In the end, was he really the best choice for the multiphase villain?
no. everybody knows it should have been doom. galactus, even. kang is alright for one phase but making him the big bad of an entire saga was a stupid decision.
>>144638300It would work if they showed the thousands of variants from the start instead of using t as post-credit scene. The threat would be the hundreds of Kangs instead of one Kang
>>144638277A time traveler feels like a good idea for the next big villain, but the problem is the idea is also inherently more complicated than "purple man who wants the magic stones to kill half the universe." Thanos was all about execution, because the basic concept was so simple and straight forward. Kang is complicated for obvious reasons, but the rewards are there: a story that weaves in and out of other movies and eras. Weird mysteries that don't make sense until "later" when you see their origins. General time travel shenanigans. This all can't really be done off the cuff, or at least not without a talented lead director who is allowed to push and pull the other movies as he sees fit.Kang would require someone actually sitting down and getting all their ducks in a row to properly execute in a satisfying way, and Marvel's never really been about that with the movies and was even less so after Infinity War, just flailing around in every direction, assured of their own supremacy with the audience. They also went too big too quickly, revealing a huge amount of alternate Kangs and so on before even really hyping up one.
>>144639492/threadIf anything, they should have gone simpler again. Bring in Knull, or the Kree, or even Galactus.
There's no reason he wouldn't have worked but dismissing two iterations of him before there's even an event with him was dumb. First impressions are everything for people. Doesn't matter if it's an alternate version.
>>144639492The other problem is that also technically blew their time traveling villain load WITH big purple man, with how they wrote End Game.
>>144639212That's just boring. Nobody would want Multiple men as the biggest threat in the universe. You have to showcase why a single Kang is even dangerous enough. THEN you show the hundreds of Kangs. Like how the Avengers showed what just a few soldiers under Thanos could do.
>was it a good idea to make a villain that's all about time travel when China puts pressure on Hollywood to not produce any time travel movies where changing the past works No, I wouldn't say so. They should have known it was a mistake when they had to make the Endgame story needlessly convoluted just to make it okay with the Chinese censors.
>>144638277No, he's awful.
>>144638277Marvel really doesn't have that many options.>Thanos>Doom>Kang>Galactus>Mephisto>Onslaught And a bunch of those were tied up because of film rights, so Kang made enough sense. Shame about the actor.
>>144639747What is their beef with time travel? The undead stuff I can kinda sorta understand from a religious perspective.
>>144640718You just can't give the commoners ideas about the past and its crimes being changeable, just in case they do invent time travel and make it so The Party is no longer in control. That's why they're okay with stupid workarounds like the Marvel one where you can't actually change your own timeline, only invade other timelines and change those ones.
It's really hard for me to say his name, my brain autocorrects it to Krang.
He would've worked if they gave him a proper actor instead of some literally who black guy and started with Iron Lad forming the Young Avengers and Victor Timely or one of his other aliases fucking with the Avengers civilian lives.
>>144638277No
No, he's not a good villain for a movie.A villain with a billion variants of himself essentially turns each of them into Clone Wars drones
>>144640782I figured it was something like that, but I thought "no, that's too stupid".
>>144641660The appeal of Kang isn't the multiversal variants, although that angle is useful in bringing him back perpetually. Kang's specific appeal is The Conquerer. He has an indomitable will. He was bored with his peaceful time and travelled to a different era just to adventure and get in fights. He fights the Avengers for the challenge of it, for fun. He displays a degree of honor in combat. They played him wrong in Quantumania. Too much pathos, not enough Conquering.
>>144638277Marvel villains are shit.
>>144638300>everybody knows it should have been doom.Doom had been done in live action three times already. Four if you count the 90s movie that never got an official release. Everyone except comics readers already knows he's not a draw in movies.Could Kang have worked? Considering how they fumbled everything from the casting to the writing, we'll never know if he could have ever had a chance.
>>144645594In shitty movies that everyone knew was going to be shitty. With the contemporary Marvel machine behind them any character can be a "draw", at least before the MCU lost any semblance of momentum, so long as they aren't MODOK levels of threatening. Doom or Galactus can definitely work, there are other threats that would've worked too like Beyonder. Even Magneto could work as a big Avengers villain and introduction to the X-Men with an Ultimatum-esque plot (except not shit)
