3. Yes. They were willing to try it again anon. Though I think with the situation now at Disney they won't be, but there was talks of really attempting a THIRD retry.
>High Evolutionary >hyper advanced alien being that can evolve animals at accelerated rate >literally just a dude who was outsmarted by his basic batch of experiments
Gunn ruined the philosophical side of him to write another mustache twirler. Makes me worried for how he'll handle Lex Luthor.
Marvel almost always tosses their villains in the garbage can when they're done with them anyway. To the point I actually cheered when T'challa kept Zemo from killing himself
Random players from the Negative zone appearing here and there before the Annihilation wave would have been a great way to map out Phase Four.
Blastaar shows up in one movie,
Nega bands keep transporting Kamala and Carol there
Shi'Ar/Kree War blasts a hole into the Negative Zone instead of the Cancerverse
FF discover the Negative Zone, fight Catastrophus
Anti Man is a villain in another movie
Ravenous and Centurions could appear in a Guardians of the Galaxy sequel
>Dr. Doom shows up in Secret Wars >says his name and everyone laughs at him >comically loud metal footsteps are heard whenever he walks around in his shitty armor >portrayed as pathetic manchild >becomes comic relief for the rest of the movie as he does Saturday Morning Cartoon-tier shenanigans to get the MacGuffin >heroes are more annoyed than genuinely threatened by him >played by Tim Robinson
>start of Secret Wars >the Avengers are all exhausted and near-dead >Kang is gloating while preparing his final ultimate attack >suddenly DOOM stabs him from the back and takes Kang's powers >heroes gasp
>THE POWERS OF TIME ARE UNFIT FOR A PEASANT SUCH AS YOU, THE MULTIVERSE SHALL NOW KNEEL... BEFORE THE MIGHT OF... DOCTOR VICTOR VON DOOM...
>the room is filled with silence >suddenly everyone starts laughing maniacally >She-Hulk: BWHAHAHAHAHA HE CALLS DOCTOR DOOM? WHAT'S THE MATTER BIG GUY, PROFESSOR INCEL WAS ALREADY TAKEN? >Dr Strange: well THAT just happened... >Kamala Khan: Awkwaaaaaaaaaaard... >Teenage Groot: I... Am... Groot... *goes back to playing his videogame* >Spider-Man: Hahah hilarious entrance, pal! No, seriously what's your REAL name? >DOOM: "..."
You could get a nice defining character moment of Doom responding to She-Hulk calling him an incel by flexing his wrists to do some magic and She-Hulk suddenly troons out to her Aaron Avengers self and we get a repeat of Avengers #500, where She-Hulk's driven irrevocably insane by magic and savage and actually stick the originally planned ending of the Avengers having to straight up MURDER Jen, because they can't turn her back to normal and she's killed a couple of them in her violent Hulk rage.
Was Kang ever cool though? The guy never had a good showing or appeared in side media to be much of anything.
He was just another goofy 60s character, that by the 80s was considered second rate by even Marvel writers and made him into knockoff Doom. Then killed him for a while. Then he was meaningless in the 90s, he was a Kamala villain in the late 00s. And none of the revive tricks for him really stuck.
Immortus had a slightly better showing in the 80s, but his best stuff was in What If.
>Was Kang ever cool though?
In potential is awesome >blood of Richards/Doom >from the future >no powers, only super intellect and future tech >Asperie to be the best that humans can be >that has has a future future self that say "conquering is shit, you are moron" >frick it let's train my pastself >this younger self is so ashemed of you that he runs away into the past, vows to never become you, and join the avengers (your present enemy that won't let you conquer) >in the mist of all this bullshit you actually conquer present earth and win over the avengers (not forever ofc this book is called avengers, not Kang)
>Kang was a very second rate nobody that Marvel continually shat on in the 90s.
Post issue references or shut up about things that never happened. Kang was treated as one of the big Avengers villains consistently throughout the 90s and didn't really appear much in other books.
The 80s were worse for him, that's where all of the Council of Kangs stuff came from.
Yeah, came here to say it sounded like cope >What? You think I got fired? H-hah, not a chance! In fact, they're actually likely moving away from doing that whole Kang Dynasty thing anyway! It's got nothing to do with me! Yeah, that's it.
Imagine they actually use the multiverse concept creatively and do an Antman movie where he is recruited to lead a multiversal heist with Mysterio and whoever you want to pick. Instead we get generic "go stop the bad guy" featuring KANG! but not the important kang, just some unimportant one.
Honestly I'd love to see a Mysterio Variant appear, one who wasn't as hostile and more of a generic criminal fraud.
I'd love if Gyllenhaal's Mysterio could come back, though I know the MCU is by and large allergic to having villains return. He was easily the best thing about Far From Home
Say what you will about Iron Boy or whatever but the MCU trilogy has consistently great villains. I'd love to see Vulture and Mysterio return, as well as MCU versions of Norman and Doc Ock
The Spidey Home trilogy definitely got a WHOLE lot wrong, but yeah you're right. Somehow they just managed to knock it out of the park with the villains each time. Even if NWH was cheating a little by bringing Dafoe and co back, the Green Goblin in that was still a top tier baddie >as well as MCU versions of Norman and Doc Ock
Same, but I think they might not end up doing them since "they already showed up in NWH and we don't want to retread old ground"
I can definitely see them doing a Hobgoblin though
I really hope he isn't dead dead. When I watched FFH I thought they were going to set Mysterio up to get actual magic as an upgrade considering Strange seemed to be set on becoming one of the Avengers mentor role. He would've been really cool as sort of like a new Loki-type character.
Eh, Mysterio shouldn't ever get magic or any real superpowers. It goes against the whole point of his character.
I do wish they'd kept him alive though. IIRC they made a point of showing that one of his team members got away with the Mysterio program saved on a USB stick. And obviously Mysterio's whole gimmick is illusions, so maybe he could've faked his death. But I guess Gyllenhaal must have wanted just a single one-and-done role.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I get that Mysterio's a smoke and mirrors guy first and foremost, but I thought they were going to pivot to magic especially when Strange and Wanda was getting hyped up. Mysterio would've been an easy fit with illusion magic, at least for personal combat now that the Stark drones are taken away from him
Worse. This is the guy who insisted audiences like MCU MODOK, and then did an interview well after the movie had come out and everyone shat on their MODOK saying that he never even wanted to try doing MODOK even remotely seriously, and that if he'd do it again if he could.
Sad thing is I actually do like some of his comics, his Nova was fricking solid the only good comic marvel was making for a few months.
But what he said and then doubled down on in regard to MODOK was bullshit. Same reason the echo show runner should be canned. Nobody cares if they think they’re superior to the original, just keep it to yourselves.
Same reason Ziegler needs to be ditched from Snow White.
The director and some Marvel execs said that for Ant-Man 3 they wanted a big bad guy from the comics because they wanted to try something different from the past Ant-Man movies, they most likely chose Kang because he's the only Marvel villain left that's not too tied with the other corners of the Marvel universe, not a bad idea but they shouldn't have hyped him up to be worse than Thanos if the whole point of the movie was always going to be how this big guy gets defeated by the little guy. Should have gotten better writers, and a better director too. I also think that another fun option for big bad guy, could have been the Masters of Evil, just have the AntFam fight the evil Avengers.
A villain team like the Masters of Evil needs a lot of set-up to introduce the individual members in earlier movies or shows, and for MCU movies to not kill their villains at the end as much as they tend to. You can't just introduce a whole villain team at once like it's a Suicide Squad movie unless you want it to suck.
The only real ways around this are if the villain team are all henchmen of a bigger villain, the way the MCU has already done with the Black Order, in which case they don't need much individual explanation, or if the whole team shares the same basic gimmick and origin, so something from the comics like the Zodiac or the Serpent Society.
I don't see what was so good about Kang there, he was a generic evil tyrant. Only thing that was decent about Kang was Majors' acting at times.
I watched Quantumania months after it came out, having heard how naff it was and how Kang was the best part, and honestly I just didn't see it.
Most of his screentime was just Majors speaking quietly to be threatening, or doing a pouty duck face in what I assume is meant to make Kang look pompous, or he was doing the CGI fight scenes where he just throws lasers out of his hands like 60% of MCU characters do.
Kang's scene with Janet in the flashback is the only time the movie actually had natural dialogue and acting and it didn't feel like they just had ChatGPT3 write the script, which was my main problem with the film.
It's a good moment from what I recall, just two actors playing each other. For me, it's the Probablity Storm, that's more of an spectacle set piece but it's good character moment for Scott, has some creative visuals and it's what I would actually like to see from something called Quantumania.
>I watched Quantumania months after it came out, having heard how naff it was and how Kang was the best part, and honestly I just didn't see it.
I'm not sure how much of that we can trust, the reviews for Creed 3 were similar in hyping him as the best thing about it. It all seemed like a coordinated attempt to push an actor as The New Big Thing, like Hollywood periodically do.
Have his variants popping up here and there between movies and introduce him properly in an Avengers film. Actually depict him as a petty tyrant instead of a crying b***h. Also, keep him confined to KD, Secret Wars should be delayed to have Doom as the villain.
>drop the bullshit multiverse angle and just focus on the original idea of Kang being a time travelling conqueror from the future >if you really want to play around with variants to up the stakes, you can still introduce Rama Tut, Immortus et al >give him cool, weird, out-there future tech instead of just laser beams and forcefields >tell Johnathan Majors that pouting and speaking ponderously isn't actually how you act serious and threatening or alternatively just cast another actor outright >rewrite Quantumania so that he isn't just defeated by ANTS; instead of being beaten, have him escape to fight another day or otherwise worm his way out of a comeuppance and leave his threat hanging
I have never understood why they even went for the Council of Kangs angle. That was never very interesting in the comics, and when Kurt Busiek brought Kang back to prominence it was basically by just reconstructing Kang as one guy with a unique personality.
Immortus works because he's almost completely different from Kang, and Iron Lad works in Young Avengers for the same reason, they both have the metaphor that when you get older, you become someone your younger self wouldn't recognize.
Other than that, I think it's very hard to get people to care about alternate versions of characters unless they are actually from other movies, like in Spider-Man: No Way Home.
>That was never very interesting in the comics, and when Kurt Busiek brought Kang back to prominence it was basically by just reconstructing Kang as one guy with a unique personality. >anon praises Busiek for something other writers did years before him
Mark Gruenwald killed off the Council of Kangs and reset him back to being just one guy about five years before the stories you're thinking of.
>Immortus works because he's almost completely different from Kang
He would, he's the only Kang variant that wasn't meant to be a Kang variant, he got retconned into being one.
It's clear to me that homosexual Feige is a huge Rick and Morty fan and he specifically tried to turn the MCU in to Rick and Morty. Maybe fire Fiege and replace him with Favreau. Then give Favreau complete creative control. Fiege has failed for years now. His time I'd over.
Part of it is the overall "arc" of the MCU needs to be cleaned up. You have incursions, Kang, Wanda, and whatever else you have going on. Keep it focused.
Kang himself is fine in Loki. After that, you really should have had him appearing at random in other films. In BP2, he's backing Ironhearts research. In MoM, he helps Strange get back to "our" reality. In a perfect world, he's whispering to Miguel in Spiderverse. You set up a feeling a Kang could be anywhere, but you also don't have him doing anything explicitly evil. He's just nudging things across timelines.
Quantummania needs a re-do. Instead of "hiding" others were in the Quantum realm, Janet has instead been working for years on a way to rescue them. There's no weird societies or goo monsters, just people trapped in the "white space." Let it be the meta-tool for your multiverses. Make it a weird, abstract realm and not just another Earth.
Conqueror Kang is there too, and he's rallied the other survivors to survive in the Quantum realm. Again, he's benign at worst and his arc is like it is early in QM. He wants out, he helps others in efforts to get out, and you build up the feeling his presence in that realm isn't an accident.
At the finale, we learn the big bad was meant to be Kang's jailer (an inverse of Alioth being a guardian), and when everyone steps back into the "real" world, the group is immediately met by a force meant to capture him.
Kang turns them to his side through force of will. He was Napoleon on Elba, and now he's free. Scott gets to keep his freak out about what will happen next, and Cassie gets a lesson that sometimes "good" deeds lead to bad results. End Credits has the Council of Kang's meeting to the news the Conqueror is free, and that the multiversal war is restarting.
This is literally why phase 1-3 was successful. A single over-arcing, universal threat that was slowly revealed and built up to over every movie. Imagine if right before infinity war, Galactica showed up, killed Thanos and then THAT was the big bad. How much of a ten year long frick you would that give the audience?
You're viewing Thanos with rose tinted glasses, he was teased previously but he wasn't really built up. It was actually a bit of meme that Thanos wasn't a big deal because he just sat his ass immediately after making some ominous threat about the Avengers.
Not that anon but you're wrong. Thanos WAS built up, for 10 years in fact. The only thing that was in flux was the stones. He remained the constant, the antagonist.
Thanos first appeared in Avengers, which was released in 2012, six years before Infinity War came and Marvel has literally admitted they didn't really have a plan going into the Infinity Saga.
7 months ago
Anonymous
This, th eonly build up was retconning mcguffins into infinity stones and having him as cameo in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie
Not that anon but you're wrong. Thanos WAS built up, for 10 years in fact. The only thing that was in flux was the stones. He remained the constant, the antagonist.
Thanos was definitely more built up, especially in comparison to Kang (and Doom if they're really going to slot him in last minute), but he did also spend a lot of that build-up literally sitting on his arse.
Still, at least he was actually set up and well established before he became the main villain of a movie.
Thanos was a mid-credits appearance in Avengers, which revealed him as the power behind the Chitauri army.
In Phase 2 he has a small role in GoTG as Ronan's benefactor who's sent Gamora and Nebula to work with him. Also another mid-credits appearance in Avengers 2.
The key point here is that inaction meant Thanos not looking like a fool before his big showdown
8 months ago
Anonymous
The director and some Marvel execs said that for Ant-Man 3 they wanted a big bad guy from the comics because they wanted to try something different from the past Ant-Man movies, they most likely chose Kang because he's the only Marvel villain left that's not too tied with the other corners of the Marvel universe, not a bad idea but they shouldn't have hyped him up to be worse than Thanos if the whole point of the movie was always going to be how this big guy gets defeated by the little guy. Should have gotten better writers, and a better director too. I also think that another fun option for big bad guy, could have been the Masters of Evil, just have the AntFam fight the evil Avengers.
Jeff Loveness said he had Kang lose in Quantumania so he could do a Star Wars thing where like the Empire was defeated in the first movie only for them to come worse and stronger in the second film so Kang would be like a villain who progressed along with the heroes.
8 months ago
Anonymous
That's a shitty comparison because Darth Vader didn't die in New Hope, and the difference is that we were introduced to The Emperor later too. So unless a new Kang or head honcho shows up, we're fricked. Plus we already played the fricking Empire card at the end of Infinity War.
He's moronic
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Plus we already played the fricking Empire card at the end of Infinity War.
And they'll obviously do it again, it's a common structure for two parter sequels.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I get that having a low point in a story to have our protagonists rally isnt exactly exclusive to Empire, but the fact that they keep making this comparison without understanding how it works is concerning
8 months ago
Anonymous
But Kang's loss in Quantumania is nothing like the Death Star getting blown up in ANH.
