeing Thor, it's likely they knew of Asgard.
    • Lack of surprise? Coulson stayed fairly cool (notice he instantly gave in to Thor's demands after witnessing the Destroyer's beatdown) but S.H.I.E.L.D. clearly didn't know anything for certain about Asgard, hence their decision to build Tesseract powered weapons to try and counter them after New Mexico. The Thor stinger and Captain America's film show that most people (aside from Johann Schmidt) regarded the old Norse myths as exactly that, myths. "Legend tells us one thing, history another, but now and then we find something that belongs to both." Red Skull believed the old Norse myths, but no one else took him or the legends that seriously even with Zola's Tesseract weapons. Going from Fury's above comment to Selvig, S.H.I.E.L.D. may have believed the Tesseract was just one of Zola's inventions. It wasn't until New Mexico that Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D. started realizing "Oh, Crap!, Schmidt was right, the Norse Gods do exist in some form, and they like blowing up our towns. Who knows what the hell else is out there, and how do we stop them?!"
    • Let's not forget Coulson's words at the end of the first Iron Man flick, "This isn't my first rodeo." Obviously Coulson and S.H.I.E.L.D. itself has been aware of superheroes for some time. The audience just hasn't seen everything yet.
    • In Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. it is revealed that 1: they have interacted with and know several Super-powered beings (example: Blackout) and items (example: Gravitonium). 2: they have a prison FOR Super-powered beings and items of both known and unknown origin (the latter are called 0-8-4s, of which Thor's hammer was one). 3: They had a "dead" "alien" which they were using to extract several serums, one of which was one of the steps used to bring back Coulson, and was used to heal show character Skye (who is apparently a "gifted" 0-8-4 that was found and hidden before Iron Man 1 came around).
    • We also have a Jessica Jones (2015) series coming out. She was a superhero in the past, although it remains to be seen how long she was a hero or if S.H.I.E.L.D. knew of her.
    • It was mentioned above that Ant-Man was operating in the past, but the recent movie also confirmed that Wasp was on missions alongside him.
    • Then there's the Black Panther legacy. The Captain America: Civil War movie will have Panther and possibly his father T'Chaka. With an entire nation having superhero kings, S.H.I.E.L.D. has likely been aware for decades.
    • Confirmed MCU super-people on Earth, pre-Iron-Man, as of June 2017: Captain America, Red Skull, the Winter Soldier, Ant-Man (Hank), Wasp (Janet), Hulk, Falcon, every Black Widow, certain S.H.I.E.L.D. agents (Hawkeye in particular, considering his skill level), numerous Inhumans (S.H.I.E.L.D. was at least aware of Eva and Katya, if not others), the sorcerers of Kamar-Taj (who may or may not have been under Fury's radar), Carl Creel, possibly Blackout (depending on when he was empowered), Daredevil, Jessica Jones, possibly Luke Cage (depending on when he was empowered), every Iron Fist (including Danny Rand, though he was in another dimension until recently), various members and servants of the Hand (including Gao, Nobu, Bakuto, and Harold Meachum), Elektra (and presumably any other Black Sky), Stick (if he counts as super), Ego (though S.H.I.E.L.D. wouldn't have known about him), at least one Kree (the corpse in the "Guest House"), the Asgardians and Jotuns (though, other than Prof. Randolph, they had been absent for a very long time), every Black Panther, Mr. Hyde (though S.H.I.E.L.D. didn't know he had "powers"), John Garrett (though S.H.I.E.L.D. didn't know he was the first Deathlok), possibly Nuke and the other IGH-enhanced soldiers, subjects in Thunderbolt Ross's old super-soldier program, Whitney Frost, Jason Wilkes, Dr. Feinhoff (kinda), Howard Stark (via his crazy inventions). I may be forgetting some. Also, at the time of Fury's first visit to Tony Stark, three Infinity Stones were on Earth (Space, Reality, and Time), one of which was already in S.H.I.E.L.D.'s possession.
      • Additions to this list: The other Winter Soldiers who were in hibernation in Siberia, Angar the Screamer, possibly Cloak & Dagger (their powers were at least latent), and Captain Marvel (and any Kree and Skrulls who showed up with her). Subtraction: Luke Cage (he didn't have his powers yet). And I'm pretty dang sure we're about to see that the events of Captain Marvel are what inspire Fury to want to build the team.
      • Now confirmed that the events of Captain Marvel are exactly what got Fury working on the Avenger Initiative.

