ProjectX2
Don't expect me to take you with me when I go to s
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2004
- Messages
- 25,007
Jred said:
I don't have copies of those issues handy, but I've read them quite a few times. I don't remember that response.
Ultimate Marvel Timeline / Chronology (v. 3.0)
- Thread starter DIrishB
- Start date
-
- Tags
- chronology timeline
I don't have copies of those issues handy, but I've read them quite a few times. I don't remember that response.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Jred said:
Thats true, but then again one can just say certain aspects of Weapon X will be phased out between then and 2003. And my placement of the early UXM arcs in 2003 still allows for them to be phased out later that year. Also, it would make the direct 2004 reference in Ultimate Nightmare make much less sense.
Its cool, like I said it only serves to make the timeline better.
ProjectX2 said:
He's right, I remember them. One of the main reasons I placed UXM's early arcs in 2003 was due to that specific year's reference in the Weapon X arc.
Pandrio
Well-Known Member
It was originally meant to be there, but due to other continuity aspects, it can no longer be placed there. In my opinion, comics shouldn't have year references for this reason.Jred said:
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Pandrio said:
This is true, its all about the advancing timeline. As time passes in the real world, year/time references change to make the story current and have more meaning to it. So even though we've had several specific year references, in a few years we'll probably see a book or mini which specifically states the story takes place in 2008 or something...even though 4 years wouldn't have passed in the Ultimate titles themselves.
In terms of using years, as it stands now it works, and given the specific references/mentions of those years, it makes no sense NOT to include them. As I said, at some point a story will probably be released which throws a wrench in things in that way, but until it is the timeline works as is.
Pandrio
Well-Known Member
I just meant that they shouldn't have included them in the comics to start with.DIrishB said:
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Pandrio said:
That I wholeheartedly agree with.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
updated to include USM #84 and UFF #24.
EvilSickSix6
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 1
Here's another continuity glitch that compromises the timeline....
In #2 of the first Ultimates series, Stark asks Fury if he's contacted the Fantastic Four, about being part of the Ultimates, who are not yet a team. This implies that the Fantastic Four are already an established team and that the public knows about them.
In Ultimate Fantastic Four #5, Dr. Storm yells to Johnny, to let the Ultimates handle the Moleman's monster. At this point, in the UFF title, they're not officially a team and the public doesn't even know about them.
So how can the Ultimates even consider inviting the FF to join, if the FF don't exist yet? If you want to say that the FF existed first, then how can Dr. Storm say to let the Ultimates handle it?
JOHN
In #2 of the first Ultimates series, Stark asks Fury if he's contacted the Fantastic Four, about being part of the Ultimates, who are not yet a team. This implies that the Fantastic Four are already an established team and that the public knows about them.
In Ultimate Fantastic Four #5, Dr. Storm yells to Johnny, to let the Ultimates handle the Moleman's monster. At this point, in the UFF title, they're not officially a team and the public doesn't even know about them.
So how can the Ultimates even consider inviting the FF to join, if the FF don't exist yet? If you want to say that the FF existed first, then how can Dr. Storm say to let the Ultimates handle it?
JOHN
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
UltimateE said:
Speaking of which I have to get back to working on that. But since the FAQ isn't even close to done, here's the answer:
EvilSickSix6 said:
Its a continuity glitch, it doesn't work either way. You have to choose to ignore one, I chose to ignore the UFF reference of the Ultimates. Its also been said in the Ultimate Marvel Special (whatever it was called) that Fury may have had a lesser known team, also called the Ultimates, BEFORE the current Ultimates. Most likely this is the Black Ops team (Hawkeye, Black Widow, etc). So in that sense it works, but honestly its just a continuity discrepancy.
here we go again, except this one is simple.
UXM #16 should be listed as pages 7 - 21 and then 1-6, as 7 says 2 days earlier and leads up to the x-men going to muire island, and then UXM #17 starts off (i think) talking about pages 1 - 6 and refers to them as last night.
whether i'm right about what they are talking about in the beginning of #17 or not, it still says 2 days earlier on page 7 of UXM #16.
hope this helps.
UXM #16 should be listed as pages 7 - 21 and then 1-6, as 7 says 2 days earlier and leads up to the x-men going to muire island, and then UXM #17 starts off (i think) talking about pages 1 - 6 and refers to them as last night.
whether i'm right about what they are talking about in the beginning of #17 or not, it still says 2 days earlier on page 7 of UXM #16.
hope this helps.
DIrishB
The Timeline Guy
Jred said:
I'll have to check that when I get home (at a friend's right now), and due to Hurricane Wilma I still don't have power at my place, so I may not be able to answer or change it definitively unil sometime next week.
Also, included Ultimate Secret #4.
I think it's possible, and i don't think this will jack up the lines too much, that the first 5 issues of spider-man (or more) are in 2002. I say this because in USM #45 when Aunt May is talking to the shrink, she says "my husband died over a year ago".
i havn't gone back and re-read the first few books but i know Ben died in USM #5.
i havn't gone back and re-read the first few books but i know Ben died in USM #5.
Pandrio
Well-Known Member
The stories all take place within 9 months as of Hobgoblin. The annual was caught up with the rest of the other titles in 2004. It makes a reference to Hobgoblin as a few weeks ago. Since they all can't take place in 2004, this moves everything up into 2003.Jred said:
Last edited:
the watcher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2005
- Messages
- 6,530
Hay, DIrishB. I was reading the Newsletter in the back of Ultimte Spider-Man #85. And one letter asked what was the timeline for the Ultimate Spider-Man Annual? The A: At the End of Wariors arc.
Pandrio
Well-Known Member
That's how it is in the timeline.:?the watcher said:
the watcher
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2005
- Messages
- 6,530
Sorry, It's been a while since I've read this thread.
i'm sorry, i wasn't around from the beginning of the ultimate universe, but wasn't the whole point to make everything super-continuituous? it was going great for a while, but after reading USM 69 i'm very disappointed. or maybe i'm just supposed to assume that the UMTU's never happened?
i say this because i believe it was a UMTU that spider-man went to join the FF4 and when he got rejected he had a conversation with the human torch and they talked. in USM 69 they pretty much meet for "the first time" and while USM 69 was a much better story, these plot holes are frustrating.
Sorry for venting
i say this because i believe it was a UMTU that spider-man went to join the FF4 and when he got rejected he had a conversation with the human torch and they talked. in USM 69 they pretty much meet for "the first time" and while USM 69 was a much better story, these plot holes are frustrating.
Sorry for venting
Last edited:
TheManWithoutFear
#1 reason not to join UC
Jred said:
Anyone else want to take this one?
thee great one
Master of TOG-fu.
Where has BIrishB been? He's been missing for awhile now.
