Marvel Cinematic Universe Part II

[Drops Of Venus]

That sucks for the Kang character. If underperforming is such a big deal than what does that mean for Captain Marvel?

I think the difference is that Captain Marvel HAS a financially successful movie under her belt, so they know she can bring them money when they use the ''right'' approach. Quantumania was Kang's first chance to make an impression, so that coupled with the actor's real life issues probably felt like a bad omen to the studio. Also, he's just a villain, while she is the headlining hero of a franchise. It's easier and there's less to lose by writing him out compared to her.

I don't like this decision either, btw. I believe that Kang deserved better, but the fact that there are discussions for his role to be just minimized at least seems to indicate he can still have some role, which is better than the alternative of just being scrapped like he didn't exist. I hope they make the best out of what's left of his role. If he's going out, at least let him go out with a bang.

[mace11]

I don't like this decision either, btw. I believe that Kang deserved better, but the fact that there are discussions for his role to be just minimized at least seems to indicate he can still have some role, which is better than the alternative of just being scrapped like he didn't exist. I hope they make the best out of what's left of his role. If he's going out, at least let him go out with a bang.

It could go either way.

Marvel dropped Majors hours after the conviction and is rewriting those movies, which will now either minimize the character or excise him entirely.

[ComicNoobie]

I think the difference is that Captain Marvel HAS a financially successful movie under her belt, so they know she can bring them money when they use the ''right'' approach. Quantumania was Kang's first chance to make an impression, so that coupled with the actor's real life issues probably felt like a bad omen to the studio. Also, he's just a villain, while she is the headlining hero of a franchise. It's easier and there's less to lose by writing him out compared to her.

I don't like this decision either, btw. I believe that Kang deserved better, but the fact that there are discussions for his role to be just minimized at least seems to indicate he can still have some role, which is better than the alternative of just being scrapped like he didn't exist. I hope they make the best out of what's left of his role. If he's going out, at least let him go out with a bang.

I see. I guess Kang's gonna join Ultron in wasted potential only worse. I personally don't think they should have marketed Kang as the 'next Thanos' That might have sounded cool to say but expectations were super high when doing that. The next Thanos should happen organically. I always saw Kang more as a Loki. Loki lost in the first Thor but still came back for 2012's Avengers and has been one of the MCU's highlights. I feel the studio keeps trying to go bigger when smaller scale stuff helps flesh out characters more before getting to the big stuff.

Might be a hot take but it's too soon for a project like Secret Wars when half the new cast is underdeveloped and haven't found their audience yet.

[James Cameron]

Kang as a character to me does not work for a storyline set up through various interconnected stories like the infinity saga was. He should appear sporadically and randomly as a reoccurring villain with an immense and mysterious history and exceptional abilities, but not as a BIG bad like Galactus, Thanos, Apocalypse, or Annihilus. You can do multiple films where Kang is either the main villain or one of the villains, and not have them be interconnected like they're setting up a final showdown with him at the end of the slate. Just leave the door open for Kang to appear again. That's what is so alluring about the 616 Kang, at least when you go back to say Roger Stern's run, when he did that one storyline that cleared up ALL the Kang continuity issues, which basically ends with Kang just leaving after he's done killing all his other counterparts, and your reaction is "what will Kang be like the next time I see him??" Then you fast forward 20 or so years to the Iron Lad stuff, which for the time was a great twist and a new fresh direction for the character. It wouldn't have made it any better if all that was part of an elaborate set up for future stories.

So many variations and evolutions. Kang should not get the Thanos treatment, he should be more like the Master from Doctor Who: Appearing on occasion with new ways to wreak havoc across time, being thwarted and defeated, but always with that door creaked open for his potential return, and with the question mark of how exactly he will return.

The infinity saga was a great achievement but these movies should stand on their own. They shouldn't simultaneously act as stepping stones to future films and shows. Kang especially does not work for that, unless he was appearing in a single TV show and nowhere else.

[Android 17]

I still believe in retrospect, the Big Bad of this whole Multiverse saga should've been the Beyonder.

[Maestro 216]

Kang was likely gonna have the non main variants used as fodder for the Avengers to beat up. If that can be preventes then make his role smaller to save him more humuliation.

[ComicNoobie]

Kang as a character to me does not work for a storyline set up through various interconnected stories like the infinity saga was. He should appear sporadically and randomly as a reoccurring villain with an immense and mysterious history and exceptional abilities, but not as a BIG bad like Galactus, Thanos, Apocalypse, or Annihilus. You can do multiple films where Kang is either the main villain or one of the villains, and not have them be interconnected like they're setting up a final showdown with him at the end of the slate. Just leave the door open for Kang to appear again. That's what is so alluring about the 616 Kang, at least when you go back to say Roger Stern's run, when he did that one storyline that cleared up ALL the Kang continuity issues, which basically ends with Kang just leaving after he's done killing all his other counterparts, and your reaction is "what will Kang be like the next time I see him??" Then you fast forward 20 or so years to the Iron Lad stuff, which for the time was a great twist and a new fresh direction for the character. It wouldn't have made it any better if all that was part of an elaborate set up for future stories.

So many variations and evolutions. Kang should not get the Thanos treatment, he should be more like the Master from Doctor Who: Appearing on occasion with new ways to wreak havoc across time, being thwarted and defeated, but always with that door creaked open for his potential return, and with the question mark of how exactly he will return.

The infinity saga was a great achievement but these movies should stand on their own. They shouldn't simultaneously act as stepping stones to future films and shows. Kang especially does not work for that, unless he was appearing in a single TV show and nowhere else.