    Mjolnir and Steve 
  • Why exactly can't Steve lift the hammer in Age of Ultron? Thor had troubled his first go-around because he forgot his duty to self-sacrifice in defense of those he has to protect. Steve was already willing to fall on a grenade to save others before he got his powers. By what standard is he not worthy? What exactly has Thor done that Cap hasn't?
    • It is a popular theory that Steve was able to lift it, but decided not to, maybe because he saw Thor's shocked reaction and did not want to embarrass him or draw any attention to himself (Thor was basically boasting that he was sure no one of the Avengers could lift it). Joss Whedon himself hinted at this theory when he was asked this question ("Are you sure he could not lift it? Or did he simply stop?") so this is my canon now. But I guess we can never know for sure now since RIP Mjölnir.
    • It has been well-explained in the movie itself. Thor loves a good fight, but he now fights for the peace and safety of others. He had his Character Development and "doesn't seek war, but is always ready for it". Steve on the other hand has nothing but the war left since almost all he knew from his original life is dead and gone. His greatest nightmare is peace, and it is implied he gets angry at Tony's plan to use Ultron to prevent war not just because it is oppressive, but also because it would indeed establish peace and make Cap feel useless. He always fights a good fight, but he can't live without it. As such, he's not worthy.
  • Avengers: Endgame says otherwise. Steve Rogers lifts and wields Mjolnir during the filmnote 

    Seeing Tony's face in the suit 
  • Here's something that confuses me: If Tony's head is tight inside Iron Man's armor how can he be seen moving it freely with all those holograms as if he was wearing a big helmet during the interior shots?
    • The interior is just a big ol' screen, designed to make it look like the screens aren't directly in Tony's face (which would be disorienting, claustrophobic, and hard to focus on). Because of that, in our shots we see his face looking like there's more space than there is.