If the Empire's defeat in ANH was actually anything like what happened in Quantumania, then the Death Star would've been overrun and blown up by suddenly space-faring Ewoks and Vader would've been humiliated and blasted off into space by a completely untrained Luke.
8 months ago
Anonymous
If they wanted that kind of vibe they would have had Scott steal his engine, escape, and then seal the way out trapping Kang again. It would have shown desperation and admission that they couldn't just punch Kang away
8 months ago
Anonymous
Agreed, something like that would have worked far better. They just needed to figure out a way for there to be some measure of victory for Ant-Man and co, probably in them simply getting out of the Quantum Realm with their lives, but also equally ensuring that it's an ending where Kang and his army isn't so utterly beaten by ANTS and then personally beaten by a middle-aged dad with no powers.
They just needed some climax where Kang is temporarily defeated but is still in a position to go "THIS ISN'T OVER! WE'LL MEET AGAIN, ANT-MAN!" before hopping on his Goblin Glider, I mean, in his time machine, and escaping to parts unknown for his next appearance.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Luke in the first movie was untrained and he blew up the Death Star.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Hey, he got like 3 minutes of training on the Millennium Falcon.
But the point is that the Quantumania/A New Hope comparison on Loveness's part is silly, because Vader wasn't beaten and humiliated as thoroughly as Kang was.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I mean Vader was caught off guard by a cargo ship, which begs the question if it's normal in the Star Wars universe for random passerbys on their spaceships to just decide to participate in a space battle for fun and end up influence the outcome.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I can sort of buy the intention if you set it up that way, but it's the execution that's flawed. Blowing up the Death Star in IV doesn't make Vader or the empire any less menacing, but Kang's appearance in Quantumania has no menace to begin with. He brags amount killing multiple Avengers(tell, not show) but nobody of importance dies or gets sacrificed in order to stop him; multiple characters tell us he is a multiversal threat(again, telling instead of showing) but all he going for him is lasers and a lightbulb-headed army, which all feel like a step down from previous villains including Thanos
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Blowing up the Death Star in IV doesn't make Vader or the empire any less menacing, but Kang's appearance in Quantumania has no menace to begin with.
It kinda did, the way Vader lost at the end of A New Hope is pretty cringe.
Kang would have been a great hero who just won't die. Imagine killing him, only for him to be outside waiting because of time travel frickery. Make him so instrumental to the timestream that killing him does nothing. Hell, if you want him to cause Secret Wars, then that's the reason it happened. His death causes a timeline/multiverse crash, not because he is so powerful, but because he is a sore loser and takes everything out with him. That's the reason the Kang Wars was so bloody – if Kang can't win, then no Kang wins.
>Doom portals into the Council >"So....you, all of you, are my future? My lineage, an faint echo of what was Doom. Endless timelines, endless possibilities, and yet you settle on archaic bureaucracy? You grow fat and complacent with your systems and rules, blinded by the truth in front of you. Undone.....by Ant-Man and a fallen god of mischief. You are not my legacy, you are NOT Doom.....I will take control over my future, my fate.....and it will only be ME."
>How do you backpedal this far in?
After credit scene of all the Kangs in their arena about to launch their attack on the Avengers. When a voice booms out saying "Fools! all existence belongs..." Then the camera pans out revealing the whole arena is in the palm of his hand, "To Doom!" Then he crushes them.
Have the next big bad completely btfo Kang and all Kangz in his intro scene to show how strong he is. Doom works. Rotate to Dr Doom instead.
Look, if they include Dr Doom fully expect it to be cringe unless they have a stable full of quality writers they've been holding back on for no reason. Remember both Mandarins?
well Doc Doom does actually have a time machine and travels in time canonically so
>How do you backpedal this far in?
After credit scene of all the Kangs in their arena about to launch their attack on the Avengers. When a voice booms out saying "Fools! all existence belongs..." Then the camera pans out revealing the whole arena is in the palm of his hand, "To Doom!" Then he crushes them.
Have the next big bad completely btfo Kang and all Kangz in his intro scene to show how strong he is. Doom works. Rotate to Dr Doom instead.
is not that crazy since loki opened up all timelines, you could had him to the multitimeline war and this time make him win
Still the issue of not great writing but they could have easily avoided issues by not having every kang variant seen be the same actor. Have there be lots of different ones in that end scene, could have easily recast after.
People will only see events now though.
No Way Home brought back Tobey and Andrew.
GOTG 3 was the last one directed by James Gunn and most of the cast is leaving with him to DC.
Across the Spider-Verse upped the ante on the amount of Spider-people.
Deadpool 3 will be the final send off to 20 years of FoXmen movies.
Compared to these The Marvels had no hook. It should have been more about mutants if they wanted to generate interest.
The only time the IP matters is when you're trying to fluff up a mediocre film and coast on goodwill from the last good one. If you make a good movie, people will go to see it. People love the Miles FRICKING Morales movies, despite the fact that anyone who had ever heard of him thought "I'm not watching a movie about that guy." They made a fricking Barbie movie and people loved it, because they cared to make it good.
>If you make a good movie, people will go to see it
Lol >They made a fricking Barbie movie and people loved it, because they cared to make it good.
LOL
Anyone who works with Gunn is basically loyal to him for life, where he goes they go
plus most of the GotG cast has already mentioned about having a role in the DCU and half of them were in either TSS or Peacemaker
How the hell do you think "mutants" is going to generate interest after 20 years of Fox X-Men movies that mostly performed worse than MCU movies?
Deadpool 3 will be the last ride of the 2 Fox characters that actually put butts on seats, but "mutants" as a concept isn't pulling in anyone but the existing X-Men fanbase.
>How the hell do you think "mutants" is going to generate interest after 20 years of Fox X-Men movies that mostly performed worse than MCU movies?
Because people like mutants and have wanted them in the MCU ever since Disney bought Fox. Instead of fighting some rando female kree why not do an x-Men villian? How about Mystique and Rogue since those are Carol specific villians and are important to her history? With one stone you hit two birds of getting your female antagonists in and they're also iconic ones that people care about.
But no just put Beast in at the very end (because you already blew your load with Xavier in MoM) and expect anyone to give a shit, good job Marvel.
>It's an "X-gay thinks what he likes is super-popular with normies" thread. Again.
>Because people like mutants and have wanted them in the MCU ever since Disney bought Fox. >citation needed
Stop confusing "comics nerds" with "normal people". Normal people might like Wolverine or Deadpool, they don't have the same investment in "mutants" that a comics nerd has. Normal people don't care about characters just because they're part of a fictional race that's also a badly-thought-out minority metaphor.
Normal people had given up on X-Men movies well before Disney bought Fox, it's literally just nerds who wanted new X-Men stuff immediately.
>Instead of fighting some rando female kree why not do an x-Men villian?
Do you really think it would have been a more faithful adaptation than the villain they used was to the comics?
If you're arguing for them to use an X-Men villain for a Carol movie, at least suggest the Brood.
>How about Mystique and Rogue since those are Carol specific villians and are important to her history? With one stone you hit two birds of getting your female antagonists in and they're also iconic ones that people care about.
Audiences only cared about Mystique because JLaw was playing her, and they're not getting her back. She wasn't even enough to get people to show up for Dark Phoenix, either. And you have to accept that the MCU isn't going to do the comic story of Rogue stealing Carol's powers and consigning her to 20 years of irrelevance. Even if Disney do give up on Carol that's still about as likely as them adapting the Marcus story AND keeping it entirely concensual incest.
>How the hell do you think "mutants" is going to generate interest after 20 years of Fox X-Men movies that mostly performed worse than MCU movies?
Because Mutants are the logical outcome of a world like the MCU. The more supers show up, they more they cause trouble, the more people start disliking all this shit. Cue a bunch of kids getting powers from the whole celestial nonsense. Public outcry explodes because its not a random Iron Man or Captain America that shows up, its a bunch of teenage Hulks who wreck a building when their powers flare up.
They get rounded up and supers are all more or less labeled mutants except the ones who clearly operate without powers, although some dumbasses still think "Hawk Guy" talks to birds and can fly. Xavier expands his schools, because he's always been running a school for kids with "Special Needs", just now there are so many he can't take them all in to one campus.
You change mutant discrimination from being a dumb racial thing to a Gen Z "fight the power" issue where they are rebelling against the older generation who keeps telling them to be responsible with their powers and keep them hidden so you can function like a normal citizen all while they hear about the ones who decided "frick the rules, I've got super powers" and how they're trying to build a better world by telling the old one to frick off. The normies, on the other hand, are naturally upset about little jimmy Turner who threw a softball and accidentally launched it through three houses, and the kids themselves are having a shit time of it because a solid portion of their peers keep turning in to basically demi-gods.
The "Evil" mutants don't go on about their superiority, they protest how poorly the world has been run before them, and how they're being told to not take action with their powers while the world burns, or worse, have the old regimes trying to recruit them so they can cling to power and continue to frick everything up.
>If this is true, then Secret Wars would be the main event.
OK, now scrap the Multiverse Saga, scrap adapting 2015 Secret Wars and adapt 1980s Secret Wars instead.
Why can't they just do a movie that actually shows the damage the Council of Kangs can actually do? It can't be that hard to make him a real threat, can it?
To me, He Who Remains was perfect. Thanos claimed to be inevitable, but He Who Remains really was. The idea that determinism is real, that this one man who'd mastered time had created the ultimate Xanatos Gambit, a life trap, where everything you've ever done and will do is driven by predestination and even his death just serves his greater plan. This gnawing existential dread that every step you take is already written into the annals of history. That free will is an illusion. The path is already set. That was terrifying. I would love to see that writ large across the Marvel Universe.
Really what we're getting at here is that He Who Remains was the necessary evil to keep existence safe from himself. Imagine if Quantumania was just Scott stumbling into The Council of Kangs, and the Kang or "Prime" Kang was their leader ensuring every path led to his reign. A climax where instead of defeating him, Scott escapes him to warn everyone of the man behind the curtain no one realized existed >"He escaped us. What if he warns his allies of our existence?" >"What is one reality, one insignificant timeline of "heroes" compared to out dynasty? We have been to the earliest shore, and to the furthest cliff of creation. Kang is Destiny. Kang is everywhere...."
The Kangz were just an answer to MCU tendencies.
A way to kill villains and never let them win while maintaining a long runner villain.
It never had potential because it was just a vehicle to avoid writing things they weren't comfortable with.
That doesn't really fix the issue I described. There's no focus, no "This is the fricking guy who's been fricking with us!" impact like Thanos was. This would be like if The Black Order goons that ran with Thanos were the main antagonists of Endgame or something. You need a Kang Prime giving orders, or some sort of hierarchy
>See a good narrative requires a central antagonist, a "face" to the threat the heroes are trying to overcome
This isn't true at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_(narrative)
You can blame Ant-Man all you want but the reality is normalgays didn't care about Kang because they don't really know jackshit about him and aesthetically Marvel made him a regular black man. The bigger issue is Marvel jumped the gun hard with Thanos, and they wasted Ultron. The first built up threat should have been the masters of evil, then Thanos, and then Ultron. After that Galactus and Doom can come out to play.
>normalgays didn't care about Kang because they don't really know jackshit about him and aesthetically Marvel made him a regular black man
That didn't stop him from being received warmly at the end of S1. HWR was terrifyingly effective
Reminder that the same person quoted here (Joanna Robinson, who wrote the book about Marvel Studios) said a few months ago that according to her sources, Marvel Studios decided Quantumania was going to be huge and they should build the new phase around Kang because everyone was going to love him.
Quantumania may well be the movie that brought down the MCU. People started souring on it after Multiverse of Madness and Love & Thunder, but Quantumania was the movie they thought was going to be their big breakout hit.
Yeah that's what some are saying, Kang was originally going to be just the villain for Ant-Man 3 and maybe have something down the line but then they just decided to make him into the next big thing
Peyton Reed must give the best head in the business to have Kevin Feige in love with him like that while being the shittiest director working for Marvel. Not even Jon Watts can be worse.
Peyton Reed is not a good director but the guy is a legit comic book fan and sci-fi nerd, he's been wanting to make his dream Fantastic Four movie since forever. Feige strikes me as a fan of 80's/90's/00's while Reed seems like that plus the Silver Age so maybe he became Feige's go to guy to ask about obscure Marvel knowledge.
I can't hate the guy because he believes that Hank Pym is a nuanced character that gets unfair hate thanks to the slap, he's a real one, it just sucks that he has no talent.
Ah, I'm just busting your balls kid. I like posting that reaction pic and take the excuse to do so whenever I can.
Here's my issues: >they bring in Sam Raimi as a replacement director and fricking waste him; only some shots and the zombie Strange stuff in the climax feel at all like Raimi >Dr Strange is almost entirely sidelined in his own sequel >Strange's character arc about "holding the knife" was very clearly tacked on in reshoots >the plot doesn't revolve around any typical Dr Strange elements; the only actual Strange inclusions are Shuma-Gorath as a nameless first act monster, a parallel Mordo having two scenes, Rintrah showing up for a hot minute, and then Clea in the post-credits >America Chavez is an utterly pointless addition >the 10 minute cameofest in the middle is laughable in how blatantly fan-pandering and pointless it is, as well as in how obvious the reshoots are >barely does anything with the multiverse and only visits like 2 different worlds in total though since I dislike multiverse bullshit, I'm fine with this. But it's still a mark against the film for not actually being able to really deliver on the promise in the title >rushes into Wanda being a villain with little to no set up in the film itself >Wanda isn't an interesting villain, partly because she has no real connection to Dr Strange beyond "hey we fought in different places on the same battlefield that one time," and partly because we know she can't really be evil or do anything too bad since she'll obviously be redeemed
The film as a whole is torn between being a Raimi-style, horror-tinged Dr Strange sequel, and being a new MCU instalment setting up the ebin new multiverse arc and America Chavez, and as a result it doesn't work well at being either. It's just a mess. Not as outright bad or fan-insulting as Quantumania, but it's a notable failure. I wish they'd just let Raimi alone to do his thing, without any studio-mandated plot points or characters.
Reminder we could have gotten a Raimi directed Triumph and Torment if fricking Spiderverse and Mile Morales didn't fricking taint normies with the idea of a multiverse
8 months ago
Anonymous
>we could have gotten a Raimi directed Triumph and Torment >a Dr Strange sequel that actually focuses on Dr Strange >introduces DOOM, bypassing the usual stumbling block of rushing to introduce him alongside the Fantastic Four like the Fox films kept screwing up >even introduces Mephisto >great plot starting off with a magical contest before descending into hell >all perfectly suited to Raimi's horror style and interest in unique, weird characters >we never got this
It was the PERFECT, obvious choice for a Dr Strange sequel and they completely whiffed it for no good reason because Feige loves modern comics and is up his own arse about how great the Multiverse Saga will be. I hate the multiverse so fricking much you wouldn't believe.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I really wish everyone would just fricking stop with the goddam multiverse shit already. Every movie and show is all about multiverse shittery.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Reminder we could have gotten a Raimi directed Triumph and Torment if fricking Spiderverse and Mile Morales didn't fricking taint normies with the idea of a multiverse
>we could have gotten a Raimi directed Triumph and Torment >a Dr Strange sequel that actually focuses on Dr Strange >introduces DOOM, bypassing the usual stumbling block of rushing to introduce him alongside the Fantastic Four like the Fox films kept screwing up >even introduces Mephisto >great plot starting off with a magical contest before descending into hell >all perfectly suited to Raimi's horror style and interest in unique, weird characters >we never got this
It was the PERFECT, obvious choice for a Dr Strange sequel and they completely whiffed it for no good reason because Feige loves modern comics and is up his own arse about how great the Multiverse Saga will be. I hate the multiverse so fricking much you wouldn't believe.
