MCU's AVENGERS 5 - TITLE TBD (TBD) 8 8

[media_junkie]

On 11/17/2023 at 6:10 PM, Dr. Balls said:

So here was the discussion at work - that none of us could really put together or remember (because it's not worth remembering), but:

WHAT EXACTLY IS KANG TRYING TO DO?

One suggestion in the kitchen was: he's trying to make the perfect timeline for himself? Well, I'd be damned if every person on earth isn't trying to do that with their life. Thanos had a philosophy he was trying to implement, and it required him to obtain objects to give himself the power to achieve his goal - and all the heroes poised against him knew what that plan was, and were working to stop him.

Pretty basic bad-guy stuff - I don't really get that from this whole Kang thing. The most Kang action we've seen was in Ant Man and he had just about every power you could think of and the only explanation we get is:

I'm from the future where we can inexplicably:

A. Levitate
B. Shoot laser beams from my hands
C. Teleport
D. Make time stop
E. Make time repeat itself

Beeeeeeeeeeeecause: SCIENCE!

Anyone want to enlighten me?

That is a very good point.  In Phase 1 - 3 you had Thanos out there on the fringes sending people out for the infinity stones and then finally taking the matters into his own hands and we knew why, he wanted to end 1/2 the life in the universe.  What is Kang (or his million multiverse selves) looking to do?  

[Axelrod]

I assume Kang has the rather pedestrian motive of "ruling the multiverse."  Or something like that.  

Maybe it's going to be with a more benevolent motivation like "I need to rule, because no one else can do it as well as me." 

Or perhaps I should say maybe that was what it was going to be because I think Kang might be dead as the next big villain.  

Don't really know.  I always thought he wasn't a great choice to be the next "big bad" to begin with, but maybe they were thinking ahead about how they were going to need to have a multi-verse to re-boot heroes and introduce new ones that we otherwise should have already seen (like the X-Men), and Kang is kind of a multi-verse villain.   

[media_junkie]

On 11/17/2023 at 9:24 PM, Axelrod said:

Don't really know.  I always thought he wasn't a great choice to be the next "big bad" to begin with, but maybe they were thinking ahead about how they were going to need to have a multi-verse to re-boot heroes and introduce new ones that we otherwise should have already seen (like the X-Men), and Kang is kind of a multi-verse villain.   

That makes sense, but unfortunately I think Marvel mishandled him from the get go.  1st time we see him he is killed by a variant Loki on a TV show.  Next time we see him he is defeated by ants.  Not exactly presenting a multiverse threat there.

[jsilverjanet]

I had mentioned this throughout multiple threads

why should i care about kang? should be explained in 1-2 simple sentences

 

[VintageComics]

On 11/18/2023 at 9:41 AM, jsilverjanet said:

I had mentioned this throughout multiple threads

why should i care about kang? should be explained in 1-2 simple sentences

 

One of the things that I always notice (or think about) is WHY a character is appealing. 

Visuals, associations, behavioral qualities. There are a lot of factors. 

Like, why is Superman so appealing? Or Batman, Spider-man, Wolverine etc.

Why were the NEW X-men more appealing than the OLD X-men?

One reason I've noticed is the use of primary colors in their outfits. 

The old X-men outfits were mostly black and yellow (I always loved The Beast's red and always thought Marvel Girl looked like a 1960's horticulturist). The new X-men outfits were a mix of blues, yellows, reds and other colors thrown in for some diversity. 

Look at the color they used to pop on the cover of GSX #1. It was RED right through the center of the cover that caused that cover to pop!

Reds, blues and yellows seem to draw more attention than purples, greens and blacks etc. 

Batman is the exception because he doesn't rely as much on visual appeal. The character is one of the most compellingly written in all of comics (but they still use blue, which is a primary color )

MOST great characters incorporate these colors in their ensemble. Prove me wrong. 

Even great comic book covers more often use this formula. 

 

The other is his name. It's just, plain DUMB. His name quite literally sounds like what you hear when you throw a pop can into a garbage can. 

KANG!!!

