How do we resolve this supposed dupe situation?

Question

I asked this question: What is Agent Coulson's status as of the end of Endgame? which multiple people insisted is a dupe of Why aren't MCU movies featuring Coulson after Avengers? The particularly important context here is that Endgame is somewhat unique due to its pervasive cameos of nearly every (good) character from the previous 22 films, whether in the final battle or at Tony Stark's funeral.

If is a dupe, then the other question should yield an answer to the specific question.

In order to contort the other question to yield an answer (frankly, over my objection), I had to call attention to the Endgame situation, while also bringing the question up to date with respect to the appearance of Coulson in Captain Marvel which was produced later than the original question was intended to discuss, but also take place earlier in-universe.

Here's the edited revision.

Now this edit has been reverted for altering the original question (which I happen to agree with).

What is the resolution to this. Either:

1. The original question must be edited to yield an answer to the question "What is Coulson's status at the end of Endgame?" or

2. The newer question should stand.

It cannot be that both the new question is closed and the original question remains the same. This would mean there is no way to ask this question.

In the case of (1), it may be that a particular edit is suggested to (1) to support answers to both the original and the new one, or in the case of (2) there may be language suggested that justifies leaving the question open.

Answer 1

It's a different question, which has a different answer, and it should be reopened (again). The original question is basically saying "Coulson was resurrected in MCU TV, why isn't he in the other MCU films", and the answer is "because it'd be complicated to explain to the film-only audience". This question is "Endgame has cameos from nearly everyone, why not one from Coulson", and the answer is something like this: (I wrote this while the question was open, but it closed while writing it, so I can't post it, and it's not a valid answer to the original, de-edited, question):

---

The events of season 5 of Agents of SHIELD prevent Coulson from taking part in anything that happens during Endgame.

TL;DR: Coulson is (finally! again!) dead in the MCU, before Endgame takes place. He was also no longer SHIELD Director by this point, and SHIELD is effectively (again!) defunct, so wouldn't be much use in the battle.

An important subplot of season 5, particularly the latter half, is that Coulson

is dying, and in order to prevent the future the team travelled to, they may need to let him die.

In the final episode of the season, The End, Simmons gives Coulson some of the Centipede serum, which was established early in the series as a (flawed) super-soldier type drug. For Coulson, this is

a cure (although possibly temporary), but

he hides it and gives it to Daisy (Skye).

(Daisy needs it for the super-strength, not as a cure).

At the very end of the episode, we see Coulson and May in Tahiti,

where Coulson is content to spend his last days in peace. It is established that he has only a very short time left.

Season 6 of SHIELD has Clark Gregg playing a different (as far as we currently know) character, Sarge, who happens to look exactly like Coulson. It's not clear yet, but presumably Sarge has no reason to fight in the Endgame battle, or to

attend Tony's funeral.

Given that both Season 5 and Endgame are time-travel stories, it's tricky to place everything, but episode 20 takes place at the same time as Infinity War, as there's an explicit comment that Thanos is attacking the Earth right then. Episodes 21 and 22 follow on directly from episode 20, and are before the

first

'snap', and certainly well before the latter events of Endgame.

(I haven't seen Season 6 yet, but I understand it's set a year after Season 5, which should put it between Infinity War and Endgame, but I understand that because of scheduling uncertainty they couldn't reference anything that happens in Endgame, so I'm unclear how the 'snaps' link into the show. However, I don't think that impacts Coulson's status).

---

This doesn't answer anything about why Coulson isn't in earlier MCU films post-Avengers. It does answer the question as to Coulson's status in Endgame and why he couldn't really cameo (in-universe). This does not work as an "updated" answer to the earlier question. They're similar, not the same.

Neither question makes it explicit, but the original question has a very clear out-of-universe answer, and no good in-universe answer, and is asking about out-of-universe (ie. why is "Marvel Studios" doing this). The new question has a very clear in-universe answer, and no good out-of-universe answer (Clark Gregg could obviously have easily been obtained for a cameo, given that he's not only still doing the TV show but appeared in a very recent MCU film), and is asking about in-universe.

Answer 2

There's nothing to resolve, we keep them closed.

Both questions are asking "Considering Coulson was revived in AoS where is he in the MCU?" and the newer one adds the caveat that it's asking as of the end of Endgame. That means that the newer one is a subset of the older, more general question and the duplicate is fine.

To be clear no edit is needed on either question.

"The old answers are outdated"

It's a shame but that's not a reason to ask a new question, that is a reason to bounty. In fact one of the bounty reasons is even for this exact scenario solidifying that bountying and not asking a dupe is the way to go.

Current answers are outdated

The current answer(s) are out-of-date and require revision given recent changes.

"But he was featured in Captain Marvel!"

True except the old question is clearly asking about films set to the future of The Avengers and as far as I'm aware all those in Phase 2 were set after The Avengers so at the time of writing the OP didn't know about films set in the past relative to The Avengers.

"The newer question is asking for in universe explanations whereas the old one is asking for out of universe ones!"

Whilst somewhat true the old questions leaves it possible to answer with in universe reasoning, it approaches it like it's asking for out of universe reasoning but doesn't solely ask for that. It's also easy to answer it from an in universe answer and one user has done this... current score 10.

Answer 3

I think the people who voted to close the questions as duplicates should be forced to produce their time machines forthwith. It's no fair that they can go back and forth in time to make a question about a 2019 movie somehow a duplicate of a question asked in 2016, while the rest of us are stuck with plain old forward-only linear time. So, either share, or admit that there's no possible way answers posted in 2016 could possibly address a question about a movie that came out in 2019.