What the frick, why did spider-verse derail this idea? Why didn't they just make a standalone Triumph and Torment movie what the frick I MAD
7 months ago
Anonymous
Because for some fricking reason, the Spider-Verse is an idea that's popular with both current Marvel writers and the majority of Marvel fans despite it being completely at odds with the fundamental concept of Spider-Man
7 months ago
Anonymous
Miles Morales is Spider-Man, Peter Parker is Peter Parker, cry about it forever
7 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't even bring up Miles. I simply stated I dislike the multiverse and that it doesn't fit in with Spider-Man's world at all.
Get better material for your trolling next time.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>I simply stated I dislike the multiverse and that it doesn't fit in with Spider-Man's world at all.
Because it stops the same character from being recycled with no changes for 60 years?
7 months ago
Anonymous
No, because It sucks.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>despite it being completely at odds with the fundamental concept of Spider-Man
Anon, spider-verse wasn't about spider-man. it was designed exclusively to strip the mantle from peter and make merchandise and marketing easier. "Anyone can be spider-man" is just a way to sell spider-merch to anyone. It's not about peter, it's not about the character. Spiderverse 1 is almost entirely about how anyone can wear the mask, but you need to buy a marvel branded mask with a vague spider on it to represent your particular spider. It's horseshit and shows the end of spider-man as a character and his evolution into pure brand marketing bullshit. It's like when Mickey Mouse stopped appearing in cartoons and became a symbol for toys and merch. Peter is being moved aside so he can ascend to symbol and other characters can take risks like anyone other than peter, women and blacks and asians and basically anyone other than a white guy because we've had 60 years of that shit and white people dont buy enough shit.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Again, because Spiderverse did well as an animated film and the normies responded to the multiverse without any real problem. So Feige and co decided to enable their worst habits by realizing they don't have to try and make a living breathing universe anymore, they just can just grab an alternate universe for everything need.
Like you fricking even keep the angle of Doctor Strange thinking he has to be the one who makes all the choices, he's the one who has to save everyone and parallel it perfectly against Doom and that's where Strange learns his lesson. It even gives a reason WHY Doom wasn't on the world stage until this point, because he have focused on freeing his mother because his own obsession with not failing and not owing anyone anything would keep him bound. An amazing movie where Dr. Strange helps a man free his Mother's soul only to unleash him on the rest of the world
7 months ago
Anonymous
You got it wrong
Multiverse of Madness was going to be released before No Way Home (America Chavez was going to show up in No Way Home at first and be the one who casts the spell instead of Strange, who is injured in the original plan for Multiverse of Madness)
But then COVID happened and fricked things up so as a result No Way Home would release first, so they modified both so that No Way Home would take place before Multiverse of Madness
>Dr. Strange sidelined in his own sequel
I don't get this criticism, Strange is a major part of his own film. We encounter multiple variants of him and how they affected the different universes we see, exploring how powerful he really is and his need to take control of a situation and him learning to get pass that is much more interesting than what the first movie did with him, which characterized him more as wizard Tony Stark. Also we see him actually use more abilities other than the mirror dimension.
If there's any character who actually was sidelined it would be America Chavez. Wanda does have a big role too but that's because she's the one Marvel villain who had a long established history in the MCU and already had her villain origin story in WandaVision.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Don't bother, those people have formed their own headcanon about this movie and refuse to let go of it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
When the plot leaked to Reddit in 2021 nobody believed it because Strange didn't seem to do anything to drive the plot in his own sequel, he just stands around and watches while Wanda commits murders. That turned out to be pretty true of the movie.
Basically as soon as Wanda reveals she's turned evil, he's just reacting to what she does. He's just trying to protect his new kid sidekick with Wanda chasing him, but all the interesting stuff happens offscreen, which includes his two evil variants.
They didn't really have a plot so they went for campy horror, but all the character development happens offscreen.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Strange is a major part of his own film.
Wanda drives the plot. For the most part, Strange is just reacting to her (and America Chavez's) actions. >We encounter multiple variants of him and how they affected the different universes we see
We see two Stranges, the one in the prologue and then Evil Strange, and that's it. The Cameoverse Strange is given a single flashback and a statue. >exploring how powerful he really is and his need to take control of a situation and him learning to get pass that is much more interesting than what the first movie did with him
The whole "need to be the one holding the knife" arc is, again, pretty clearly tacked on to the rest of the film. It doesn't really relate to the main plot or give Strange much in the way of actual character development, partly due to the fact that he doesn't drive the story and partly due to the tacked-on nature of the arc. >Also we see him actually use more abilities other than the mirror dimension.
Alright, the magic use in the third act was creative. I liked the Strange vs Evil Strange fight and the possessing the alt Strange corpse. >If there's any character who actually was sidelined it would be America Chavez. >the character no comic fan likes randomly shoved into a Dr Strange film for no other reason than ANAD bullshit
lol >Wanda does have a big role too but that's because she's the one Marvel villain who had a long established history in the MCU and already had her villain origin story in WandaVision. >was only a non-committal villain in her introductory movie before joining the Avengers (like how she starts off in the Brotherhood in the comics) >the only villainous set-up in Wandavision is her controlling the town, which is handwaved away, and then the brief set-up that the Darkhold is bad >it's up to the film to speedrun her villain development in the first act
lmao
Don't bother, those people have formed their own headcanon about this movie and refuse to let go of it.
It must be nice always being right just because you assume anyone who holds a different opinion is mad.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>It must be nice always being right just because you assume anyone who holds a different opinion is mad.
Not anyone, but you certainly is.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>random Multiverse of Madness defender who doesn't have a single argument beyond "all the people who don't like this film are stupid or [character]gays" is a smug ESL
Makes sense.
>Wanda drives the plot.
Villains often do.
>For the most part, Strange is just reacting to her (and America Chavez's) actions.
There is nothing wrong with that. Strange is also just reacting to what Mads Mikkelsen does for the majority of the first movie.
>The whole "need to be the one holding the knife" arc is, again, pretty clearly tacked on to the rest of the film.
Not really.
>It doesn't really relate to the main plot
It is the driving force of Strange's journey and in many ways Wanda's journey as well.
>give Strange much in the way of actual character development
Learning to let go is a pretty big theme present throughout the movie.
>Villains often do.
The protagonist, especially a protagonist who's meant to be a confident, experienced superhero, should ideally be driving the plot as well. It doesn't have to be 50/50, but they should have some input as to how and why things happen. That's not the case with Strange in MoM. He's either running away from Scarlet Witch or trying to figure out how to beat her. >Strange is also just reacting to what Mads Mikkelsen does for the majority of the first movie.
Because he's neither as confident or as experienced in the first film. And by focusing on Mads's villain, you're ignoring the rest of the first film's story where Strange seeks out Kamar-Taj, learns and trains, and the climax where he makes use of the Time Stone and confronts Dormmamu by himself on his own initiative >It is the driving force of Strange's journey and in many ways Wanda's journey as well.
How on earth does "trying to control everything in your life" relate to Wanda's mission of wanting her kids back? >Learning to let go is a pretty big theme present throughout the movie.
You've just pointed out a theme. That's not a point about Strange's supposed character development.
>we know she can't really be evil or do anything too bad since she'll obviously be redeemed
She murdered close to a hundred people in the movie. She probably will be redeemed because 'woman' but she shouldn't.
True, and they'll definitely redeem her some point soon when she makes her inevitable return. She's their most popular female character by far. But deaths of crowds/bystanders/otherwise faceless, nameless people are basically morally irrelevant when it comes to superhero stories, especially in a story where the stakes of ending an entire universe through Incursions are introduced.
8 months ago
Anonymous
The plot isn't driven by Strange but it definitely centers around him, all the universes they visit are ones that have been affected by his variants and their power. The recurring theme of his variants causing so much destruction because of their need for control or the tragedy of losing a loved one (which is one parallel to Wanda) culminates in Strange putting his faith and trust in America Chavez to finally master her power at the climax instead of just trying to murder her like what his variant tried to do at the beginning.
8 months ago
Anonymous
OK, but how much of that is in the actual story we see? His variants did all that offscreen, his obsession with Christine happens offscreen, his lack of trust in Chavez barely figures in the plot because they're mostly running.
I know this sounds pedantic but you can't make a movie have a theme by just telling us what the theme is.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Resorting to ad hominens so soon?
>or trying to figure out how to beat her.
So he is doing stuff.
>the climax where he makes use of the Time Stone and confronts Dormmamu by himself on his own initiative
How is that different from the climax where he makes sue of the Darkhold and confronts Wanda by his own initiative?
>How on earth does "trying to control everything in your life" relate to Wanda's mission of wanting her kids back?
She literally says she wants to control everything in her life, genius.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Resorting to ad hominens so soon?
What? You resorted to them first with stupid accusations in
[...]
Let's just say that some fans of the two main characters did not like its take on those characters, and leave it at that.
and
Don't bother, those people have formed their own headcanon about this movie and refuse to let go of it.
that had no basis in what had been discussed in the thread. Just stating that "oh, the people who don't share my opinions are delusional and silly" isn't a good argument.
Honestly, I want to know why you're defending this film so hard. It's far from the worst film in the world, and it's not even the worst thing in the MCU, but at the very least the common consensus is that it wasn't very well done, and yet here you are, rabidly protecting it from any criticism. How about instead of us going back and forth nitpicking each other's posts to death line by line, you just tell me why you like this damn film so much?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Honestly, I want to know why you're defending this film so hard.
I could ask the same about you seething about it so hard.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I could ask the same about you seething about it so hard.
The seething is pretty self-explanatory; people who didn't like what they did with Wanda or Strange didn't like the movie.
What I find odd is that these threads always turn into someone telling the complainers that they're wrong, Strange did have an arc or Wanda's character journey was perfectly logical. But you can't prove that by showing that themes are mentioned in the movie, it's a question of whether we feel it's logical.
"I think Strange had an arc in this movie and here's why" is never enough for some reason, it's always telling people they were too dumb to notice his arc. We noticed they talked about stuff, we just don't think it was enough.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I would say they're logical, Strange giving up on the 4D chess plots and trusting his heart on allowing a young girl to master her power to save the day and Wanda becoming a villain after all the losses she's suffered are fine arcs and they were handled as well you can expect from a Marvel movie.
Now Wanda's arc was handled a bit clunkily but not unexpected considering where her miniseries left her off.
8 months ago
Anonymous
But I just think it's a naff film that doesn't deliver on being a good Dr Strange sequel. I like Dr Strange a lot (the comics at least, the first film is just decent) and a Raimi-directed Dr Strange film should have been a dream come true. I'm not angry about it. More disappointed, if anything, and even then it's not something living rent-free in my head. Also >avoiding the question
8 months ago
Anonymous
>and even then it's not something living rent-free in my head
You could have fooled me.
>avoiding the question
I enjoyed the film despite its flaws and don't apprence disingenuous discourse towards it because MUH WANDA. It isn't living rent-free in my head either, but if I see the same seething homosexuals spouting the same tired arguments and headcannons over and over again I'll call them out on their bullshit.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>don't apprence disingenuous discourse towards it because MUH WANDA >but if I see the same seething homosexuals spouting the same tired arguments and headcannons over and over again I'll call them out on their bullshit.
But most of the reasons why I said I disliked the film in
Ah, I'm just busting your balls kid. I like posting that reaction pic and take the excuse to do so whenever I can.
Here's my issues: >they bring in Sam Raimi as a replacement director and fricking waste him; only some shots and the zombie Strange stuff in the climax feel at all like Raimi >Dr Strange is almost entirely sidelined in his own sequel >Strange's character arc about "holding the knife" was very clearly tacked on in reshoots >the plot doesn't revolve around any typical Dr Strange elements; the only actual Strange inclusions are Shuma-Gorath as a nameless first act monster, a parallel Mordo having two scenes, Rintrah showing up for a hot minute, and then Clea in the post-credits >America Chavez is an utterly pointless addition >the 10 minute cameofest in the middle is laughable in how blatantly fan-pandering and pointless it is, as well as in how obvious the reshoots are >barely does anything with the multiverse and only visits like 2 different worlds in total though since I dislike multiverse bullshit, I'm fine with this. But it's still a mark against the film for not actually being able to really deliver on the promise in the title >rushes into Wanda being a villain with little to no set up in the film itself >Wanda isn't an interesting villain, partly because she has no real connection to Dr Strange beyond "hey we fought in different places on the same battlefield that one time," and partly because we know she can't really be evil or do anything too bad since she'll obviously be redeemed
The film as a whole is torn between being a Raimi-style, horror-tinged Dr Strange sequel, and being a new MCU instalment setting up the ebin new multiverse arc and America Chavez, and as a result it doesn't work well at being either. It's just a mess. Not as outright bad or fan-insulting as Quantumania, but it's a notable failure. I wish they'd just let Raimi alone to do his thing, without any studio-mandated plot points or characters.
is because it barely feels like a Dr Strange film, or gives Strange as character a good showing, and focuses more on trying to be an MCU multiverse set up than being a satisfying film. I dislike how rushed Scarlet Witch's villainous turn was, too, but that's not why I disliked the film
It seems to me that you've just automatically come out with these arguments and thrown your lot in entirely with defending this film because you're tired of Wandagays, rather than because you actually genuinely like the film on its own merits.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Wanda drives the plot.
Villains often do.
>For the most part, Strange is just reacting to her (and America Chavez's) actions.
There is nothing wrong with that. Strange is also just reacting to what Mads Mikkelsen does for the majority of the first movie.
>The whole "need to be the one holding the knife" arc is, again, pretty clearly tacked on to the rest of the film.
Not really.
>It doesn't really relate to the main plot
It is the driving force of Strange's journey and in many ways Wanda's journey as well.
>give Strange much in the way of actual character development
Learning to let go is a pretty big theme present throughout the movie.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Learning to let go is a pretty big theme present throughout the movie.
It's talked about, we don't see it. This is the famous problem with Strange suddenly treating whatshername... Christine... as the greatest love of his life, or Wanda wanting her kids back but not Vision, or the stuff that happened to his variants offscreen. It's like someone decided the characters needed to have an arc but it would be enough to just have them talk about it rather than making us feel it.
On the evidence of what we see, Strange is a well-adjusted guy who has already learned to let other people hold the knife (that's why he has no problem asking Wanda for help), and inexplicably claims to love a woman he clearly does not care much about.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Strange is a well-adjusted guy who has already learned to let other people hold the knife (that's why he has no problem asking Wanda for help)
He doesn't put complete trust in Wanda though, he literally just asks her for advice on a witch related problem that turns out that she was the cause of.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Now you're making me think of how interesting the movie could have been if it was an actual team-up movie that played on the tension between Strange, the ultimate professional, and Wanda, a talented amateur who has lots of power but no idea what she's doing.
