Yeah definitely a more toned down and neutered version of Kang for plot related reasons.
I've seen versions of Kang that can go 1 on 5 with legit avengers in other media.
Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania starring Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly, Jonathan Majors, & Bill Murry Feb 17th, 2023
- Thread starter humminbird
- Start date
I've seen versions of Kang that can go 1 on 5 with legit avengers in other media.
BeachBum Unreal
SD Born & Raised: 760, 619
Ant-Man: Quantumania Suffers Second-Worst MCU Performance Ever With Thursday Gross
Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania suffered a significant drop at the box office.
thedirect.com
this was I was kinda expecting when he was doing his monologue, I thought he was going to look into that stroller and see something fukked up and it was just a dog
Nigerianwonder
Superstar
71% drop estimate in its second weekend at the box office.
Biggest 2nd week drop of all the major super hero movies. Even Bigger drop than batman v superman so what excuse yall marvel stans gonna make now?
Lefty Gunz
Superstar
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
It's only an estimate. Don't jump the gun. lol
you out here really defending this shyt at all costs breh
humminbird
Veteran
a movie with batman and superman in it is going to have more of the general audience want to see it than an ant-man movie even if it's said to be bad
it's a false equivalence though
Last edited:
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
No, but why are you asking did I say something inaccurate just now?
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
What's weird is their needs to be an excuse for this but he wants the Snyderverse to continue when they hold the precedent HE pointed at as a terrible benchmark. lol
You can't make this stuff up.
Nigerianwonder
Superstar
Batman v superman still went on to earn 900 million and was profitable. This trash won't crack 500 million and will lose money.
VoxSphere74
Banned
The clown writer of this movie wanted Kang to be weak like Napoleon in exile where he's defeated 
www.hollywoodreporter.com
And I knew these cacs didn't want a Black villain to boss up but it's good that he admits it.
From the interview:
This movie had a tall order in that it had to introduce the Multiverse Saga’s big bad and make him menacing enough to where the audience will be worried about future Kang variants as well. But at the same time, you also had to give the Langs, Pyms and van Dynes a collective win over Kang. So how did you approach this juggling act?
With Kang, the danger was falling into another derivative time-travel multiverse villain. Endgame just did a time-travel plot in their movie, and there’s been plenty of time-traveling multiverse guys. And so I thought it would be interesting to approach the character first before we get to the more grandiose sci-fi elements of him. Peyton and I stumbled across the idea of Napoleon in exile, where he’s cut off from most of his time powers. We catch him at the end of a story that we just don’t know about yet. Guys like Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar are defined just as much by their defeats as they are their victories, and so I thought it would be humanizing to show a Kang who’s just been defeated. He’s like a Julius Caesar who was just assassinated by fifty other Julius Caesars and sent away. (Laughs.) Or he’s like Alexander who has just been turned back at India and has lost the worlds that he conquered.
And he literally mentions Alexander the Great and Ceasar but doesn't want him to be powerful like them, even for a minute. Just have him resemble them when they were defeated.
When Thanos was properly introduced as the big bad, he earned a resounding win over the Avengers, creating fear in the remaining Avengers and the audience. Conversely, Kang the Conqueror ended this movie in defeat. So what was the rationale behind introducing our new big bad in the exact opposite way?
Well, I think you root for someone who knows defeat. Thanos says that he knows what it’s like to lose, but we never see him lose until the end of Endgame. All he does is toss away the people that he loves and beat Thor’s ass. (Laughs.) But yes, it’s a risk, and we certainly took some heat for it. But I am willing to bet that we are going to root for a guy that we’ve seen stumble and fall, much like Chris Claremont’s Magneto from those X-Men comics. That guy loses a lot, and we see how much pain he’s been through. And so by the time he really unleashes that rage, we’re on his side and we kind of get it. So I think we’re allowed to have a villain that takes a few shots along the way as [Kang the Conqueror or his variants] make their rise.
Loki also loses pretty hard in that first Thor movie, and so by the time he rolls back around, we get more of his baggage. But once again, the big distinction between Thanos and Kang is that Kang is more of a human being. And so his defeat was a way to showcase his humanity and his unending passion. If you go back in the comics, you can beat Thanos once, and that’s the end of the day. Kang is not a guy that you can beat once; he is an existential problem. And so he doesn’t care if he loses because he’s got nothing but time.
‘Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania’ Writer Jeff Loveness Talks Deleted Hope Story, Jennifer Coolidge’s Potential Role and ‘Avengers: The Kang Dynasty’
The scribe dives deep into challenges, the paths not taken, and pushing Kang in the opposite direction of Thanos in 'Infinity War.'
www.hollywoodreporter.com
And I knew these cacs didn't want a Black villain to boss up but it's good that he admits it.
From the interview:
This movie had a tall order in that it had to introduce the Multiverse Saga’s big bad and make him menacing enough to where the audience will be worried about future Kang variants as well. But at the same time, you also had to give the Langs, Pyms and van Dynes a collective win over Kang. So how did you approach this juggling act?
With Kang, the danger was falling into another derivative time-travel multiverse villain. Endgame just did a time-travel plot in their movie, and there’s been plenty of time-traveling multiverse guys. And so I thought it would be interesting to approach the character first before we get to the more grandiose sci-fi elements of him. Peyton and I stumbled across the idea of Napoleon in exile, where he’s cut off from most of his time powers. We catch him at the end of a story that we just don’t know about yet. Guys like Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar are defined just as much by their defeats as they are their victories, and so I thought it would be humanizing to show a Kang who’s just been defeated. He’s like a Julius Caesar who was just assassinated by fifty other Julius Caesars and sent away. (Laughs.) Or he’s like Alexander who has just been turned back at India and has lost the worlds that he conquered.
And he literally mentions Alexander the Great and Ceasar but doesn't want him to be powerful like them, even for a minute. Just have him resemble them when they were defeated.
When Thanos was properly introduced as the big bad, he earned a resounding win over the Avengers, creating fear in the remaining Avengers and the audience. Conversely, Kang the Conqueror ended this movie in defeat. So what was the rationale behind introducing our new big bad in the exact opposite way?
Well, I think you root for someone who knows defeat. Thanos says that he knows what it’s like to lose, but we never see him lose until the end of Endgame. All he does is toss away the people that he loves and beat Thor’s ass. (Laughs.) But yes, it’s a risk, and we certainly took some heat for it. But I am willing to bet that we are going to root for a guy that we’ve seen stumble and fall, much like Chris Claremont’s Magneto from those X-Men comics. That guy loses a lot, and we see how much pain he’s been through. And so by the time he really unleashes that rage, we’re on his side and we kind of get it. So I think we’re allowed to have a villain that takes a few shots along the way as [Kang the Conqueror or his variants] make their rise.
Loki also loses pretty hard in that first Thor movie, and so by the time he rolls back around, we get more of his baggage. But once again, the big distinction between Thanos and Kang is that Kang is more of a human being. And so his defeat was a way to showcase his humanity and his unending passion. If you go back in the comics, you can beat Thanos once, and that’s the end of the day. Kang is not a guy that you can beat once; he is an existential problem. And so he doesn’t care if he loses because he’s got nothing but time.
Last edited:
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
And then the DCEU pretty much disbanded and is about to do a soft reboot.
Meanwhile . . lol
If this movie does bad it does bad. No excuses needed.
Nigerianwonder
Superstar
Then why are you making excuses for it? It's a trash movie. end of story. And Marvel's formula is growing stale and most of their recent movies had the same issues and were trash as well. DC is stupid for rebooting and trying to follow Marvels played out formula. They will flop and fail just like Marvel is doing now.