Every time I hear that word, all it does is annoy me. 

Now try to take something that is visually and audibly working against you and try to make everyone like it. 

They missed the boat and have been trying to paddle and catch up ever since, but the raft has such big holes in it that even fixing a power motor to it won't allow it to catch to the boat it's chasing.  

Edited November 18, 2023 by VintageComics

[Buzzetta]

On 11/18/2023 at 9:41 AM, jsilverjanet said:

I had mentioned this throughout multiple threads

why should i care about kang? should be explained in 1-2 simple sentences

 

If they were to move forward with Kang... 

Kang wants to rule the multiverse out of boredom which poses the biggest threat to all.  Everyone is then bound to his whim as if he were a malevolent God like that old Star Trek episode with the guy retconned to be a Q. 

 

[Buzzetta]

On 11/17/2023 at 9:49 PM, media_junkie said:

That makes sense, but unfortunately I think Marvel mishandled him from the get go.  1st time we see him he is killed by a variant Loki on a TV show.  Next time we see him he is defeated by ants.  Not exactly presenting a multiverse threat there.

Loki wrapped it up nicely in that he was never actually killed in Season 1.  I actually believe the writers on this one as they say they plotted out the two seasons as if they were halves of a book with no intention of writing a third. 

Kang / He Who Remains had demonstrated to Loki how all of his actions were futile as Kang had access to... everything.   In the end though, Loki defeats him once and for all by doing the one thing that Kang did not suspect Loki was capable of.   

 

However, Kang might have been erased (or the way that Marvel will explain it) because Victor Timely as a child does not get the TVA handbook.  They show the boy looking by the window with nothing occurring at the end of the series.   Marvel could easily imply that Kang was never created to begin with then.

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/18/2023 at 1:43 PM, Buzzetta said:

However, Kang might have been erased (or the way that Marvel will explain it) because Victor Timely as a child does not get the TVA handbook.  They show the boy looking by the window with nothing occurring at the end of the series.   Marvel could easily imply that Kang was never created to begin with then.

Ok, thank you - I thought I had missed something in previous episodes about this. After that scene, I was like: “Huh. So if Victor Timely doesn’t get the TVA book, there’s no Kang.” But then it made reference to “tracking down the other Kangs” or something to that effect.

So, if there are other Kangs in other timelines, then why show us that one single Kang didn’t get the TVA book? Why would it matter at all?

[Bosco685]

On 11/20/2023 at 12:03 AM, Dr. Balls said:

So, if there are other Kangs in other timelines, then why show us that one single Kang didn’t get the TVA book? Why would it matter at all?

And therein lies the problem.

I think general audiences were getting confused after a while why they should care about this villain. Plus, to keep it all straight, now they had to watch Disney+ shows and connected movies so all the references were crystal clear. And that additional burden of paying a monthly or annual subscription for access became too much.

[Buzzetta]

On 11/20/2023 at 12:03 AM, Dr. Balls said:

Ok, thank you - I thought I had missed something in previous episodes about this. After that scene, I was like: “Huh. So if Victor Timely doesn’t get the TVA book, there’s no Kang.” But then it made reference to “tracking down the other Kangs” or something to that effect.

So, if there are other Kangs in other timelines, then why show us that one single Kang didn’t get the TVA book? Why would it matter at all?

To answer this question, I would have to pretend that I understand the time travel rules that Marvel or any entity has played with.  In some cases I have felt that the Back to the Future rules applied where you could go back in time and kill your grandfather and thus erase yourself from existence and then other times I felt that would be impossible because if you did that it would branch the timeline.

I *think* they branched the timeline, so He Who Remains would never be created in the mainline MCU Timeline but there are variants out there that are created anyway in branched timelines. 

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/20/2023 at 2:10 AM, Buzzetta said:

I *think* they branched the timeline, so He Who Remains would never be created in the mainline MCU Timeline but there are variants out there that are created anyway in branched timelines. 

So, Marvel decided to tell us a 7-episode story about a character, and at the end of the last episode - we're basically told that the character ultimately didn't matter because they undid what made him a bad guy in the first place only to say "don't worry, there's other timelines with the same bad guy." 

