9

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.

  • 1
  • 4
    @Valorum: The other question asks "why doesn't Coulson appear in the MCU movies". This question asks "what is Coulson's status?" I'm really not sure why this is claimed to be a dupe in the first place. – ThePopMachine May 21 at 22:57
  • 3
    Because an answer to one would address the other. – Valorum May 21 at 23:06
  • 3
    ^ unless one was an out of universe question and the other was in-universe, but that doesn't seem to be the case for either. They both are clearly asking essentially "where's Coulson?" To maybe make it more clear, what if the original question didn't have the words "Age of Ultron" but rather simply asked "what happened to Coulson in the MCU after the first Avengers" (which...looks like it was edited to be just that, making it even more clearly a dupe, but it didn't need the edit in the first place) – NKCampbell May 21 at 23:57
  • 3
    @NKCampbell the old question is very much asking out-of-universe ("Why exactly isn't Marvel Studios featuring Coulson"). The new question seems very much only interested in the in-universal explanation. I don't think this is the main reason they aren't dupes, but it does contribute to that. I would agree "what happened to Coulson" would be a dupe, but that's not the question, and the edit was rejected. – Tony Meyer May 22 at 1:03
  • 2
    It's been ~a week and the discussion here seems to have concluded. Shouldn't a mod re-open the question since the meta majority indicate that it's not a dupe? – Tony Meyer May 27 at 8:23
11

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.

  • 6
    With a few tweaks, this would make an excellent answer on the original question – Valorum May 22 at 8:20
  • On your aside about the link between them, the Far From Home trailer provides the link between Agents of SHIELD S06 and Infinity War/Endgame. – Izkata May 27 at 6:11
  • 1
    The question has been reopened now. – Rand al'Thor May 28 at 15:49
  • 2
    Please post this excellent answer so it can get the credit it deserves. – ThePopMachine May 28 at 16:29
-3

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.

  • 2
    This is not addressing the question of what edit to the original question would be permissible. Therefore it is not complete. – ThePopMachine May 22 at 14:31
  • 1
    @ThePopMachine "There's nothing to resolve" but to be clearer I have edited for you. – TheLethalCarrot May 22 at 14:32
  • 1
    Carrot, you're not answering the question, you're just restating the same point. There clearly is some clarification possible to the original question if you really believe it should provide the answer to the new question because it currently doesn't. – ThePopMachine May 22 at 14:37
  • 2
    @ThePopMachine It currently doesn't because no one has answered it or updated their answer with an update not because the question doesn't allow for it. – TheLethalCarrot May 22 at 14:38
  • Carrot, I attempted to clarify the question and it was reverted Modifying the question to encompass the new one CANNOT be objectionable unless you agree the questions are different. amflare, who reverted the edit certainly believed that. If you think this question is a subset of the original, then respond to the question of what is objectionable about that edit – ThePopMachine May 22 at 14:41
  • Carrot, you legitimately could take the position "that edit is okay, and amflare was wrong" and we'll unrevert the edit, and everything is cool. My frustration that the confluence in inconsistencies that currently exist in everyone's position. The current status of everything isn't self-consistent. – ThePopMachine May 22 at 14:43
  • 1
    @ThePopMachine The old question already encompasses the new one, no edit is necessary. I don't know how to say it any clearer. – TheLethalCarrot May 22 at 14:43
  • 4
    Carrot, "it already emcompasses it" doesn't answere the question "what is the problem with that edit". The question was poorly worded to begin with, I made a few cursory improvements, and brought the question up to date w.r.t phase 3. A little more preamble for context should not be objectionable. – ThePopMachine May 22 at 14:45
  • @ThePopMachine The edit wasn't needed and sort of "hijacked" the question. Had it come up in the SE queue I would have rejected for conflicting with the author's intent. – TheLethalCarrot May 23 at 11:31
-5

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.

  • 10
    When the canon updates, you update your answers. That's how the system works, that's how it always worked. Otherwise you could ask the same question over and over again every time a new Star Wars book comes out or a new Star Trek episode airs. If you want an updated answer, post a bounty with the reason "Current answers are outdated". That's literally what it's for, to draw attention when answers are outdated. – Valorum May 21 at 22:47

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .