New Comic Book Series Travels Across to Discover the Origin of Kang

[CaptCleghorn]

The relationship between Kang and Doom has been hinted at Kang's beginnings in the Silver Age. And you can throw in Nathaniel Richards too.








And if you haven't already, I would read Avengers Forever if I were you.




....and this was part of a Fantastic Four annual IIRC.

Ugggg. All sorts of convolutions in order to position characters as being either the same, or related by bloodline. It's messy. If character A and character B meet and they are the same person from different times in their lives, one would have memories of the other. And why can't 21st and 25th century scientists do simple DNA analyses? "So, Rama, can you give me the name of your plastic surgeon so I can save a lot of ... time.

[Hypestyle]

Kang is a villain through and through. I hope this doesn't try to remake him as sympathetic and heroic like what happened with Venom over time.

Kang is nothing without his technology. He's not as clever as he presents himself. He has passable intelligence but is not on a par with Reed Richards, T'Challa, or Tony Stark.

Oh, what does the name "Kang" mean anyway?

[Thundershot]

Two things.

One... No mention of Immortus, which worries me, because two, I hope the writer has read the excellent Avengers Forever series, which straightens out a lot of Kangisms.

[strathcona]

I would have preferred other writers, Ewing, Cates, Thompson, Stern, Slott, Bunn, Busiek ...

Of these, I have read their past work on Green Arrow and honestly it seemed to me like a complete disaster.

I'm not familiar with the writers at all, but my first thought on reading about this mini was that I wish it had a better writer... any one of those you listed would be able to do great work with Kang (Ewing or Busiek would be my to choices).

I actually don't really think we need to have a definitive origin for Kang. I absolutely love how convoluted his history is, and to straighten it out too much would take away some of the fun of the character. I don't want to find out who his ancestors are for sure... the speculation has so much more potential.

[JudicatorPrime]

Time travelling villains always perplex me. When you have the ability to appear seconds after the ink has dried on a Picasso, or obtain the Infinity Stones long before Thanos ever affixed them to a gauntlet, why don't you? I'm sure there's an explanation for it in Kang's profile, but I always found that odd.

[DigiCom]

Time travelling villains always perplex me. When you have the ability to appear seconds after the ink has dried on a Picasso, or obtain the Infinity Stones long before Thanos ever affixed them to a gauntlet, why don't you? I'm sure there's an explanation for it in Kang's profile, but I always found that odd.

Actually, the answer is in Kang's self-given title. He wants to CONQUER them. Going back and killing them as children would work, but it wouldn't show them how strong he is. Basically, he has a bit of an inferiority complex.

[JudicatorPrime]

Actually, the answer is in Kang's self-given title. He wants to CONQUER them. Going back and killing them as children would work, but it wouldn't show them how strong he is. Basically, he has a bit of an inferiority complex.

Perhaps, but is it really conquering when he has to cheat by using multiple alternate timeline versions of himself to achieve his ends? I haven't followed the character that closely, but I do know that Blue Marvel killed one version of Kang. Granted, there's no accounting for how villains get their jollies or feed their egos, but seeing some alternate timeline version of yourself die has got to register as an abject failure at some point. Only the most sniveling, wretched and miserably inadequate person would view that as conquering, wouldn't you think?

I'm sure it makes sense for Kang and his fans, but like I said...I find it perplexing.

[Kurt Busiek]

Time travelling villains always perplex me. When you have the ability to appear seconds after the ink has dried on a Picasso, or obtain the Infinity Stones long before Thanos ever affixed them to a gauntlet, why don't you? I'm sure there's an explanation for it in Kang's profile, but I always found that odd.

Kang's original motivation was boredom.

He went time-traveling in search of adventure, or a challenge. He wants a good fight.

Doing things the sneaky way doesn't interest him; he lived in a future where everything was easy. He wants to do things the hard way.

kdb

[Holt]

Kang's original motivation was boredom.

He went time-traveling in search of adventure, or a challenge. He wants a good fight.

Doing things the sneaky way doesn't interest him; he lived in a future where everything was easy. He wants to do things the hard way.

kdb

Just recently got to reread the Kang Dynasty storyline last year. You really knocked it out of the park.