The lesson, as always, is that boring and safe choices (a Doctor Strange / Scarlet Witch teamup) are better than choices that go against what the audience was expecting (Scarlet Witch is evil now and they never team up).
The blandest choice is always the best. (See also, How I Met Your Mother creators thinking they were going to surprise the audience with a twist ending.)
8 months ago
Anonymous
>that go against what the audience was expecting (Scarlet Witch is evil now and they never team up).
Scarlet Witch becoming evil is what the audience was expecting, because not only is her going crazy her most notable feat in the comics but she had an entire show where she does some questionable fricked up shit and gets away with it at the end, literally ending with her acquiring and using an evil book.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Scarlet Witch becoming evil is what the audience was expecting, because not only is her going crazy her most notable feat in the comics but she had an entire show where she does some questionable fricked up shit and gets away with it at the end, literally ending with her acquiring and using an evil book.
I think the creators of the movie did think that was her most notable feat in the comics, but thankfully most movie viewers don't care.
The show was clearly made as a way of getting Wanda to her lowest point and then getting her into a place where she could start to become a better person. (It's been confirmed that the people who made the show had no idea what was going to happen to Wanda in MoM.) They tacked on the Darkhold scene, but it doesn't match up with what happens in the movie, and according to the show, Agatha could have the Darkhold for centuries and still be quite rational.
Basically WandaVision should have been her villain arc with her redemption arc coming immediately after. Unfortunately MoM was written by people who think the character's worst comic stories are her best, so they trashed the character just as she was becoming their most popular female character.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Scarlet Witch becoming evil is what the audience was expecting
No, it's what people who hate-watched WandaVision and had the most negative possible takes on where her story could go next were expecting/hoping. Watch the footage of audience reactions to the MoM trailer at the end of No Way Home. Normie audiences were hyped to see Wanda again for a team up with Strange. Like [...] is saying, people who didn't just already hate Wanda were hoping for a redemption arc.
Tell that to the comment section of this video with three million views
?si=RwccFjB2ODbXAkl_
8 months ago
Anonymous
I feel like the online obsession with this (admittedly terrible) line is weird. Every MCU project has some shitty lines.
What's funny is that in MoM, when Wanda brings up Westview, Strange dismisses it as unimportant because Wanda did the right thing in the end, which is as bad as Monica's line but nobody cared because it was in a movie with so many other clunkers.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I feel like the online obsession with this (admittedly terrible) line is weird. Every MCU project has some shitty lines.
It's a weird and frankly disingenuous concern for the welfare of the NPCs that nobody displays about any other MCU movie ever, it's a deliberate misinterpretation of the show to insist Wanda knowingly and intentionally created the hex, and knew she was hurting people all along (it's pretty blatant about her refusing to listen to or believe anyone who tried to talk to her about this), and it's refusing to even engage with the story of the show by insisting hex-Vision and the kids weren't alive even though it literally tells us they are. That line people hate is Monica, who lost her mother, having sympathy for Wanda having to give up her family in order to free the town and put things right.
In other words, people like dickless here
>Wanda stans thinking that Wanda doesn't come out as a villain in her own show after she painfully brainwashed and enslaved a whole town willingly to fulfill her family sitcom larp session and was let off scot-free with a line on par with "Thank You For Becoming a Mass Murderer For Our Sake" (it was just hatewatcher propaganda)
misrepresenting the narrative of the show to fit his headcanon of what happened and pretend there's some kind of knowing intentional malice that isn't actually there. People who only watched a show about a character they already hated because they thought it was going to introduce the mutants or Mephisto or whatever other boring crap they actually wanted and are still seething.
Her kids weren't real
The show outright tells you they are real. Considering we know at least one of them is coming back, MoM claiming they weren't is a nonsensically moronic move, but one that's temporarily emboldened people who refused to accept the story they were given.
8 months ago
Anonymous
"Real" is a very contextual term here. They're real in the sense they exist as tangible beings but they're also thematically, and literally, simulacrum.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Youtube comments section >reflective of how normal human beings think
morons gonna moron in their moron echo chamber.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Agatha could have the Darkhold for centuries and still be quite rational.
She didn't have chaos magic.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Wanda was always going to turn evil, Scott Derrickson's script was all about her descend into madness, and Michael Waldron confirmed she was slated to be the villain of an Avengers movie at some point. He just asked if he could do it in Multiverse of Madness and Marvel agreed since they had their eyes on the Kang ball.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Scarlet Witch becoming evil is what the audience was expecting
No, it's what people who hate-watched WandaVision and had the most negative possible takes on where her story could go next were expecting/hoping. Watch the footage of audience reactions to the MoM trailer at the end of No Way Home. Normie audiences were hyped to see Wanda again for a team up with Strange. Like
>Scarlet Witch becoming evil is what the audience was expecting, because not only is her going crazy her most notable feat in the comics but she had an entire show where she does some questionable fricked up shit and gets away with it at the end, literally ending with her acquiring and using an evil book.
I think the creators of the movie did think that was her most notable feat in the comics, but thankfully most movie viewers don't care.
The show was clearly made as a way of getting Wanda to her lowest point and then getting her into a place where she could start to become a better person. (It's been confirmed that the people who made the show had no idea what was going to happen to Wanda in MoM.) They tacked on the Darkhold scene, but it doesn't match up with what happens in the movie, and according to the show, Agatha could have the Darkhold for centuries and still be quite rational.
Basically WandaVision should have been her villain arc with her redemption arc coming immediately after. Unfortunately MoM was written by people who think the character's worst comic stories are her best, so they trashed the character just as she was becoming their most popular female character.
is saying, people who didn't just already hate Wanda were hoping for a redemption arc.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Wanda stans thinking that Wanda doesn't come out as a villain in her own show after she painfully brainwashed and enslaved a whole town willingly to fulfill her family sitcom larp session and was let off scot-free with a line on par with "Thank You For Becoming a Mass Murderer For Our Sake" (it was just hatewatcher propaganda)
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Bendis did it so that means it's okay!
Comic accuracy isn't good if the comics they're adapting are shitty comics.
Also, I doubt the majority of the audience were expecting Scarlet Witch to become evil right after she had her own show, even if they were marginally aware of House of M. Hell, her going bad in MoM is completely different from House of M anyways. In that one, she just goes mad and breaks reality. It's still a shitty piece of writing that ruins her character, but it's a different shitty piece. Having Wanda willingly give into the Darkhold and then spending a movie murdering her way through countless people is just stupid.
Also, Wandavision BARELY sets up her going evil. The whole finale of that show is about establishing Wanda as naturally incredibly strong in her magic, while also repentant for her actions in mindcontrolling the town. There's no indication that she'd go do something bad again after that, or that she would be susceptible to the Darkhold after everything that's been shown about her being magically powerful. If their intention was to hint that Wanda would succumb to the Darkhold and turn evil, then they really failed to actually set that up. There's nothing in webm related that suggests or hints she's on track to go bad.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>This is the famous problem with Strange suddenly treating whatshername... Christine... as the greatest love of his life
Did you not watch the first movie or something?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, and Strange's love interest was the absolute weakest part of it and should have just been dropped.
8 months ago
Anonymous
That's an opinion, not an argument.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>It's talked about, we don't see it.
Yes, we do. Both when Wanda lets go of her kids, and when Strange lets go of Rachel McAdams. Not picking up on that and then claiming the movie doesn't show you says more about how you engaged with it than anything else.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Yes, we do. Both when Wanda lets go of her kids, and when Strange lets go of Rachel McAdams. Not picking up on that and then claiming the movie doesn't show you says more about how you engaged with it than anything else.
Wanda lets go of her kids, but the movie has done nothing to make us understand why she is so obsessed with them (and if she's so evil now, why she suddenly gets snapped out of it).
Strange lets go of Rachel McAdams, but she was just another of the many bland MCU love interests in the first movie, and this movie has done nothing to make us believe that he's so deeply in love with her that it hurts him to let her go.
I feel a lot of arguments over this movie revolve around the point that telling us someone feels this way is not enough, we have to see it play out and have an impact on the story. Like if Strange actually disrespected Chavez then we might actually care about him trusting her at the end, but they're too busy running.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>but the movie has done nothing to make us understand why she is so obsessed with them
Gee, why would a mother be obsessed about her kids.
>this movie has done nothing to make us believe that he's so deeply in love with her
You could have watched the first movie where it's laid out thicker than oatmeal, regardless of your personal view on how good a story it was.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Her kids weren't real
8 months ago
Anonymous
> Thread about Quantumania and Kang > Turns into more Strange/Wanda arguments
Loveness can't win even when he's losing.
They were according to the show. They just couldn't exist outside the Hex because her spell was flawed.
And now I realize the movie would have made more sense if she had needed America's power to fuel a new version of the spell that would make her kids (and Vision) permanently real.
8 months ago
Anonymous
To be fair Quantumania plot is extremely simple, there's no great twist or interesting details. But on that note, remember how at first it looked like the plot was going to be about Kang making deal with Scott to regain time with his daughter? Yeah sucks that was never part of the film
8 months ago
Anonymous
The real twist was that Marvel thought it would do well just because the test audience they kept trapped in their dungeons said it was good.
8 months ago
Anonymous
It is really basic to the point of being completely forgettable, now I try and think about it months later >Ant-Man and co get shrunk into the Quantum Realm >Star Wars knock-off scenes happen, Cassie gets captured >more shit happens til Cassie gets rescued >then they all go fight Kang, win, and escape
7 months ago
Anonymous
It's so basic that it makes me believe the rumor that says Loveness was writing the script at the same time they were filming
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Rumor
It's literally a fact that most Marvel movies tend to be written as they're filming or even during post-production, it's a very "factory product" kind of system
8 months ago
Anonymous
>we know she can't really be evil or do anything too bad since she'll obviously be redeemed
She murdered close to a hundred people in the movie. She probably will be redeemed because 'woman' but she shouldn't.
Making one of their most popular heroines a villain was a moronic decision in the first place, and "but it happened in the comics" isn't an excuse, everyone who's actually read them knows those comics were bad.
>we know she can't really be evil or do anything too bad since she'll obviously be redeemed
She murdered close to a hundred people in the movie. She probably will be redeemed because 'woman' but she shouldn't.
MCU already made him not ominous or threatening at all when his first appearance was just some guy...who effortlessly got stabbed and killed in his first appearance.
How the frick did they ever greenlight the successor to Thanos being a black man named fricking Kang? Do the decisionmakers for these things religiously separate themselves from the internet?
>tfw not getting a Nomad Disney+ show consisting of Chris Evans, returning solely for the paycheck, tripping over his cape for 6 incompetent, drawn-out episodes
You don't need to do that to watch Loki, or anything. I only briefly considered the same for The Simpsons, because I know D+ has the corrected aspect ratios, and I can't be sure of any given online source having that.
>making a good chunk of post Endgame content irrelevant.
maybe the shitty writers should have tried to do something interesting than going "okay we wrapped up a decade old story we should immediately start a new one and kill off all the highest paid, I mean retiring heros"
Watch as I save the Kang Dynasty with this cheap idea.
[spoilers]All the Kangs undergo cosmetic alteration because they want to distance themselves from the outcast so much, they don't want to even look like him.[/spoiler]
As much as I love Victor, he's my favorite supervillain and my favorite marvel character -and only my 2nd favorite superhero- character overall, you can't do "almost got godhood doom" from the start.
You need to at least do
1. direct nemesis to ff Doom
2. revealing some noble qualities Doom
3. helping the heroes with some hidden agenda Doom
first, then you make god emperor/beyonder wannabe Doom.
If you jump straight to the end, you fricked up.
Like, whether you do Beyonder "finally managed to cure my face, what joy" or "I saved everyone but still can't fix my face because I know I suck" Doom , there's no point if you haven't hammered in the pettiness and the inferorirty/superiority complex Doom has first.
General audiences generally don't care about power levels; they care about character dynamics, and as far as Quantumania goes, Kang's only meaningful interaction was with Janet, a secondary character who had about as much screen time and lines as the two titular leads. It felt more like a Janet movie than an Ant-Man movie where Scott is literally just along for the ride and barely interacts with the main villain outside one scene where he threatens his daughter so he'll retrieve a McGuffin. There's nothing personal between them and therefore the conflict seems superficial from an emotional standpoint which robs it of any weight with viewers.
That's a huge problem, the plot is so simple that everyone is just reacting to whats happening to them and in general the story just is "we need to get out of here" Even the trailers made it seem like Scott and Kang would have some sort of partnership or more interactions than what we got.
Apparently up to Quantumania their test groups mostly consisted of their employees relatives and execs, who almost always gave positive reviews; hence they tought they had a hit with the film. After the disastrous box office it was reported that they'll change their test groups to regular audiences. It was to these new audiences to whom they screened The Marvels and Captain America NWO, both getting dismal reviews.
>blink brought people back >bringing people back from dust caused mutations >mutations = xmen >xmen = apocalipse >apocalipse WAS LITERALY THE ONE THAT KILLED KANG IN THE COMICS
>Ezzy wezz goes on nation wide crime spree >movie still comes out >Rappity B Black person tries to murder ONE woman >scrap everything
Racism is alive in Hollywood
It's funny cuz I actually watched the second season of Loki and it was way better than I expected. I don't know if it's cuz my expectations for cape shit especially marvel goyslop is so low that when a generally competent show comes off as pretty fun or if I just liked a lot of the actors... But I grew to like We Wuz Kangs. Timely was cute enough and overall it actually got me more interested in marvel anything since end game. Shame Kang is now written out because of actor shenanigans.
Loki S2 made me hate Sylvie beyond my already abyssal opinion of her by the end of S1, but the last two episodes were better than I expected too. I'd easily rate it over The Marvels.
Because the AntFam were literally writen out of Infinity War and inEndgame final battle both Scott and Hope we're busy fixing the van, written out once again. At least Scott stomped Cull Obsidian
So will we get a return of High Evolutionary?
No, they're just going to use the Beyonders and Doom like in the original stories. Doom was the main antagonist of both Secret Wars anyway.
>Doom again
Honestly they've tried to do Doom twice already. I'm not optimistic.
They have? How do you mean?
2 "Fantastic Four" movies, both featured Doom as the main villain.
3. Yes. They were willing to try it again anon. Though I think with the situation now at Disney they won't be, but there was talks of really attempting a THIRD retry.
Hell, given how these movies are doing now it will probably be the Doom from the 2005 FF
By strange coincidence, the movie "Doom" was also released that year lol.
hope he stays dead. that animal abuse movie sucked
>High Evolutionary
>hyper advanced alien being that can evolve animals at accelerated rate
>literally just a dude who was outsmarted by his basic batch of experiments
They really put no effort into making him special
Gunn ruined the philosophical side of him to write another mustache twirler. Makes me worried for how he'll handle Lex Luthor.
The "philosophy" aspect can go to his less crazy subordinates. I like that High Evolutionary's aims are undermined by his absolute madness.
why is he black
You can't just ask people why they're black!