    S.H.I.E.L.D. and Tesseract weapons 
  • Why is S.H.I.E.L.D. vilified for creating Tesseract weapons? Most of the Avengers act like it's such a horrible thing even though it is a pretty good idea.
    • Stark hates weapons manufacturing due to his past as a weapons manufacturer. Rogers and Banner were brought into the mission under the pretenses of recovering an unlimited clean energy source for the good of all. Thor really doesn't care about the weapons part, he's just pointing out that screwing around with the Tesseract is what caught the attention of Loki's benefactors in the first place. Besides, the entire scene makes it very clear that Loki's staff is messing with their heads somehow, as everyone is acting way out of character, to the point where Thor actually seems to be drunk. Which Infinity Gem was the blue one again? Oh, right, it was the Mind Gem.
    • Not to mention that the comment is made about alien dangers. Well, what's the one big alien group they've met recently? Oh yeah, Asgardians. It's not a big stretch to think that they are planning on how to use those weapons against the Asgardians if THEY feel it is justified.
    • Partly because it's an escalation — and if S.H.I.E.L.D. gets them, it's really only a matter of time before others do — partly because it's exactly what Hydra did; and partly because they were hiding the project.
    • The WSC proved they couldn't be responsible with them when they ordered New York to be nuked. Leaving them with more powerful weapons would be even worse.
    • They were only irresponsible with a nuke from our perspective where we knew the Avengers would come together and more importantly they would win. In-Universe, trading New York for the world would have been a bargain. Without the nuke, Tony would have had no way to end that conflict, and sooner or later the numbers game would have caught up with the Avengers who were nearing their limits by the end. Besides Tesseract Weapons aren't the same kind of mass destruction as nukes. I'd rather irresponsible people have access to Tesseract weapons and Iron Man Armors were they for the most part have to be actively trying to kill someone to do it than nukes that can't be precision aimed. They were villainized because this is fiction and the government is always wrong. We see similar issues with the Sentinel Program in the X-Men series or CADMUS in DC comics. Apparently, the various governments of the world are supposed to blindly trust that the various superheroes will never turn on them and always triumph.
    • The Avengers could have still closed the portal without the aid of the nuke. Then they'd just have to mop up the last of the Chitauri. Fury was watching the fight and showing the footage to the WSC, so both could see the Avengers were doing well. Plus, we see on the Phase 2 screen that Tony brings up to Fury that one of the planned weapons is in fact a Tesseract-powered nuke. That doesn't show the necessity for those weapons by the WSC, but rather a poorly veiled attempt at gaining more control through firepower.
    • By doing well you mean pretty literally at the end of their ropes. Hawkeye was out of arrows, Cap was wounded, they'd focused fire on the Hulk and seemed to have been wearing him down. The WSC had no way of knowing when they launched the nuke that the gate even could be closed let alone would be as soon as it was. I'd be willing to bet the Chitauri were just getting started and those sleds are probably their equivalent of motorcycles. They almost definitely have something on par with our jets. Something between the sled and the Leviathan. And the Leviathan was nigh-unstoppable! They were also coming in a bit cocky because Loki "Underestimated"(Read: didn't know about the Avengers) Earthlings and they found more resistance than they expected. Which goes back to the Tesseract and perhaps if NYPD and New York National Guard had weapons on par with WW2 Hydra they would have been much more effective making the nuke less necessary from their point of view. Nick Fury is right when he says we are hopelessly, laughably outgunned in the universe.
    • And the WSC went right to the nuke, in a civilian population center, and never even thought about any other options. Yeah, the Chitauri were tearing up the place, but outside the Avengers their only resistance was unarmed civilians and lightly armed police. Black Widow demonstrated Bullets kill the Chitauri just fine, and the sleds were awesome but impractical. Only the Leviathans might have been a real problem. And although the Chitauri is more technologically advanced, they aren't that great on tactics, which consisted of zerg rushing. The WSC overreacted.
    • "Never even thought about any other options"? Citation needed on that one. What we see is the result of their deliberations, and we never see their deliberations. They present it to Fury as, "The Council has made their decision," indicating that they've discussed the situation and determined the nuke to be the best option. The WSC has to work with a complete lack of any intel regarding the threat they face; there is an impenetrable force field holding open a portal through which seemingly infinite numbers of enemy soldiers are flooding through, coming from an enemy force that has achieved space travel, and nothing further is known about this. The WSC has no way of knowing how many enemy soldiers they would have to deal with in a direct battle: millions? Hundreds of millions? Billions? Yes, they can be killed with standard arms, but how many aliens can come through that portal? How many Leviathans are there? Is there anything worse than Leviathans? They are faced with an enemy through which no information about any aspect of the battle exists anywhere in the world, and the only sure way to win such a battle is to cut off the portal itself, which can't be penetrated by any force that's been applied to it thus far. Reducing the area to a crater was the best idea they had to kill the portal and end the invasion.
    • "Reducing the area to a crater" is NEVER the best idea. It is, literally, the last resort. To use Fury's phrasing, they either jumped to the worst-case scenarios to justify their "stupid-ass decision," or somehow looked at a conventional arms response by the military and made the 'stupid-ass decision' to not use it. Yes, the army would have taken a while to get there in any considerable numbers, but it would certainly have been able to respond with less loss of life, not to mention damage to the ecosystem and the collective psyche of the planet. You don't go blowing up your own cities. Lack of intel is a major reason NOT to use the nuke. You get boots on the ground and you size up your enemy.