People at Marvel clearly weren't around for the "It was a dream" era of Dallas.

[Buzzetta]

On 11/20/2023 at 7:23 AM, Dr. Balls said:

So, Marvel decided to tell us a 7-episode story about a character, and at the end of the last episode - we're basically told that the character ultimately didn't matter because they undid what made him a bad guy in the first place only to say "don't worry, there's other timelines with the same bad guy." 

People at Marvel clearly weren't around for the "It was a dream" era of Dallas.

To be honest, I don't know.  If so, then they inadvertently solved their Jonathan Majors problem.   However they have stated that across the multiverse what happens to one character in one reality is not necessarily what happens to the character in another as seen in Dr. Strange.    

[Bosco685]

 

[Larryw7]

So they're still going with Kang. I used to think Feige was a strong coordinator, but now I'm being to wonder. I think Kang could become a joke if the MCU keeps on floundering.

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/28/2023 at 4:56 AM, Larryw7 said:

So they're still going with Kang. I used to think Feige was a strong coordinator, but now I'm being to wonder. I think Kang could become a joke if the MCU keeps on floundering.

 

I picture every person at Marvel having this look on their face when Disney execs come storming into the writer's room screaming "WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THIS INSANELY PROFITABLE FRANCHISE?!?!"

[drotto]

On 11/17/2023 at 7:35 PM, media_junkie said:

That is a very good point.  In Phase 1 - 3 you had Thanos out there on the fringes sending people out for the infinity stones and then finally taking the matters into his own hands and we knew why, he wanted to end 1/2 the life in the universe.  What is Kang (or his million multiverse selves) looking to do?  

Honestly, I do not think they planned out anything past Endgame. They are now trying to pull together the random threads and a multuverse villain became the easiest potential solution, so they ran with it. 

 

Additionally, I think it has become very clear that Favreau, Purlmutter, Gunn, the Russo brothers and the disbanded story group, where the ones actually setting a timeline and creating a solid outline. Feige has shown no ability to do this after all those people have left or been forced out. Recent stories have even stated that Gunn  basically asked for and created a lot of phases 2 and 3's plot points, because he needed to know how to make his Guardians movie fit in.

Edited November 28, 2023 by drotto

[paperheart]

Jonathan Majors Domestic Violence Trial Begins Today; Claims Of Other Incidents Could Be Unsealed

https://deadline.com/2023/11/jonathan-majors-trial-domestic-violence-1235642075/

[Bosco685]

On 11/29/2023 at 9:10 AM, paperheart said:

Jonathan Majors Domestic Violence Trial Begins Today; Claims Of Other Incidents Could Be Unsealed

https://deadline.com/2023/11/jonathan-majors-trial-domestic-violence-1235642075/

Oh boy

[Dr. Balls]

On 11/29/2023 at 7:10 AM, paperheart said:

Jonathan Majors Domestic Violence Trial Begins Today; Claims Of Other Incidents Could Be Unsealed

https://deadline.com/2023/11/jonathan-majors-trial-domestic-violence-1235642075/

I feel sorry for this guy. He tells the cops (via bodycam footage at the incident) that she slapped him and tore his coat, and the police didn't even bother to make note of it in their report. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't - but discounting what he says isn't what you're supposed to do when writing up a report.

 

 

 

Kang still sucks, tho.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Dr. Balls

[troydivision1]

On 11/29/2023 at 9:10 AM, paperheart said:

Jonathan Majors Domestic Violence Trial Begins Today; Claims Of Other Incidents Could Be Unsealed

https://deadline.com/2023/11/jonathan-majors-trial-domestic-violence-1235642075/

This passage intrigues me.

Judge Gaffey, who tossed reporters out of a pre-trial hearing in September in the case, concluded that barring the public from yet another motion hearing is “the only way” to safeguard Majors’ rights. He agreed with a Majors lawyer, Seth Zuckerman, who earlier told the judge, “We believe that the disclosure on this one limited issue would taint the jury pool beyond repair.”