Yeah, the implications of Quantumania's ending imply that the entire Kang Council will be coming to fight the heroes of Earth. That sounds scarier on paper than what would likely have happened. I see another situation like Age of Ultron, where Ultron has hundreds of himself but any lone Avenger can defeat the clone Ultrons and they just come across as fancy looking henchmen mooks. There's nothing wrong with henchmen mooks, you need them so the superheroes can look cool and do awesome fight sequences while beating them up. I suppose the man threat was going to be the main three Kangs?

After Thanos if you'd want a bigger threat you'd go like Beyonder or Galactus. Kang would have been fine for a New Avengers movie to fight as the villain, but in all honesty I can't see the need for another 'portal' scene or a multiverse of characters to deal with him. I wish they dived more into the time travel aspect of Kang rather than the multiverse thing.

[Frontier]

I wonder if they'll replace Kang with the Beyonder now.

Also, Thunderbolts: "centers on villains and antiheroes going on a mission that was supposed to end with their deaths." - They really are banking on this being their Suicide Squad, huh.

[ComicNoobie]

I wonder if they'll replace Kang with the Beyonder now.

Also, Thunderbolts: "centers on villains and antiheroes going on a mission that was supposed to end with their deaths." - They really are banking on this being their Suicide Squad, huh.

And that is why I'm not that interested in the MCU's Thunderbolts. It's just Suicide Squad under a different name. It doesn't even have Zemo leading the team. I would have loved a true Thunderbolts team especially after Endgame where there are no official Avengers. This was the perfect time to get the lesser known teams out there before bringing the Avengers back. Teams like Thunderbolts and Young Avengers formed because the Avengers bracket was vacant.

[gurkle]

Funny I was just reading "Avengers: Children's Crusade" again and that's kind of a perfect setup for an Avengers movie -- one faction of superheroes led by Billy wants to find the missing Scarlet Witch, the other wants her to stay missing -- but I'm not in charge of Disney (yet) so instead of replacing Kang Dynasty, the Children's Crusade material will probably end up in the TV shows or a Young Avengers project.

And speaking of perfect setups, one reason I resent what seems to be the Suicide Squad approach of the Thunderbolts movie is that the MCU accidentally has replicated the setup of the original comics: the Avengers are disbanded, people are recovering from a terrible trauma (the Onslaught attack/The "blip"), and there is no superhero group they can trust to protect them. There's no better time to do the story of a bunch of villains pretending to be heroes under Zemo's command, but we're never getting it. Oh well.

[ComicNoobie]

This! What Gurkle said! Instead of a Multiverse nostalgia ride I would have preferred a Dark Reign like setting. With the Avengers gone other teams both good and shady step up bringing their own level of chaos to the streets. Young Avengers being reckless, Thunderbolts being villains in disguise, mutants slowly popping up, The Fantastic Four coming in from wherever they went, and the Skrulls coming in for a full on invasion leading to the new Avengers team coming back to sort everything out. Forget the multiverse and it's cameo-fest. This was the perfect time to create new stars for the MCU not just banking everything on Kang and Secret Wars.

[Frontier]

Funny I was just reading "Avengers: Children's Crusade" again and that's kind of a perfect setup for an Avengers movie -- one faction of superheroes led by Billy wants to find the missing Scarlet Witch, the other wants her to stay missing -- but I'm not in charge of Disney (yet) so instead of replacing Kang Dynasty, the Children's Crusade material will probably end up in the TV shows or a Young Avengers project.

And speaking of perfect setups, one reason I resent what seems to be the Suicide Squad approach of the Thunderbolts movie is that the MCU accidentally has replicated the setup of the original comics: the Avengers are disbanded, people are recovering from a terrible trauma (the Onslaught attack/The "blip"), and there is no superhero group they can trust to protect them. There's no better time to do the story of a bunch of villains pretending to be heroes under Zemo's command, but we're never getting it. Oh well.

But instead we're basically getting a stealth sequel to Black Widow with Bucky, Ghost, and the Sentry.

[phonogram12]

I've seen a lot of people point out how weird that was. Like they were trying to avoid Ruffalo dealing with anything Norton related.

Really? I barely noticed it at all since there were a lot more important plot points requiring the audiences attention. Honestly? I think spending time on those were a bit more important than using up that time so Banner and Ross could just glare at each other.

edit: this came off snarky. I apologize. There probably could've been a better way to put this, but you get my meaning.

[Frontier]

Really? I barely noticed it at all since there were a lot more important plot points requiring the audiences attention. Honestly? I think spending time on those were a bit more important than using up that time so Banner and Ross could just glare at each other.

edit: this came off snarky. I apologize. There probably could've been a better way to put this, but you get my meaning.

I mean, thinking on their history together and how prominent they were at the time, you would think there would be something more relevant between the two...then again, diving deeper into Bruce has never been a major priority for the MCU as of late.

[Thor-Ul]

I think the difference is that Captain Marvel HAS a financially successful movie under her belt, so they know she can bring them money when they use the ''right'' approach. Quantumania was Kang's first chance to make an impression, so that coupled with the actor's real life issues probably felt like a bad omen to the studio. Also, he's just a villain, while she is the headlining hero of a franchise. It's easier and there's less to lose by writing him out compared to her.

I think than more than the right approach it was more about the right moment.

I don't like this decision either, btw. I believe that Kang deserved better, but the fact that there are discussions for his role to be just minimized at least seems to indicate he can still have some role, which is better than the alternative of just being scrapped like he didn't exist. I hope they make the best out of what's left of his role. If he's going out, at least let him go out with a bang.

Sadly seems like Disney thinks than Kang image has been associated to Majors, so they choose to change the character instead just do a recast.