Marvel almost always tosses their villains in the garbage can when they're done with them anyway. To the point I actually cheered when T'challa kept Zemo from killing himself
You know, back when I cared about this crap
it's time
wienertor Coom
>the main villian of the MCU is a rapper
BLACK DOOM
You mean MF DOOM
its gonna be so wacccckkkk
dooom needs years of build up and character development so that WHEN he inevitably gets the powers of the beyonder is an OH SHIT moment
plus you have to build on the rivalry with reed.
rushing doom as a BACK UP is disrespectful, finish the kang storyline you started fricking pussies. Doom deserves better
normies now associate kang with getting beat by ants
frick ant man 3, frick jeff loveness, frick rick and morty, and frick socialism
How tf is socialism related here?
this is a lot of salt for a purely hypothetical movie/series
Or maybe we don't need any of that garbage
You're goddamn right
who's that?
Artstyle seems a super classic Annihilus (see annihilation)
Random players from the Negative zone appearing here and there before the Annihilation wave would have been a great way to map out Phase Four.
Blastaar shows up in one movie,
Nega bands keep transporting Kamala and Carol there
Shi'Ar/Kree War blasts a hole into the Negative Zone instead of the Cancerverse
FF discover the Negative Zone, fight Catastrophus
Anti Man is a villain in another movie
Ravenous and Centurions could appear in a Guardians of the Galaxy sequel
>lets introduce this character in the big crossover event and not with the fantastic 4
Go ahead and ruin him why don't ya
that's what I was thinking. Why they even bothered with Kang when now they have fricking Dr. Doom
>Dr. Doom shows up in Secret Wars
>says his name and everyone laughs at him
>comically loud metal footsteps are heard whenever he walks around in his shitty armor
>portrayed as pathetic manchild
>becomes comic relief for the rest of the movie as he does Saturday Morning Cartoon-tier shenanigans to get the MacGuffin
>heroes are more annoyed than genuinely threatened by him
>played by Tim Robinson
Possible but then again Namor showed up in his speedo and he was treated completely seriously
sounds like a comic
Unironically kino
Doomtards in tears
>start of Secret Wars
>the Avengers are all exhausted and near-dead
>Kang is gloating while preparing his final ultimate attack
>suddenly DOOM stabs him from the back and takes Kang's powers
>heroes gasp
>THE POWERS OF TIME ARE UNFIT FOR A PEASANT SUCH AS YOU, THE MULTIVERSE SHALL NOW KNEEL... BEFORE THE MIGHT OF... DOCTOR VICTOR VON DOOM...
>the room is filled with silence
>suddenly everyone starts laughing maniacally
>She-Hulk: BWHAHAHAHAHA HE CALLS DOCTOR DOOM? WHAT'S THE MATTER BIG GUY, PROFESSOR INCEL WAS ALREADY TAKEN?
>Dr Strange: well THAT just happened...
>Kamala Khan: Awkwaaaaaaaaaaard...
>Teenage Groot: I... Am... Groot... *goes back to playing his videogame*
>Spider-Man: Hahah hilarious entrance, pal! No, seriously what's your REAL name?
>DOOM: "..."
You could get a nice defining character moment of Doom responding to She-Hulk calling him an incel by flexing his wrists to do some magic and She-Hulk suddenly troons out to her Aaron Avengers self and we get a repeat of Avengers #500, where She-Hulk's driven irrevocably insane by magic and savage and actually stick the originally planned ending of the Avengers having to straight up MURDER Jen, because they can't turn her back to normal and she's killed a couple of them in her violent Hulk rage.
give him the full on Taserface treatment
It'll be a shame if they bring him in just to kill him off at the end of the movie like most of the MCU villains.
Incursion into universe reboot.
And like that the perception of the character is forever tainted by a shitty adaptation
not as bad as Morbius
ruined forever
There's always those of us who associate Morbius with PLASMA, which is not ideal but still better.
Was Kang ever cool though? The guy never had a good showing or appeared in side media to be much of anything.
He was just another goofy 60s character, that by the 80s was considered second rate by even Marvel writers and made him into knockoff Doom. Then killed him for a while. Then he was meaningless in the 90s, he was a Kamala villain in the late 00s. And none of the revive tricks for him really stuck.
Immortus had a slightly better showing in the 80s, but his best stuff was in What If.
I think EMH really nailed him in season 1.
>Was Kang ever cool though?
In potential is awesome
>blood of Richards/Doom
>from the future
>no powers, only super intellect and future tech
>Asperie to be the best that humans can be
>that has has a future future self that say "conquering is shit, you are moron"
>frick it let's train my pastself
>this younger self is so ashemed of you that he runs away into the past, vows to never become you, and join the avengers (your present enemy that won't let you conquer)
>in the mist of all this bullshit you actually conquer present earth and win over the avengers (not forever ofc this book is called avengers, not Kang)
>Then he was meaningless in the 90s
Read more comics anon
>Posts a book from the 00s
This issue came out in 2002, Kang was a very second rate nobody that Marvel continually shat on in the 90s. Posting this does not refute that.
>Kang was a very second rate nobody that Marvel continually shat on in the 90s.
Post issue references or shut up about things that never happened. Kang was treated as one of the big Avengers villains consistently throughout the 90s and didn't really appear much in other books.
The 80s were worse for him, that's where all of the Council of Kangs stuff came from.
We've still got the comics, Kangbros
>Feb 2002
>Claims to be 90s
What did anon mean by this?
What sword?
I don't really care about the MCU but that part does suck. As a Stern and Busiek devotee, I love Kang. Avengers Forever is my favorite story.
This is a cope. He's not writing it because Quantumania sucked arse.
Yeah, came here to say it sounded like cope
>What? You think I got fired? H-hah, not a chance! In fact, they're actually likely moving away from doing that whole Kang Dynasty thing anyway! It's got nothing to do with me! Yeah, that's it.
Seth Rollins is writing Marvel movies now?
No, but he is appearing in them
How long till he turns on the Avengers and gives Ant-Man a chairshot to the back?
Seth Rollins is cool.
He's the lamest shield member
You da man Seff!
Oh shit, they finally got Tom Cruise??
Jake Gyllenhaal came back as a writer?
Honestly I'd love to see a Mysterio Variant appear, one who wasn't as hostile and more of a generic criminal fraud.
Imagine they actually use the multiverse concept creatively and do an Antman movie where he is recruited to lead a multiversal heist with Mysterio and whoever you want to pick. Instead we get generic "go stop the bad guy" featuring KANG! but not the important kang, just some unimportant one.
I'd love if Gyllenhaal's Mysterio could come back, though I know the MCU is by and large allergic to having villains return. He was easily the best thing about Far From Home
God that spider suit is so awful
Say what you will about Iron Boy or whatever but the MCU trilogy has consistently great villains. I'd love to see Vulture and Mysterio return, as well as MCU versions of Norman and Doc Ock
The Spidey Home trilogy definitely got a WHOLE lot wrong, but yeah you're right. Somehow they just managed to knock it out of the park with the villains each time. Even if NWH was cheating a little by bringing Dafoe and co back, the Green Goblin in that was still a top tier baddie
>as well as MCU versions of Norman and Doc Ock
Same, but I think they might not end up doing them since "they already showed up in NWH and we don't want to retread old ground"
I can definitely see them doing a Hobgoblin though
I just can't take this Spider-Man. He is way too fricking short. It's like a child cosplay.
I really hope he isn't dead dead. When I watched FFH I thought they were going to set Mysterio up to get actual magic as an upgrade considering Strange seemed to be set on becoming one of the Avengers mentor role. He would've been really cool as sort of like a new Loki-type character.
Eh, Mysterio shouldn't ever get magic or any real superpowers. It goes against the whole point of his character.
I do wish they'd kept him alive though. IIRC they made a point of showing that one of his team members got away with the Mysterio program saved on a USB stick. And obviously Mysterio's whole gimmick is illusions, so maybe he could've faked his death. But I guess Gyllenhaal must have wanted just a single one-and-done role.
I get that Mysterio's a smoke and mirrors guy first and foremost, but I thought they were going to pivot to magic especially when Strange and Wanda was getting hyped up. Mysterio would've been an easy fit with illusion magic, at least for personal combat now that the Stark drones are taken away from him
>He was easily the best thing about Far From Home
Very low bar.
>Gyllenhaal
Should have been Peter Parker.
>allergic to having villains return.
ironic considering the only good movie they made in cour 4 was with ONLY returning vilans
I could for sure see them pivot away from both Majors and this hack writer.
Hiring Rick and Morty writers was a big mistake for the MCU.
Was this the guy who insisted audiences liked MCU MODOK?
Worse. This is the guy who insisted audiences like MCU MODOK, and then did an interview well after the movie had come out and everyone shat on their MODOK saying that he never even wanted to try doing MODOK even remotely seriously, and that if he'd do it again if he could.
Except this was an amusing MODOK
hi Jeff
Have you tried just not being a dick yet?
I'll never get over how he just fricking spawns. What a load of shit
Sad thing is I actually do like some of his comics, his Nova was fricking solid the only good comic marvel was making for a few months.
But what he said and then doubled down on in regard to MODOK was bullshit. Same reason the echo show runner should be canned. Nobody cares if they think they’re superior to the original, just keep it to yourselves.
Same reason Ziegler needs to be ditched from Snow White.
Yeah, Novas was pretty good and Judas was great.
>Same reason Ziegler needs to be ditched from Snow White.
Ziegler autists managed to become twice as annoying as Brie Larson autists in half the time, truly impressive.
The one who DOES NOT remain
Could he have worked? How do you backpedal this far in?
At least half the negative reception comes from Ant Man 3, they should've either written him better or used a different villain entirely
Ant-Man should have been completely routed in "Quantumania", before pulling his, "We both have to lose" move.
How would you have made it so that a multiversal tyrant like Kang is eventually reduced to fistfights?
Some kind of fancy power-disruption field....which unfortunately doesn't stop Kang from being ridiculously overpowered in close combat.
The director and some Marvel execs said that for Ant-Man 3 they wanted a big bad guy from the comics because they wanted to try something different from the past Ant-Man movies, they most likely chose Kang because he's the only Marvel villain left that's not too tied with the other corners of the Marvel universe, not a bad idea but they shouldn't have hyped him up to be worse than Thanos if the whole point of the movie was always going to be how this big guy gets defeated by the little guy. Should have gotten better writers, and a better director too. I also think that another fun option for big bad guy, could have been the Masters of Evil, just have the AntFam fight the evil Avengers.
A villain team like the Masters of Evil needs a lot of set-up to introduce the individual members in earlier movies or shows, and for MCU movies to not kill their villains at the end as much as they tend to. You can't just introduce a whole villain team at once like it's a Suicide Squad movie unless you want it to suck.
The only real ways around this are if the villain team are all henchmen of a bigger villain, the way the MCU has already done with the Black Order, in which case they don't need much individual explanation, or if the whole team shares the same basic gimmick and origin, so something from the comics like the Zodiac or the Serpent Society.
What? Kang was carrying Ant-Man on his back
I don't see what was so good about Kang there, he was a generic evil tyrant. Only thing that was decent about Kang was Majors' acting at times.
I watched Quantumania months after it came out, having heard how naff it was and how Kang was the best part, and honestly I just didn't see it.
Most of his screentime was just Majors speaking quietly to be threatening, or doing a pouty duck face in what I assume is meant to make Kang look pompous, or he was doing the CGI fight scenes where he just throws lasers out of his hands like 60% of MCU characters do.
Kang's scene with Janet in the flashback is the only time the movie actually had natural dialogue and acting and it didn't feel like they just had ChatGPT3 write the script, which was my main problem with the film.
Yeah, the flashback scenes were actually alright. I wonder if that means Loveness didn't write them.
It's a good moment from what I recall, just two actors playing each other. For me, it's the Probablity Storm, that's more of an spectacle set piece but it's good character moment for Scott, has some creative visuals and it's what I would actually like to see from something called Quantumania.
>I watched Quantumania months after it came out, having heard how naff it was and how Kang was the best part, and honestly I just didn't see it.
I'm not sure how much of that we can trust, the reviews for Creed 3 were similar in hyping him as the best thing about it. It all seemed like a coordinated attempt to push an actor as The New Big Thing, like Hollywood periodically do.
The High Evolutionary is a FAR better villain performance than Kang.
Yeah but he was also a jobber
If something he was a mid carder who goes to headline some PPV
It can simultaneously be true that Kang helped the movie, but his character suffered overall since they blew their load too early
It's not like Ant Man didn't already have an evil armored villain from the microverse in the first place that they could have used....wait.
Kang is prevented from entering our reality via the efforts of other villains who don't want him spoiling their fun.
Have his variants popping up here and there between movies and introduce him properly in an Avengers film. Actually depict him as a petty tyrant instead of a crying b***h. Also, keep him confined to KD, Secret Wars should be delayed to have Doom as the villain.
But if he does appear in Avengers, it should be a clear rout for the heroes. It's the only way he'll be taken seriously on the level of Thanos.
>drop the bullshit multiverse angle and just focus on the original idea of Kang being a time travelling conqueror from the future
>if you really want to play around with variants to up the stakes, you can still introduce Rama Tut, Immortus et al
>give him cool, weird, out-there future tech instead of just laser beams and forcefields
>tell Johnathan Majors that pouting and speaking ponderously isn't actually how you act serious and threatening or alternatively just cast another actor outright
>rewrite Quantumania so that he isn't just defeated by ANTS; instead of being beaten, have him escape to fight another day or otherwise worm his way out of a comeuppance and leave his threat hanging
I have never understood why they even went for the Council of Kangs angle. That was never very interesting in the comics, and when Kurt Busiek brought Kang back to prominence it was basically by just reconstructing Kang as one guy with a unique personality.
Immortus works because he's almost completely different from Kang, and Iron Lad works in Young Avengers for the same reason, they both have the metaphor that when you get older, you become someone your younger self wouldn't recognize.
Other than that, I think it's very hard to get people to care about alternate versions of characters unless they are actually from other movies, like in Spider-Man: No Way Home.
>That was never very interesting in the comics, and when Kurt Busiek brought Kang back to prominence it was basically by just reconstructing Kang as one guy with a unique personality.
>anon praises Busiek for something other writers did years before him
Mark Gruenwald killed off the Council of Kangs and reset him back to being just one guy about five years before the stories you're thinking of.
>Immortus works because he's almost completely different from Kang
He would, he's the only Kang variant that wasn't meant to be a Kang variant, he got retconned into being one.
It's clear to me that homosexual Feige is a huge Rick and Morty fan and he specifically tried to turn the MCU in to Rick and Morty. Maybe fire Fiege and replace him with Favreau. Then give Favreau complete creative control. Fiege has failed for years now. His time I'd over.
Part of it is the overall "arc" of the MCU needs to be cleaned up. You have incursions, Kang, Wanda, and whatever else you have going on. Keep it focused.
Kang himself is fine in Loki. After that, you really should have had him appearing at random in other films. In BP2, he's backing Ironhearts research. In MoM, he helps Strange get back to "our" reality. In a perfect world, he's whispering to Miguel in Spiderverse. You set up a feeling a Kang could be anywhere, but you also don't have him doing anything explicitly evil. He's just nudging things across timelines.
Quantummania needs a re-do. Instead of "hiding" others were in the Quantum realm, Janet has instead been working for years on a way to rescue them. There's no weird societies or goo monsters, just people trapped in the "white space." Let it be the meta-tool for your multiverses. Make it a weird, abstract realm and not just another Earth.