[jackolover]

I find that Kang is beyond enigmatic, letting aside his many incarnations, his time travel choices to the present, or wherever, or his character, Kang is the most difficult character to pin down to even write this story. Someone would have to compile all Kangs appearances, coupled with his failures, and try to come up with some kind of reason he did this. Is he so vain, he can’t see that he is destined to failure every time? He just got killed in Bendis’ Heroic Age Avengers, and turns up post-Secret Wars with the Watcher. Good luck trying to piece that character together.

The superheroes were just recently revealed to have been put in the 616 (in Defenders # 1-12 by Fraction), so Kang is this side-effect of a disruption of the continuity, just to beat a Death Celestial.

Time travel is difficult enough to master without destroying space-time because you’re too stupid to know you’re doing it, (and Kang has done that). But Kang persists like he’s immune to all the foibles involved.

[JudicatorPrime]

Kang's original motivation was boredom.

He went time-traveling in search of adventure, or a challenge. He wants a good fight.

Doing things the sneaky way doesn't interest him; he lived in a future where everything was easy. He wants to do things the hard way.

kdb

As crazy as it may seem, this I can totally get behind as a villain's motivation. It's almost arrogant on some levels to think that we've done everything that we can or want to do when ennui takes hold of our lives. There's always more out there, even in a bounded reality.

[Brian B]

They have a high bar to clear... his origin as told in Avengers Forever was excellent.

Easily the best Avengers, Kang and Immortus story since the Celestial Madonna, or maybe even better than that. Yes, the new book has a very high bar to clear, to the point that I think it won’t.

The Crossing stunk. I never enjoyed Busiek’s Kang Dynasty. (I just noticed Kurt was in this thread. I’m sorry, Kurt Busiek. I loved Astro City, but I didn’t like your Kang, except when he killed Marcus. That part was good.) I liked Remender’s Kang, a lot, but the altering everything and then returning it to nothing changing really annoyed me about Remender’s Avengers, including his Kang. The bit of a Kang appearance in Hickman’s Avengers was interesting, but not even really necessary.

Really, the bar is pretty low to tell a Kang story as good as the vast majority of them. But if Kelly and Lanzing want to tell a Kang story among the very best, then the bar is exceedingly high.

[DigiCom]

Easily the best Avengers, Kang and Immortus story since the Celestial Madonna, or maybe even better than that. Yes, the new book has a very high bar to clear, to the point that I think it won’t.

The Crossing stunk. I never enjoyed Busiek’s Kang Dynasty. (I just noticed Kurt was in this thread. I’m sorry, Kurt Busiek. I loved Astro City, but I didn’t like your Kang, except when he killed Marcus. That part was good..

Um, Kurt Busiek (co-)wrote Avengers Forever too.

(I don't know whether he or Roger Stern had a bigger input in that spotlight issue.)

[Brian B]

Um, Kurt Busiek (co-)wrote Avengers Forever too.

(I don't know whether he or Roger Stern had a bigger input in that spotlight issue.)

Holy crud! You’re right, DigiCom! Thank you!

Sorry Kurt Busiek. I love, love, LOVED Avengers: Forever. Kurt Busiek, you knocked it out of the park with that one! The more I think about it, that’s definitely the best Kang story I can think of, even beats the far-out, triptified, bizarro sci-fi of the Celestial Madonna saga, which was more of a story about Immortus, Mantis, Swordsman, Wanda and the Vision than Kang.

The one-two punch of “Secret History of the Avengers” along with “Reflections of the Conqueror” in issues 8 and 9 is fantastic, and issue 9 is the definitive characterization of Kang, IMO. I also loved how Clint Barton threatened to break the talking stick / Space Phantom in half in issue 7 or 8. That was a really great “maxi” series that not only cleaned up the continuity, but also told a great story, bouncing through huge swaths of Marvel continuity. That was a great set of books!

[Kurt Busiek]

As crazy as it may seem, this I can totally get behind as a villain's motivation. It's almost arrogant on some levels to think that we've done everything that we can or want to do when ennui takes hold of our lives. There's always more out there, even in a bounded reality.

Screen Shot 2021-05-17 at 4.30.20 PM.jpg

And it's the literal truth, in Kang's case!

kdb