Yeah, I'm not really relying on the six month mention (whether real or not) or the novelization for the timeline. That stuff is non-canon since its not seen or mentioned in actual canon material. I'll utilize that type of info if there is no other source and it doesn't conflict with anything established in canon, but I'm simply using the implied timeline from the film itself and Agents of SHIELD. The prop newspaper does place it in Dec 2013, but the dialogue and 13 years later dialogue (from December 31, 1999) place it in December 2012. This is reinforced by Agent of SHIELD's Pilot episode using the Extremis plot line. The intention was clear to follow that on from what occurred i in Iron Man 3. The Dec 2013 date on the prop was simply a mistake, since the film came out in 2013 they used the real world timing (somewhat as the film released in May, 2013) which contrasts directly with the dialogue. Such pointed and direct dialogue and plot line follow throughs are why the 2013 year is ignored.
Further, even though Feige didn't say it, he also didn't contradict or correct, which I feel he'd do, even if to say its an unspecific amount of time later (so as to avoid getting pinned down and causing problems as the Homecoming 8 years later tag did... but which they pretty quickly retconned/fixed in Infinity War).
Tony's seemingly fresh PTSD attacks also indicates it hasn't been too long after events of Avengers. I'd think Happy or Rhodey or Pepper would've witnessed one before the events of the film if it was indeed a year and a half later instead of six months, just due to law of averages/odds.
Like I said before, the evidence for placing it in December 2012 outweighs the prop newspaper date in my opinion. Especially in regards to how it affects Agents of SHIELD. Think about the fact the major Avengers related events in Thor - The Dark World and Captain America - Winter Soldier were both covered and referenced extensively on Agents of SHIELD, but for some reason NOT the major events occurring in Iron Man 3? There's a reason for that.
The dialogue in the film, the elements used in AoS's first episode, the fact the show so heavily relies on events from the two big Avengers related characters but makes no mention of events of Iron Man 3 in real time (as was done for the other shows). If Iron Man 3 was meant to occur in December, 2013, why was there no mention of President being kidnapped, super soldiers powered by Extremis, Tony Stark being AWOL, etc? It just doesn't add up. Granted Season 1 ends before events of IM3 occur over days leading up to Christmas based on my timeline (but others lay out AoS Season 1 and Winter Soldier in real time), but you'd think there'd have been a mention in Season 2 of such an event?
Okay, I will respond to this and this alone because we have had a pretty lengthy argument about this in the past, and whereas I do enjoy talking about it and hearing other points of view, I don't want to cluster up the chat with this (I am totally wiling to private chat about it though haha)
All of the evidence in the movie indicates it is in 2013. The newspaper date you mentioned is one of them, but there is another prop date as well. Jarvis says he was monitoring the heat signature in incidents over the past twelve months, Tony then pulls up a newspaper indicating that an article was written about it in October of 2013. All of the dialog indicates it is 2013 as well. Aldrich says he presented the idea to Tony 13 years ago, and since the year 2000 is printed all over that convention, in my mind, he means from 2000, but that argument can go either way. Also Tony: Don't tell me there is a twelve year old kid in the car I've never met Mia: He's thirteen. Nine months after conception would be September 2000, 13th birthday September 2013, making him 13 that December. I know there is no kid, and it is a joke, but there is no proof that can indicate to me that the point of the joke isn't actually "Hey, jerk, we actually slept together thirteen years ago. And the kid would be 13" And with so much talk about rounding on this forum, it seems really random to me that in this instance alone the thought of rounding up less than an hour to the year 2000 is so absurd.
Right, he didn't contradict or correct it due to the fact that it was an interview about Thor: The Dark World, so he talked about Thor: The Dark World. Why would he take up time in the interview promoting a new movie, talking about an old movie. And maybe he did, and they cut it do to irrelevance, we can't know.
Pepper did notice. Tony: "I messed up. My fault. I haven't been the same since New York." Pepper: "No kidding." Tony's delayed anxiety disorder hadn't manifested because his anxieties were being channeled into building his suits, preoccupying him. He acknowledges this in the movie. Tony: "I tinker, I do what I know, these suits, they're-" Pepper: "A distraction." Also, there is no set time for when a panic disorder can take effect, as one can go years before a specific event can cause the anxiety to surface. Also, I don't care how little he is sleeping, he built 6 suits between 2008 to 2012. With Jarvis. I'm not saying that 35 suits, most with unique functions such as stealth, radiation, deep sea, etc etc, in a year and a half is incredibly realistic, but it is about three times more realistic than six months.
In my deduction, that is due to SHIELD being scattered in order to find Coulson around that time, as Fury had put all his resources into finding Coulson and they had multiple units around the globe trying to find him, the map in the episode after "The Bridge" shows just how seriously they were taking the manhunt. And you can barely use the, why wasn't this mentioned argument because that is just the nature of the beast with this universe. If we're just discussing Iron Man 3, no TV shows, where was SHIELD at all when the president was kidnapped, he was in danger but they didn't lift a finger. Why? It's not like SHIELD wasn't around before the TV show, they should have stepped in. But because they didn't, we don't assume SHIELD isn't around, just that they were somewhere else.
They are mentioned, albeit subtly, Simmons in Seeds Refers to AIM and Centipede in the same breath as recent events. And also, think the cure. SHIELD and Tony both had a "We need to stabilize Extremis problem" So by the 2012 logic: Tony stabilized Extremis before SHIELD started, Coulson knew about Extremis but didn't know there was a cure (Why?), and SHIELD still had to stabilize Extremis themselves even though Tony had already done it but didn't tell them because he hates saving lives. But the 2013 route: In the Bridge Fitz and Simmons tell Mike: "We're really curious how they stabilized the Extremis in you" to which Mike replies "Oh, that was you guys. Your serum." So to me, it makes more sense that SHIELD would have given the already figured out stabilization formula to Tony for Pepper, rather than Tony stabilizing Pepper and just throwing away the formula forever.
Also, and I think I'm alone on this, but the idea of a high ranking SHIELD operative (Garret) who has gotten his hands on everything from super soldier serum, Chitauri metal, etc etc through black market means getting his hands on a government funded think tank serum such as Extremis isn't super far fetched to me. And the idea of Coulson knowing about a government funded think tank serum is also not that ridiculous. It's listed in government intel. Especially since Coulson is the ONLY one on the team who knows what Extremis is. And you would think that the two scientists on the team would have at least heard about that, considering it was used to kidnap the president and it was all over the news. Which even when they encounter the Extremis, there is no mention, from anyone including Coulson that it was used less than a year ago to kidnap Ellis. Which is weird. Maybe because that hasn't happened yet.
But again, there's no need to blow up the forum here, because I don't think we are going to change each others minds, I will gladly PM about it though if you want. I just wanted to respond at least once, I didn't want it to seem like I was ignoring your side of the argument, because it is well thought out and I appreciate you responding at all. We just see it differently. Which I guess is the fun of all this right? Everyone can see the timeline in different perspectives. We need to hurry up and petition for that published timeline haha