Conqueror Kang is there too, and he's rallied the other survivors to survive in the Quantum realm. Again, he's benign at worst and his arc is like it is early in QM. He wants out, he helps others in efforts to get out, and you build up the feeling his presence in that realm isn't an accident.
At the finale, we learn the big bad was meant to be Kang's jailer (an inverse of Alioth being a guardian), and when everyone steps back into the "real" world, the group is immediately met by a force meant to capture him.
Kang turns them to his side through force of will. He was Napoleon on Elba, and now he's free. Scott gets to keep his freak out about what will happen next, and Cassie gets a lesson that sometimes "good" deeds lead to bad results. End Credits has the Council of Kang's meeting to the news the Conqueror is free, and that the multiversal war is restarting.
Then you kinda just build from there.
This is literally why phase 1-3 was successful. A single over-arcing, universal threat that was slowly revealed and built up to over every movie. Imagine if right before infinity war, Galactica showed up, killed Thanos and then THAT was the big bad. How much of a ten year long frick you would that give the audience?
You're viewing Thanos with rose tinted glasses, he was teased previously but he wasn't really built up. It was actually a bit of meme that Thanos wasn't a big deal because he just sat his ass immediately after making some ominous threat about the Avengers.
Not that anon but you're wrong. Thanos WAS built up, for 10 years in fact. The only thing that was in flux was the stones. He remained the constant, the antagonist.
Thanos first appeared in Avengers, which was released in 2012, six years before Infinity War came and Marvel has literally admitted they didn't really have a plan going into the Infinity Saga.
This, th eonly build up was retconning mcguffins into infinity stones and having him as cameo in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie
Thanos was definitely more built up, especially in comparison to Kang (and Doom if they're really going to slot him in last minute), but he did also spend a lot of that build-up literally sitting on his arse.
Still, at least he was actually set up and well established before he became the main villain of a movie.
Thanos was a mid-credits appearance in Avengers, which revealed him as the power behind the Chitauri army.
In Phase 2 he has a small role in GoTG as Ronan's benefactor who's sent Gamora and Nebula to work with him. Also another mid-credits appearance in Avengers 2.
Then we don't see him again until Infinity War.
The key point here is that inaction meant Thanos not looking like a fool before his big showdown
Jeff Loveness said he had Kang lose in Quantumania so he could do a Star Wars thing where like the Empire was defeated in the first movie only for them to come worse and stronger in the second film so Kang would be like a villain who progressed along with the heroes.
That's a shitty comparison because Darth Vader didn't die in New Hope, and the difference is that we were introduced to The Emperor later too. So unless a new Kang or head honcho shows up, we're fricked. Plus we already played the fricking Empire card at the end of Infinity War.
He's moronic
>Plus we already played the fricking Empire card at the end of Infinity War.
And they'll obviously do it again, it's a common structure for two parter sequels.
I get that having a low point in a story to have our protagonists rally isnt exactly exclusive to Empire, but the fact that they keep making this comparison without understanding how it works is concerning
But Kang's loss in Quantumania is nothing like the Death Star getting blown up in ANH.
If the Empire's defeat in ANH was actually anything like what happened in Quantumania, then the Death Star would've been overrun and blown up by suddenly space-faring Ewoks and Vader would've been humiliated and blasted off into space by a completely untrained Luke.
If they wanted that kind of vibe they would have had Scott steal his engine, escape, and then seal the way out trapping Kang again. It would have shown desperation and admission that they couldn't just punch Kang away
Agreed, something like that would have worked far better. They just needed to figure out a way for there to be some measure of victory for Ant-Man and co, probably in them simply getting out of the Quantum Realm with their lives, but also equally ensuring that it's an ending where Kang and his army isn't so utterly beaten by ANTS and then personally beaten by a middle-aged dad with no powers.
They just needed some climax where Kang is temporarily defeated but is still in a position to go "THIS ISN'T OVER! WE'LL MEET AGAIN, ANT-MAN!" before hopping on his Goblin Glider, I mean, in his time machine, and escaping to parts unknown for his next appearance.
Luke in the first movie was untrained and he blew up the Death Star.
Hey, he got like 3 minutes of training on the Millennium Falcon.
But the point is that the Quantumania/A New Hope comparison on Loveness's part is silly, because Vader wasn't beaten and humiliated as thoroughly as Kang was.
I mean Vader was caught off guard by a cargo ship, which begs the question if it's normal in the Star Wars universe for random passerbys on their spaceships to just decide to participate in a space battle for fun and end up influence the outcome.
I can sort of buy the intention if you set it up that way, but it's the execution that's flawed. Blowing up the Death Star in IV doesn't make Vader or the empire any less menacing, but Kang's appearance in Quantumania has no menace to begin with. He brags amount killing multiple Avengers(tell, not show) but nobody of importance dies or gets sacrificed in order to stop him; multiple characters tell us he is a multiversal threat(again, telling instead of showing) but all he going for him is lasers and a lightbulb-headed army, which all feel like a step down from previous villains including Thanos
>Blowing up the Death Star in IV doesn't make Vader or the empire any less menacing, but Kang's appearance in Quantumania has no menace to begin with.
It kinda did, the way Vader lost at the end of A New Hope is pretty cringe.
true
he was the guy in the chair
I can't take anyone with a nose that big seriously. It's like I'm looking at a blueberry clown.
Have a Kang played by a different actor pull of a coup of the dynasty stating the failures in Loki and quantumania as his reason
Why all those fricking lines on his leg?
Kang would have been a great hero who just won't die. Imagine killing him, only for him to be outside waiting because of time travel frickery. Make him so instrumental to the timestream that killing him does nothing. Hell, if you want him to cause Secret Wars, then that's the reason it happened. His death causes a timeline/multiverse crash, not because he is so powerful, but because he is a sore loser and takes everything out with him. That's the reason the Kang Wars was so bloody – if Kang can't win, then no Kang wins.
Have the next big bad completely btfo Kang and all Kangz in his intro scene to show how strong he is. Doom works. Rotate to Dr Doom instead.
>Doom portals into the Council
>"So....you, all of you, are my future? My lineage, an faint echo of what was Doom. Endless timelines, endless possibilities, and yet you settle on archaic bureaucracy? You grow fat and complacent with your systems and rules, blinded by the truth in front of you. Undone.....by Ant-Man and a fallen god of mischief. You are not my legacy, you are NOT Doom.....I will take control over my future, my fate.....and it will only be ME."
Cringe.
>How do you backpedal this far in?
After credit scene of all the Kangs in their arena about to launch their attack on the Avengers. When a voice booms out saying "Fools! all existence belongs..." Then the camera pans out revealing the whole arena is in the palm of his hand, "To Doom!" Then he crushes them.
Look, if they include Dr Doom fully expect it to be cringe unless they have a stable full of quality writers they've been holding back on for no reason. Remember both Mandarins?
well Doc Doom does actually have a time machine and travels in time canonically so
is not that crazy since loki opened up all timelines, you could had him to the multitimeline war and this time make him win
>this far in
Hes been in 2 seasons of a show and a shitty movie nobody liked.
Still the issue of not great writing but they could have easily avoided issues by not having every kang variant seen be the same actor. Have there be lots of different ones in that end scene, could have easily recast after.
Weird-face Kang is the easiest to recast. The one roaring at the very end of the scene.
How about no fricking events and they concentrate on making good movies about interesting characters for a little while?
People will only see events now though.
No Way Home brought back Tobey and Andrew.
GOTG 3 was the last one directed by James Gunn and most of the cast is leaving with him to DC.
Across the Spider-Verse upped the ante on the amount of Spider-people.
Deadpool 3 will be the final send off to 20 years of FoXmen movies.
Compared to these The Marvels had no hook. It should have been more about mutants if they wanted to generate interest.
The only time the IP matters is when you're trying to fluff up a mediocre film and coast on goodwill from the last good one. If you make a good movie, people will go to see it. People love the Miles FRICKING Morales movies, despite the fact that anyone who had ever heard of him thought "I'm not watching a movie about that guy." They made a fricking Barbie movie and people loved it, because they cared to make it good.
>If you make a good movie, people will go to see it
Lol
>They made a fricking Barbie movie and people loved it, because they cared to make it good.
LOL
>Most of the cast is going to DC
Proofs?
They've all talked about following James and Pom K. is already cast in a role
Anyone who works with Gunn is basically loyal to him for life, where he goes they go
plus most of the GotG cast has already mentioned about having a role in the DCU and half of them were in either TSS or Peacemaker
get ready for Chris Pratt Booster Gold
>Chris Pratt as Booster Gold
Unironically a more appropriate casting choice than him as Star-Lord
>get ready for Chris Pratt Booster Gold
It doesn't work aesthetically. Booster is a pretty boy, Pratt is slightly grungy/farmboy looking.
hes too old to be booster
would make a fantastic green arrow though
How the hell do you think "mutants" is going to generate interest after 20 years of Fox X-Men movies that mostly performed worse than MCU movies?
Deadpool 3 will be the last ride of the 2 Fox characters that actually put butts on seats, but "mutants" as a concept isn't pulling in anyone but the existing X-Men fanbase.
>How the hell do you think "mutants" is going to generate interest after 20 years of Fox X-Men movies that mostly performed worse than MCU movies?
Because people like mutants and have wanted them in the MCU ever since Disney bought Fox. Instead of fighting some rando female kree why not do an x-Men villian? How about Mystique and Rogue since those are Carol specific villians and are important to her history? With one stone you hit two birds of getting your female antagonists in and they're also iconic ones that people care about.
But no just put Beast in at the very end (because you already blew your load with Xavier in MoM) and expect anyone to give a shit, good job Marvel.
>It's an "X-gay thinks what he likes is super-popular with normies" thread. Again.
>Because people like mutants and have wanted them in the MCU ever since Disney bought Fox.
>citation needed
Stop confusing "comics nerds" with "normal people". Normal people might like Wolverine or Deadpool, they don't have the same investment in "mutants" that a comics nerd has. Normal people don't care about characters just because they're part of a fictional race that's also a badly-thought-out minority metaphor.
Normal people had given up on X-Men movies well before Disney bought Fox, it's literally just nerds who wanted new X-Men stuff immediately.
>Instead of fighting some rando female kree why not do an x-Men villian?
Do you really think it would have been a more faithful adaptation than the villain they used was to the comics?
If you're arguing for them to use an X-Men villain for a Carol movie, at least suggest the Brood.
>How about Mystique and Rogue since those are Carol specific villians and are important to her history? With one stone you hit two birds of getting your female antagonists in and they're also iconic ones that people care about.
Audiences only cared about Mystique because JLaw was playing her, and they're not getting her back. She wasn't even enough to get people to show up for Dark Phoenix, either. And you have to accept that the MCU isn't going to do the comic story of Rogue stealing Carol's powers and consigning her to 20 years of irrelevance. Even if Disney do give up on Carol that's still about as likely as them adapting the Marcus story AND keeping it entirely concensual incest.
>Audiences only cared about Mystique because JLaw
Obviously you recast everybody for the main timeline
>How the hell do you think "mutants" is going to generate interest after 20 years of Fox X-Men movies that mostly performed worse than MCU movies?
Because Mutants are the logical outcome of a world like the MCU. The more supers show up, they more they cause trouble, the more people start disliking all this shit. Cue a bunch of kids getting powers from the whole celestial nonsense. Public outcry explodes because its not a random Iron Man or Captain America that shows up, its a bunch of teenage Hulks who wreck a building when their powers flare up.
They get rounded up and supers are all more or less labeled mutants except the ones who clearly operate without powers, although some dumbasses still think "Hawk Guy" talks to birds and can fly. Xavier expands his schools, because he's always been running a school for kids with "Special Needs", just now there are so many he can't take them all in to one campus.
You change mutant discrimination from being a dumb racial thing to a Gen Z "fight the power" issue where they are rebelling against the older generation who keeps telling them to be responsible with their powers and keep them hidden so you can function like a normal citizen all while they hear about the ones who decided "frick the rules, I've got super powers" and how they're trying to build a better world by telling the old one to frick off. The normies, on the other hand, are naturally upset about little jimmy Turner who threw a softball and accidentally launched it through three houses, and the kids themselves are having a shit time of it because a solid portion of their peers keep turning in to basically demi-gods.
The "Evil" mutants don't go on about their superiority, they protest how poorly the world has been run before them, and how they're being told to not take action with their powers while the world burns, or worse, have the old regimes trying to recruit them so they can cling to power and continue to frick everything up.
>If this is true, then Secret Wars would be the main event.
OK, now scrap the Multiverse Saga, scrap adapting 2015 Secret Wars and adapt 1980s Secret Wars instead.
I'm still laughing at the fact that they picked the biggest, blackest-looking homie they could find to play a villain named "Kang".
is there a single grain of truth to Tobey Spidey and Jackman Wolvie being the main characters of Secret Wars?
Why can't they just do a movie that actually shows the damage the Council of Kangs can actually do? It can't be that hard to make him a real threat, can it?
What kind of damage did you have in mind? Kind of hard to top Infinity War's ending
To me, He Who Remains was perfect. Thanos claimed to be inevitable, but He Who Remains really was. The idea that determinism is real, that this one man who'd mastered time had created the ultimate Xanatos Gambit, a life trap, where everything you've ever done and will do is driven by predestination and even his death just serves his greater plan. This gnawing existential dread that every step you take is already written into the annals of history. That free will is an illusion. The path is already set. That was terrifying. I would love to see that writ large across the Marvel Universe.
Instead of Ants.
TL;DR they needed to pull a Weissman.
Really what we're getting at here is that He Who Remains was the necessary evil to keep existence safe from himself. Imagine if Quantumania was just Scott stumbling into The Council of Kangs, and the Kang or "Prime" Kang was their leader ensuring every path led to his reign. A climax where instead of defeating him, Scott escapes him to warn everyone of the man behind the curtain no one realized existed
>"He escaped us. What if he warns his allies of our existence?"
>"What is one reality, one insignificant timeline of "heroes" compared to out dynasty? We have been to the earliest shore, and to the furthest cliff of creation. Kang is Destiny. Kang is everywhere...."
By destroying most of the multiverse. Essentially Crisis on Infinite Earths but Marvel.
The Kangz were just an answer to MCU tendencies.
A way to kill villains and never let them win while maintaining a long runner villain.
It never had potential because it was just a vehicle to avoid writing things they weren't comfortable with.
In theory, they could split the Council up and try to engage them one-on-one.
That doesn't really fix the issue I described. There's no focus, no "This is the fricking guy who's been fricking with us!" impact like Thanos was. This would be like if The Black Order goons that ran with Thanos were the main antagonists of Endgame or something. You need a Kang Prime giving orders, or some sort of hierarchy
Secret Wars should be a whole phase in of itself if they want to one up the scale of Infinity War/Endgame.
I thought it was already filmed
>See a good narrative requires a central antagonist, a "face" to the threat the heroes are trying to overcome
This isn't true at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_(narrative)
You can blame Ant-Man all you want but the reality is normalgays didn't care about Kang because they don't really know jackshit about him and aesthetically Marvel made him a regular black man. The bigger issue is Marvel jumped the gun hard with Thanos, and they wasted Ultron. The first built up threat should have been the masters of evil, then Thanos, and then Ultron. After that Galactus and Doom can come out to play.
