The clown writer of this movie wanted Kang to be weak like Napoleon in exile where he's defeated
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.
even though audiences said different 
lmao
And on like 3 movies together
cuz I thought he would be a threat for someone like Dr. Strange not a C level character like Ant Man.