    Racist HYDRA 
  • So is modern-day HYDRA still a racist organization? People like Strucker and the artificial Zola sure seem to give you that feeling, but then again they are working with ethnically different people like Sunil Bakshi and I believe during the cleansing of S.H.I.E.L.D., many black-skinned people were among those being taken in. Or are they just tools for them?
    • HYDRA might have never been a racial-supremacist organization. The founding principle of HYDRA was based around restricting people's freedom, not one people's advancement like the Nazis. Sure, it was predominantly German when it started, but Schmidt had no loyalty toward his native country, as shown when he made Berlin a planned target for Valkyrie's bombs. The First Avenger prequel comic First Vengeance even has Schmidt say he doesn't care if Erskine's wife is Jewish but is willing to use it against her if it would make Erskine work for him. Long story short, HYDRA is not so much racist and more Hates Everyone Equally.
    • Even regardless of their origin, the current incarnation of HYDRA is a different entity than what it started as. HYDRA classic was merely a Nazi science division that went rogue and tried to kill everyone, while HYDRA now is a group formed up of people who believe extremely in the idea that security and control outweigh the need for freedom and others who are brainwashed into thinking this.
    • There's a scene in The First Avenger where one of the Nazi officers ostensibly in charge of HYDRA tries to boss Schmidt around (specifically mentioning something about Nazi racial beliefs) and Schmidt basically tells him to fuck off because HYDRA's goals are bigger than Nazi goals. It's safe to assume HYDRA doesn't have racial policies in place.
    • Or, even if they did hold with supremacist beliefs when first founded, that those beliefs got binned the instant their leader's "condition" became an open secret within their own ranks. Schmidt's deformity as Red Skull would've marked him for extermination as a physical disability under the Nazi regime, after all: any HYDRA member whose affinities were more Nazi than HYDRA would've been purged at that point.

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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, Helmets Are Hardly Heroic.
    • 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, because it's cool.

    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.

    Status of HYDRA 

    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 possible that the end scene in Ant-Man with Luis wasn't meant to be them specifically calling him for help with Bucky, but an indication that they have considered his worth and might call upon him in the future.

    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.

     The President in MCU 
  • 'Long live the Chief', a rap song performed in Netflix's Luke Cage mentions Obama, but Iron Man 3 and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. confirm that their US president is a man named Mathew Ellis. So in the MCU is Obama a man who ran and lost, did he lose in 2012? Or is this just an obvious case of the writers of the show not checking the lyrics of a song for discrepancies with their greater narrative?
    • In all reality they probably just didn't think to check the lyrics for discrepancies. I doubt they'll go into depth about previous political campaigns in the shows or movies, so an official answer is pretty slim. But it's easy to figure with all the craziness of the MCU going on, a relatively inexperienced politician like Obama wouldn't have been elected.
    • The song says "And her father say I remind him of Obama". We don't need to infer from there that Obama is the president. We can only infer that he's a known public person.
    • Plus, Obama may have simply been a one-term president in this timeline.
    • In Winter Soldier, one of the books in Steve Rogers' bookshelf is Barack Obama: The Story, which is explicitly about President Obama, published at the tail end of his first term. So it certainly seems Obama served at least one term before Ellis.
      • There is a theory that Obama was elected in 2008 as in the real world, but that Ellis defeated Obama's bid for reelection in 2012 due to the sociopolitical ramifications of the fantastical events of the films that obviously didn't happen in our world. Another point is that the creators of Luke Cage (which is the primary offender in this apparent continuity error) wanted to deal with themes and issues relevant to contemporary African Americans, and it would be weird not to mention the first black president at least once. The other instances of this are likely minor continuity errors and the Luke Cage examples are a case of social relevance superseding continuity.
    • For what it's worth, a Runaways (2017) character tells her parents that they "...haven't had a date night since the Obama Administration." in a way that sounds like it had been several years.

     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.