>normalgays didn't care about Kang because they don't really know jackshit about him and aesthetically Marvel made him a regular black man
That didn't stop him from being received warmly at the end of S1. HWR was terrifyingly effective
I'll be real with you Ultron was never good as a comic villain. His movie tried to make him interesting but also failed.
And why do you think that anon?
Should have just revived Ultron and have Ant-Man fight him like in that one short
>Ultron returns
>Makes his own A.I.vengers
What they need to do is Android to Cell this shit up. Hit us with the swerve pretty soon
It's great to see Disney fail.
Reminder that the same person quoted here (Joanna Robinson, who wrote the book about Marvel Studios) said a few months ago that according to her sources, Marvel Studios decided Quantumania was going to be huge and they should build the new phase around Kang because everyone was going to love him.
Quantumania may well be the movie that brought down the MCU. People started souring on it after Multiverse of Madness and Love & Thunder, but Quantumania was the movie they thought was going to be their big breakout hit.
Yeah that's what some are saying, Kang was originally going to be just the villain for Ant-Man 3 and maybe have something down the line but then they just decided to make him into the next big thing
Peyton Reed must give the best head in the business to have Kevin Feige in love with him like that while being the shittiest director working for Marvel. Not even Jon Watts can be worse.
Peyton Reed is not a good director but the guy is a legit comic book fan and sci-fi nerd, he's been wanting to make his dream Fantastic Four movie since forever. Feige strikes me as a fan of 80's/90's/00's while Reed seems like that plus the Silver Age so maybe he became Feige's go to guy to ask about obscure Marvel knowledge.
I can't hate the guy because he believes that Hank Pym is a nuanced character that gets unfair hate thanks to the slap, he's a real one, it just sucks that he has no talent.
What was wrong with Multiverse of Madness?
>no argument
cool
Ah, I'm just busting your balls kid. I like posting that reaction pic and take the excuse to do so whenever I can.
Here's my issues:
>they bring in Sam Raimi as a replacement director and fricking waste him; only some shots and the zombie Strange stuff in the climax feel at all like Raimi
>Dr Strange is almost entirely sidelined in his own sequel
>Strange's character arc about "holding the knife" was very clearly tacked on in reshoots
>the plot doesn't revolve around any typical Dr Strange elements; the only actual Strange inclusions are Shuma-Gorath as a nameless first act monster, a parallel Mordo having two scenes, Rintrah showing up for a hot minute, and then Clea in the post-credits
>America Chavez is an utterly pointless addition
>the 10 minute cameofest in the middle is laughable in how blatantly fan-pandering and pointless it is, as well as in how obvious the reshoots are
>barely does anything with the multiverse and only visits like 2 different worlds in total though since I dislike multiverse bullshit, I'm fine with this. But it's still a mark against the film for not actually being able to really deliver on the promise in the title
>rushes into Wanda being a villain with little to no set up in the film itself
>Wanda isn't an interesting villain, partly because she has no real connection to Dr Strange beyond "hey we fought in different places on the same battlefield that one time," and partly because we know she can't really be evil or do anything too bad since she'll obviously be redeemed
The film as a whole is torn between being a Raimi-style, horror-tinged Dr Strange sequel, and being a new MCU instalment setting up the ebin new multiverse arc and America Chavez, and as a result it doesn't work well at being either. It's just a mess. Not as outright bad or fan-insulting as Quantumania, but it's a notable failure. I wish they'd just let Raimi alone to do his thing, without any studio-mandated plot points or characters.
Reminder we could have gotten a Raimi directed Triumph and Torment if fricking Spiderverse and Mile Morales didn't fricking taint normies with the idea of a multiverse
>we could have gotten a Raimi directed Triumph and Torment
>a Dr Strange sequel that actually focuses on Dr Strange
>introduces DOOM, bypassing the usual stumbling block of rushing to introduce him alongside the Fantastic Four like the Fox films kept screwing up
>even introduces Mephisto
>great plot starting off with a magical contest before descending into hell
>all perfectly suited to Raimi's horror style and interest in unique, weird characters
>we never got this
It was the PERFECT, obvious choice for a Dr Strange sequel and they completely whiffed it for no good reason because Feige loves modern comics and is up his own arse about how great the Multiverse Saga will be. I hate the multiverse so fricking much you wouldn't believe.
I really wish everyone would just fricking stop with the goddam multiverse shit already. Every movie and show is all about multiverse shittery.
>Reminder we could have gotten a Raimi directed Triumph and Torment if fricking Spiderverse and Mile Morales didn't fricking taint normies with the idea of a multiverse
What the frick, why did spider-verse derail this idea? Why didn't they just make a standalone Triumph and Torment movie what the frick I MAD
Because for some fricking reason, the Spider-Verse is an idea that's popular with both current Marvel writers and the majority of Marvel fans despite it being completely at odds with the fundamental concept of Spider-Man
Miles Morales is Spider-Man, Peter Parker is Peter Parker, cry about it forever
I didn't even bring up Miles. I simply stated I dislike the multiverse and that it doesn't fit in with Spider-Man's world at all.
Get better material for your trolling next time.
>I simply stated I dislike the multiverse and that it doesn't fit in with Spider-Man's world at all.
Because it stops the same character from being recycled with no changes for 60 years?
No, because It sucks.
>despite it being completely at odds with the fundamental concept of Spider-Man
Anon, spider-verse wasn't about spider-man. it was designed exclusively to strip the mantle from peter and make merchandise and marketing easier. "Anyone can be spider-man" is just a way to sell spider-merch to anyone. It's not about peter, it's not about the character. Spiderverse 1 is almost entirely about how anyone can wear the mask, but you need to buy a marvel branded mask with a vague spider on it to represent your particular spider. It's horseshit and shows the end of spider-man as a character and his evolution into pure brand marketing bullshit. It's like when Mickey Mouse stopped appearing in cartoons and became a symbol for toys and merch. Peter is being moved aside so he can ascend to symbol and other characters can take risks like anyone other than peter, women and blacks and asians and basically anyone other than a white guy because we've had 60 years of that shit and white people dont buy enough shit.
Again, because Spiderverse did well as an animated film and the normies responded to the multiverse without any real problem. So Feige and co decided to enable their worst habits by realizing they don't have to try and make a living breathing universe anymore, they just can just grab an alternate universe for everything need.
Like you fricking even keep the angle of Doctor Strange thinking he has to be the one who makes all the choices, he's the one who has to save everyone and parallel it perfectly against Doom and that's where Strange learns his lesson. It even gives a reason WHY Doom wasn't on the world stage until this point, because he have focused on freeing his mother because his own obsession with not failing and not owing anyone anything would keep him bound. An amazing movie where Dr. Strange helps a man free his Mother's soul only to unleash him on the rest of the world
You got it wrong
Multiverse of Madness was going to be released before No Way Home (America Chavez was going to show up in No Way Home at first and be the one who casts the spell instead of Strange, who is injured in the original plan for Multiverse of Madness)
But then COVID happened and fricked things up so as a result No Way Home would release first, so they modified both so that No Way Home would take place before Multiverse of Madness
>Dr. Strange sidelined in his own sequel
I don't get this criticism, Strange is a major part of his own film. We encounter multiple variants of him and how they affected the different universes we see, exploring how powerful he really is and his need to take control of a situation and him learning to get pass that is much more interesting than what the first movie did with him, which characterized him more as wizard Tony Stark. Also we see him actually use more abilities other than the mirror dimension.
If there's any character who actually was sidelined it would be America Chavez. Wanda does have a big role too but that's because she's the one Marvel villain who had a long established history in the MCU and already had her villain origin story in WandaVision.
Don't bother, those people have formed their own headcanon about this movie and refuse to let go of it.
When the plot leaked to Reddit in 2021 nobody believed it because Strange didn't seem to do anything to drive the plot in his own sequel, he just stands around and watches while Wanda commits murders. That turned out to be pretty true of the movie.
Basically as soon as Wanda reveals she's turned evil, he's just reacting to what she does. He's just trying to protect his new kid sidekick with Wanda chasing him, but all the interesting stuff happens offscreen, which includes his two evil variants.
They didn't really have a plot so they went for campy horror, but all the character development happens offscreen.
>Strange is a major part of his own film.
Wanda drives the plot. For the most part, Strange is just reacting to her (and America Chavez's) actions.
>We encounter multiple variants of him and how they affected the different universes we see
We see two Stranges, the one in the prologue and then Evil Strange, and that's it. The Cameoverse Strange is given a single flashback and a statue.
>exploring how powerful he really is and his need to take control of a situation and him learning to get pass that is much more interesting than what the first movie did with him
The whole "need to be the one holding the knife" arc is, again, pretty clearly tacked on to the rest of the film. It doesn't really relate to the main plot or give Strange much in the way of actual character development, partly due to the fact that he doesn't drive the story and partly due to the tacked-on nature of the arc.
>Also we see him actually use more abilities other than the mirror dimension.
Alright, the magic use in the third act was creative. I liked the Strange vs Evil Strange fight and the possessing the alt Strange corpse.
>If there's any character who actually was sidelined it would be America Chavez.
>the character no comic fan likes randomly shoved into a Dr Strange film for no other reason than ANAD bullshit
lol
>Wanda does have a big role too but that's because she's the one Marvel villain who had a long established history in the MCU and already had her villain origin story in WandaVision.
>was only a non-committal villain in her introductory movie before joining the Avengers (like how she starts off in the Brotherhood in the comics)
>the only villainous set-up in Wandavision is her controlling the town, which is handwaved away, and then the brief set-up that the Darkhold is bad
>it's up to the film to speedrun her villain development in the first act
lmao
It must be nice always being right just because you assume anyone who holds a different opinion is mad.
>It must be nice always being right just because you assume anyone who holds a different opinion is mad.
Not anyone, but you certainly is.
>random Multiverse of Madness defender who doesn't have a single argument beyond "all the people who don't like this film are stupid or [character]gays" is a smug ESL
Makes sense.
>Villains often do.
The protagonist, especially a protagonist who's meant to be a confident, experienced superhero, should ideally be driving the plot as well. It doesn't have to be 50/50, but they should have some input as to how and why things happen. That's not the case with Strange in MoM. He's either running away from Scarlet Witch or trying to figure out how to beat her.
>Strange is also just reacting to what Mads Mikkelsen does for the majority of the first movie.
Because he's neither as confident or as experienced in the first film. And by focusing on Mads's villain, you're ignoring the rest of the first film's story where Strange seeks out Kamar-Taj, learns and trains, and the climax where he makes use of the Time Stone and confronts Dormmamu by himself on his own initiative
>It is the driving force of Strange's journey and in many ways Wanda's journey as well.
How on earth does "trying to control everything in your life" relate to Wanda's mission of wanting her kids back?
>Learning to let go is a pretty big theme present throughout the movie.
You've just pointed out a theme. That's not a point about Strange's supposed character development.
True, and they'll definitely redeem her some point soon when she makes her inevitable return. She's their most popular female character by far. But deaths of crowds/bystanders/otherwise faceless, nameless people are basically morally irrelevant when it comes to superhero stories, especially in a story where the stakes of ending an entire universe through Incursions are introduced.
The plot isn't driven by Strange but it definitely centers around him, all the universes they visit are ones that have been affected by his variants and their power. The recurring theme of his variants causing so much destruction because of their need for control or the tragedy of losing a loved one (which is one parallel to Wanda) culminates in Strange putting his faith and trust in America Chavez to finally master her power at the climax instead of just trying to murder her like what his variant tried to do at the beginning.
OK, but how much of that is in the actual story we see? His variants did all that offscreen, his obsession with Christine happens offscreen, his lack of trust in Chavez barely figures in the plot because they're mostly running.
I know this sounds pedantic but you can't make a movie have a theme by just telling us what the theme is.
Resorting to ad hominens so soon?
>or trying to figure out how to beat her.
So he is doing stuff.
>the climax where he makes use of the Time Stone and confronts Dormmamu by himself on his own initiative
How is that different from the climax where he makes sue of the Darkhold and confronts Wanda by his own initiative?
>How on earth does "trying to control everything in your life" relate to Wanda's mission of wanting her kids back?
She literally says she wants to control everything in her life, genius.
>Resorting to ad hominens so soon?
What? You resorted to them first with stupid accusations in
and
that had no basis in what had been discussed in the thread. Just stating that "oh, the people who don't share my opinions are delusional and silly" isn't a good argument.
Honestly, I want to know why you're defending this film so hard. It's far from the worst film in the world, and it's not even the worst thing in the MCU, but at the very least the common consensus is that it wasn't very well done, and yet here you are, rabidly protecting it from any criticism. How about instead of us going back and forth nitpicking each other's posts to death line by line, you just tell me why you like this damn film so much?
>Honestly, I want to know why you're defending this film so hard.
I could ask the same about you seething about it so hard.
>I could ask the same about you seething about it so hard.
The seething is pretty self-explanatory; people who didn't like what they did with Wanda or Strange didn't like the movie.
What I find odd is that these threads always turn into someone telling the complainers that they're wrong, Strange did have an arc or Wanda's character journey was perfectly logical. But you can't prove that by showing that themes are mentioned in the movie, it's a question of whether we feel it's logical.
"I think Strange had an arc in this movie and here's why" is never enough for some reason, it's always telling people they were too dumb to notice his arc. We noticed they talked about stuff, we just don't think it was enough.
I would say they're logical, Strange giving up on the 4D chess plots and trusting his heart on allowing a young girl to master her power to save the day and Wanda becoming a villain after all the losses she's suffered are fine arcs and they were handled as well you can expect from a Marvel movie.
Now Wanda's arc was handled a bit clunkily but not unexpected considering where her miniseries left her off.
But I just think it's a naff film that doesn't deliver on being a good Dr Strange sequel. I like Dr Strange a lot (the comics at least, the first film is just decent) and a Raimi-directed Dr Strange film should have been a dream come true. I'm not angry about it. More disappointed, if anything, and even then it's not something living rent-free in my head. Also
>avoiding the question
>and even then it's not something living rent-free in my head
You could have fooled me.
>avoiding the question
I enjoyed the film despite its flaws and don't apprence disingenuous discourse towards it because MUH WANDA. It isn't living rent-free in my head either, but if I see the same seething homosexuals spouting the same tired arguments and headcannons over and over again I'll call them out on their bullshit.
>don't apprence disingenuous discourse towards it because MUH WANDA
>but if I see the same seething homosexuals spouting the same tired arguments and headcannons over and over again I'll call them out on their bullshit.
But most of the reasons why I said I disliked the film in
is because it barely feels like a Dr Strange film, or gives Strange as character a good showing, and focuses more on trying to be an MCU multiverse set up than being a satisfying film. I dislike how rushed Scarlet Witch's villainous turn was, too, but that's not why I disliked the film
It seems to me that you've just automatically come out with these arguments and thrown your lot in entirely with defending this film because you're tired of Wandagays, rather than because you actually genuinely like the film on its own merits.
>Wanda drives the plot.
Villains often do.
>For the most part, Strange is just reacting to her (and America Chavez's) actions.
There is nothing wrong with that. Strange is also just reacting to what Mads Mikkelsen does for the majority of the first movie.
>The whole "need to be the one holding the knife" arc is, again, pretty clearly tacked on to the rest of the film.
Not really.
>It doesn't really relate to the main plot
It is the driving force of Strange's journey and in many ways Wanda's journey as well.
>give Strange much in the way of actual character development
Learning to let go is a pretty big theme present throughout the movie.
>Learning to let go is a pretty big theme present throughout the movie.
It's talked about, we don't see it. This is the famous problem with Strange suddenly treating whatshername... Christine... as the greatest love of his life, or Wanda wanting her kids back but not Vision, or the stuff that happened to his variants offscreen. It's like someone decided the characters needed to have an arc but it would be enough to just have them talk about it rather than making us feel it.
On the evidence of what we see, Strange is a well-adjusted guy who has already learned to let other people hold the knife (that's why he has no problem asking Wanda for help), and inexplicably claims to love a woman he clearly does not care much about.
>Strange is a well-adjusted guy who has already learned to let other people hold the knife (that's why he has no problem asking Wanda for help)
He doesn't put complete trust in Wanda though, he literally just asks her for advice on a witch related problem that turns out that she was the cause of.
Now you're making me think of how interesting the movie could have been if it was an actual team-up movie that played on the tension between Strange, the ultimate professional, and Wanda, a talented amateur who has lots of power but no idea what she's doing.
The lesson, as always, is that boring and safe choices (a Doctor Strange / Scarlet Witch teamup) are better than choices that go against what the audience was expecting (Scarlet Witch is evil now and they never team up).
The blandest choice is always the best. (See also, How I Met Your Mother creators thinking they were going to surprise the audience with a twist ending.)
>that go against what the audience was expecting (Scarlet Witch is evil now and they never team up).
Scarlet Witch becoming evil is what the audience was expecting, because not only is her going crazy her most notable feat in the comics but she had an entire show where she does some questionable fricked up shit and gets away with it at the end, literally ending with her acquiring and using an evil book.
>Scarlet Witch becoming evil is what the audience was expecting, because not only is her going crazy her most notable feat in the comics but she had an entire show where she does some questionable fricked up shit and gets away with it at the end, literally ending with her acquiring and using an evil book.
I think the creators of the movie did think that was her most notable feat in the comics, but thankfully most movie viewers don't care.
The show was clearly made as a way of getting Wanda to her lowest point and then getting her into a place where she could start to become a better person. (It's been confirmed that the people who made the show had no idea what was going to happen to Wanda in MoM.) They tacked on the Darkhold scene, but it doesn't match up with what happens in the movie, and according to the show, Agatha could have the Darkhold for centuries and still be quite rational.
Basically WandaVision should have been her villain arc with her redemption arc coming immediately after. Unfortunately MoM was written by people who think the character's worst comic stories are her best, so they trashed the character just as she was becoming their most popular female character.
Tell that to the comment section of this video with three million views
?si=RwccFjB2ODbXAkl_
I feel like the online obsession with this (admittedly terrible) line is weird. Every MCU project has some shitty lines.
What's funny is that in MoM, when Wanda brings up Westview, Strange dismisses it as unimportant because Wanda did the right thing in the end, which is as bad as Monica's line but nobody cared because it was in a movie with so many other clunkers.
>I feel like the online obsession with this (admittedly terrible) line is weird. Every MCU project has some shitty lines.
It's a weird and frankly disingenuous concern for the welfare of the NPCs that nobody displays about any other MCU movie ever, it's a deliberate misinterpretation of the show to insist Wanda knowingly and intentionally created the hex, and knew she was hurting people all along (it's pretty blatant about her refusing to listen to or believe anyone who tried to talk to her about this), and it's refusing to even engage with the story of the show by insisting hex-Vision and the kids weren't alive even though it literally tells us they are. That line people hate is Monica, who lost her mother, having sympathy for Wanda having to give up her family in order to free the town and put things right.
In other words, people like dickless here
misrepresenting the narrative of the show to fit his headcanon of what happened and pretend there's some kind of knowing intentional malice that isn't actually there. People who only watched a show about a character they already hated because they thought it was going to introduce the mutants or Mephisto or whatever other boring crap they actually wanted and are still seething.
The show outright tells you they are real. Considering we know at least one of them is coming back, MoM claiming they weren't is a nonsensically moronic move, but one that's temporarily emboldened people who refused to accept the story they were given.
"Real" is a very contextual term here. They're real in the sense they exist as tangible beings but they're also thematically, and literally, simulacrum.
>Youtube comments section
>reflective of how normal human beings think
morons gonna moron in their moron echo chamber.
>Agatha could have the Darkhold for centuries and still be quite rational.
She didn't have chaos magic.
Wanda was always going to turn evil, Scott Derrickson's script was all about her descend into madness, and Michael Waldron confirmed she was slated to be the villain of an Avengers movie at some point. He just asked if he could do it in Multiverse of Madness and Marvel agreed since they had their eyes on the Kang ball.
>Scarlet Witch becoming evil is what the audience was expecting
No, it's what people who hate-watched WandaVision and had the most negative possible takes on where her story could go next were expecting/hoping. Watch the footage of audience reactions to the MoM trailer at the end of No Way Home. Normie audiences were hyped to see Wanda again for a team up with Strange. Like
is saying, people who didn't just already hate Wanda were hoping for a redemption arc.
>Wanda stans thinking that Wanda doesn't come out as a villain in her own show after she painfully brainwashed and enslaved a whole town willingly to fulfill her family sitcom larp session and was let off scot-free with a line on par with "Thank You For Becoming a Mass Murderer For Our Sake" (it was just hatewatcher propaganda)
>Bendis did it so that means it's okay!
Comic accuracy isn't good if the comics they're adapting are shitty comics.
Also, I doubt the majority of the audience were expecting Scarlet Witch to become evil right after she had her own show, even if they were marginally aware of House of M. Hell, her going bad in MoM is completely different from House of M anyways. In that one, she just goes mad and breaks reality. It's still a shitty piece of writing that ruins her character, but it's a different shitty piece. Having Wanda willingly give into the Darkhold and then spending a movie murdering her way through countless people is just stupid.
Also, Wandavision BARELY sets up her going evil. The whole finale of that show is about establishing Wanda as naturally incredibly strong in her magic, while also repentant for her actions in mindcontrolling the town. There's no indication that she'd go do something bad again after that, or that she would be susceptible to the Darkhold after everything that's been shown about her being magically powerful. If their intention was to hint that Wanda would succumb to the Darkhold and turn evil, then they really failed to actually set that up. There's nothing in webm related that suggests or hints she's on track to go bad.
>This is the famous problem with Strange suddenly treating whatshername... Christine... as the greatest love of his life
Did you not watch the first movie or something?
Yes, and Strange's love interest was the absolute weakest part of it and should have just been dropped.
That's an opinion, not an argument.
>It's talked about, we don't see it.
Yes, we do. Both when Wanda lets go of her kids, and when Strange lets go of Rachel McAdams. Not picking up on that and then claiming the movie doesn't show you says more about how you engaged with it than anything else.
>Yes, we do. Both when Wanda lets go of her kids, and when Strange lets go of Rachel McAdams. Not picking up on that and then claiming the movie doesn't show you says more about how you engaged with it than anything else.
Wanda lets go of her kids, but the movie has done nothing to make us understand why she is so obsessed with them (and if she's so evil now, why she suddenly gets snapped out of it).
Strange lets go of Rachel McAdams, but she was just another of the many bland MCU love interests in the first movie, and this movie has done nothing to make us believe that he's so deeply in love with her that it hurts him to let her go.
I feel a lot of arguments over this movie revolve around the point that telling us someone feels this way is not enough, we have to see it play out and have an impact on the story. Like if Strange actually disrespected Chavez then we might actually care about him trusting her at the end, but they're too busy running.
>but the movie has done nothing to make us understand why she is so obsessed with them
Gee, why would a mother be obsessed about her kids.
>this movie has done nothing to make us believe that he's so deeply in love with her
You could have watched the first movie where it's laid out thicker than oatmeal, regardless of your personal view on how good a story it was.
Her kids weren't real
> Thread about Quantumania and Kang
> Turns into more Strange/Wanda arguments
Loveness can't win even when he's losing.
They were according to the show. They just couldn't exist outside the Hex because her spell was flawed.
And now I realize the movie would have made more sense if she had needed America's power to fuel a new version of the spell that would make her kids (and Vision) permanently real.
To be fair Quantumania plot is extremely simple, there's no great twist or interesting details. But on that note, remember how at first it looked like the plot was going to be about Kang making deal with Scott to regain time with his daughter? Yeah sucks that was never part of the film
The real twist was that Marvel thought it would do well just because the test audience they kept trapped in their dungeons said it was good.
It is really basic to the point of being completely forgettable, now I try and think about it months later
>Ant-Man and co get shrunk into the Quantum Realm
>Star Wars knock-off scenes happen, Cassie gets captured
>more shit happens til Cassie gets rescued
>then they all go fight Kang, win, and escape
It's so basic that it makes me believe the rumor that says Loveness was writing the script at the same time they were filming
>Rumor
It's literally a fact that most Marvel movies tend to be written as they're filming or even during post-production, it's a very "factory product" kind of system
Making one of their most popular heroines a villain was a moronic decision in the first place, and "but it happened in the comics" isn't an excuse, everyone who's actually read them knows those comics were bad.
>we know she can't really be evil or do anything too bad since she'll obviously be redeemed
She murdered close to a hundred people in the movie. She probably will be redeemed because 'woman' but she shouldn't.
Let's just say that some fans of the two main characters did not like its take on those characters, and leave it at that.
MCU already made him not ominous or threatening at all when his first appearance was just some guy...who effortlessly got stabbed and killed in his first appearance.
After he jobbed to Ant-Man, I can se why Feige would scrap the whole thing.
As one of the handful of Kanggays this hurts
Loveless was kicked out of the writers room following Quantumania so what the frick does he know?
I thought Majors turned the case around and turned out to be the abuse victim?
Loki S2 premiere had lower ratings than the first season's premiere but the series finale (11.2m) surpassed the season one finale (1.9m) in views
I loved S1, how was 2? Never really got around to it, decided I was done with MCU media after Loki and had no expectations for its return.
Actually better than S1 and it had a great ending, Loki came out as one of the best shows and things the MCU has produced in general.
I'll start it tonight, then. Great to hear.
anon, most season is boring as frick. Only good episode is the finale
How the frick did they ever greenlight the successor to Thanos being a black man named fricking Kang? Do the decisionmakers for these things religiously separate themselves from the internet?
Seems like they're replacing Kang Dynasty with Eternity Wars
>tfw not getting a Nomad Disney+ show consisting of Chris Evans, returning solely for the paycheck, tripping over his cape for 6 incompetent, drawn-out episodes
>implying it wouldn't be 90s Nomad, which was woke as frick
>No more "it's kangin' time"
>Saves your movie
Why are they so allergic to recasting now? He's a fricking multiversal character, just get another guy and handwave the previous actor.
they can't do that, he's black
There's more than one black actor, anon.
They did it with T'Challa
HAHAHAHAHA
Should I sub to D+ for a month to run through Loki S2 real quick? Not sure I care all that much otherwise.
You don't need to do that to watch Loki, or anything. I only briefly considered the same for The Simpsons, because I know D+ has the corrected aspect ratios, and I can't be sure of any given online source having that.
>making a good chunk of post Endgame content irrelevant.
maybe the shitty writers should have tried to do something interesting than going "okay we wrapped up a decade old story we should immediately start a new one and kill off all the highest paid, I mean retiring heros"
>"It's me Kang, I'm here, deal with it. Let's move on."
>every one of my calculations show the ame result, Kang...
Watch as I save the Kang Dynasty with this cheap idea.
[spoilers]All the Kangs undergo cosmetic alteration because they want to distance themselves from the outcast so much, they don't want to even look like him.[/spoiler]
Maybe Disney is learning that bad casting is losing them money.
can we sue disney for this? building up to a movie that they wont release?
Good
As much as I love Victor, he's my favorite supervillain and my favorite marvel character -and only my 2nd favorite superhero- character overall, you can't do "almost got godhood doom" from the start.
You need to at least do
1. direct nemesis to ff Doom
2. revealing some noble qualities Doom
3. helping the heroes with some hidden agenda Doom
first, then you make god emperor/beyonder wannabe Doom.
If you jump straight to the end, you fricked up.
Like, whether you do Beyonder "finally managed to cure my face, what joy" or "I saved everyone but still can't fix my face because I know I suck" Doom , there's no point if you haven't hammered in the pettiness and the inferorirty/superiority complex Doom has first.
Is it rayciss to just cast a different Black person
Why did Marvel EVER think Kang of all characters would get people interested or could carry a string of movies?
The actor and character got good reception from test screenings
Problem is, Marvel kept NERFING him. I mean pitting him against Ant-Man and struggling? Come on!
Pym Particles plus ANTS are just too strong
General audiences generally don't care about power levels; they care about character dynamics, and as far as Quantumania goes, Kang's only meaningful interaction was with Janet, a secondary character who had about as much screen time and lines as the two titular leads. It felt more like a Janet movie than an Ant-Man movie where Scott is literally just along for the ride and barely interacts with the main villain outside one scene where he threatens his daughter so he'll retrieve a McGuffin. There's nothing personal between them and therefore the conflict seems superficial from an emotional standpoint which robs it of any weight with viewers.
That's a huge problem, the plot is so simple that everyone is just reacting to whats happening to them and in general the story just is "we need to get out of here" Even the trailers made it seem like Scott and Kang would have some sort of partnership or more interactions than what we got.
they really should opt to try for testees outside of an asylum then
Apparently up to Quantumania their test groups mostly consisted of their employees relatives and execs, who almost always gave positive reviews; hence they tought they had a hit with the film. After the disastrous box office it was reported that they'll change their test groups to regular audiences. It was to these new audiences to whom they screened The Marvels and Captain America NWO, both getting dismal reviews.
I guess We Wuzn't Kangs after all
correct me if im mistaken but
>blink brought people back
>bringing people back from dust caused mutations
>mutations = xmen
>xmen = apocalipse
>apocalipse WAS LITERALY THE ONE THAT KILLED KANG IN THE COMICS
they have the knife and the bread in the table
>Ezzy wezz goes on nation wide crime spree
>movie still comes out
>Rappity B Black person tries to murder ONE woman
>scrap everything
Racism is alive in Hollywood
Just recast him you cowards.
It's funny cuz I actually watched the second season of Loki and it was way better than I expected. I don't know if it's cuz my expectations for cape shit especially marvel goyslop is so low that when a generally competent show comes off as pretty fun or if I just liked a lot of the actors... But I grew to like We Wuz Kangs. Timely was cute enough and overall it actually got me more interested in marvel anything since end game. Shame Kang is now written out because of actor shenanigans.
Loki S2 made me hate Sylvie beyond my already abyssal opinion of her by the end of S1, but the last two episodes were better than I expected too. I'd easily rate it over The Marvels.
Why didn't they just shrink Thanos to death?
Because the AntFam were literally writen out of Infinity War and inEndgame final battle both Scott and Hope we're busy fixing the van, written out once again. At least Scott stomped Cull Obsidian
Majors' trial starts in two weeks, if it looks bad they'll drop the character.
>if it looks bad
>if
...from a pure PR perspective, does it not already?
Yeah but It'll get a lot worse if there's cameras in the courtroom.