    What is all this legal red tape? 
  • All the properties, ABC, films, and TV shows in the MCU belong to Marvel Studios. So why is it so hard for them to cross over? More importantly, why do the shows reference the movies, but not vice versa?
    • It's only a hypothesis, but it is a fact that more people are watching the movies than people watching the series. If a character from the series would show up in a movie, the filmmakers would have to take time to explain who that character is, and that might be frustrating to those who already know the character, it would destroy the pacing of the movie. For example, when Coulson would show up again (since many people wonder if he will show up again in a movie), half of the people would be heavily confused because they remember him dying in Avengers, and it would be impossible to explain his state of being alive without completely having to step out of the plot for several minutes and honestly, no one would like to see that. Now, why other, new for the movies, characters don't show up or get mentioned: That might be a case to prevent something like "Characters Overload" and also to not diminish the heroism and coolness of the Avengers. If the Avengers get help from every other existing superhero in the MCU, there would not really be a problem fighting a villain (just think about what (Quake can do). So it might not really make sense in-universe, but I guess Rule of Cool applies here. I personally think they could at least include characters and events from the series as a Freeze-Frame Bonus in a newspaper or something, this way someone who is not familiar with the series is not confused and everyone who is will have a little nerdgasm. No idea why they can't/don't do that.
    • Furthermore, when it comes to Netflix being separated from either ABC or Cinematic, it's due to reasons of tone. Netflix as a whole is aimed at an adult audience and contains several mature topics, so Marvel Studios can't risk a little kid watching a Netflix show because either Captain America or Quake made a cameo there. It's the same reason that, in DC Comics, kept Vertigo separate from the main DC Universe for so long.
    • The Lego Avengers Game had tons of MCU references. None were from the Netflix shows for that reason.
    • Marvel Studios makes the movies, Marvel Television makes the TV shows. And the top people from each don't really see eye to eye on a lot of things, they may simply choose not to work together.
    • It can also come down to contracts. For example, does Chloe Bennett have a clause in her contract to play Quake outside of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and if so are there stipulations to it? Because if she doesn't the higher-ups might not feel it's worth the effort to rewrite it. On a similar note if the movie actors have no clause about showing up on a TV show it may be too expensive to add them to the cast, even briefly.
    • Well Charlie Cox and the girl that plays Mockingbird said their contracts do allow them to appear in MCU movies, so it's possible Chloe's contract does all. but someone should have to ask her in an interview.
    • That may be true, but the movie actors probably don't have a TV clause in their contract.
    • Here's one of the issues regarding crossovers and it is the schedule, movies are written years in advance before the TV side could plan their own stories, for example in 2018 we have season 2 of Jessica Jones and Luke Cage and season 3 of Daredevil and we have Infinity War, but by the time they started writing Infinity, the TV side has not planned out what would happen in their Netflix shows, what if the Russo Brothers have written Trish into Infinity War, but she's supposed to die in Jessica's show, either the Russo would have to re-work their plans for Trish, or the TV side would ditch their own subplot too to accommodate Infinity, also if the Russos were to write Matt Murdock into Infinity War, that negates season 3 from dealing with his return after his supposed death. it would get complicated and Feige has said he doesnt want to handcuff the tv side, they should be allowed to be given the freedom to do their stories, and addition to this, there is also filming schedule, again lets use Infinity War and Avengers 4, now Punisher, Defenders, Cloak and Dagger, Runaways, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Inhumans and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. were all filming at the same time as Avengers 3 and 4, in different locations and tv shows take the same time as movies to film, that means the cast of those shows would be busy doing their shows and wont be able to film Infinity War and Avengers 4, something similar happened in Ragnarok as Sif's actress was unable to appear due to filming her own show, now they could appear if its a very quick cameo, but Jeph Loeb has stated they have no plans for them to be quick cameos, meaning they want their appearances to serve the plot of the movie and not be there for the sake of fanservice.

    ABC's "Jessica Jones-Esque" new series 
  • I have read here that ABC is working with Marvel on a new series, with a tone similar to Jessica Jones. Is it known who would be the main character of such a series, or is it up for WMG for now?
    • It's not confirmed as of now.

     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.

    Continuity Questions 
  • On the Non-Serial Movie page it says this about the Marvel Cinematic Universe: "Inverted and subverted with the Marvel Cinematic Universe, in which the films are the prime continuity, and the spinoff shows are, in a sense, Non-Serial Series. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Agent Carter, Jessica Jones (2015), Daredevil 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 Myth Arc. 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  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  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 Alternate Continuity from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (with its Comic-Book Time, 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 Agent Carter 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.

    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 Real Life events, and a clear aversion to Comic-Book Time, 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 Continuity Snarl. Remember, Writers Cannot Do Math.
      • 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.

    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, "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.

    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 Real Life 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 Sentinels of the Multiverse 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.

    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 WandaVision-further headscratchers go over there.


How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: