That's not really the same though as the Infinity Stones then played a part in multiple stories between Ultron and Infinity War.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
That's not really the same though as the Infinity Stones then played a part in multiple stories between Ultron and Infinity War.
You can't bring up Loki because it's been established that "not everyone who watches the movies is familiar with the TV shows" and "people who watch the movies and not the TV shows would not be aware of a resolution that happened in the TV shows". So Joe Moviegoer only knows what he's seen in Quantumania to establish that Kang needs this big payoff.
It just feels like wanting to have the cake and eat it too. This moviegoer has all these ideas that this character he never heard of prior to this movie (an Ant-Man movie...) needs this big payoff that can also only occur in another movie, one that he somehow will see I guess because he will watch any Marvel movie as long as it's a movie and not a TV show.
The Guardians 2 teaser took 6 years to pay off. With zero between.
Dr. Strange is 7 years and still counting.
I am still waiting for Mark Strong as a Sinestro with an active Yellow Power Ring
And as I already said, I expect multiple stories to continue introducing things that are meant to ultimately pay off in the next couple of Avengers movies. The fact that the MCU has a history of developing a story arc gradually over years makes it bizarre to assume that if we haven't seen something pay off in a measly 2 years, that means it's been abandoned. IIRC, Feige has said he has the broad strokes plotted out as much as a decade in advance.
Besides, since when did two things need to be exactly the same to be comparable? Analogies are never meant to be exact in every particular; they wouldn't be analogies if they were. Pointing out that a difference exists does not erase the similarities that also exist.
The two are not mutually exclusive -- that's the point. Why "you can't?" Why do you keep talking as if this is about me somehow? I'm not the one who created the situation. I'm merely describing what I observe. I can only cite the evidence demonstrating how the productions of the MCU are setting things up that are presumably intended to pay off later. The fact that they have done so in both Quantumania and Loki is evidence of their plans. No responsible observer will disregard relevant evidence. There's no reason to reduce things to all-or-nothing arguments. Life is more nuanced than that.
You know what. When Disney decides to make a X-Men / Avengers crossover movie, we need a villian who has not been featured yet. Mr Sinster comes to mind. He has always been my favourite X-Men Villain. He is also a scientist and therefore he could theoretically be the person that opens the portal between both worlds.
Last edited:
The Guardians was due to Gunn being fired--and apparently Strange's scene was supposed to have been followed up on but the scene was deleted. Its other scene directly teased Thor Ragnarok.
Maybe I wasn't being clear. For the first decade of the MCU, the end credits scenes were used to tease upcoming films--they piqued people's interest in the next film in the series or, in the case of Age of Ultron, teased a plot point that was directly picked up on in subsequent films. I'm not addressing the "artistic" choice but rather how those earlier scenes made people want to see the next film in the series in way that hasn't really happened very much since Endgame.
Some food for thought from Alex Perez of Cosmic Circus, who was asked about the MCU pivoting away from Kang:
"They aren’t going to do that. Their plan [at the moment] is to focus on individual story arcs like Devil's Reign [Kingpin vs. New York street-level superheroes - Echo, Daredevil Born Again, Spider-Man 4], the rise of the Midnight Suns [starting with Agatha & Blade], the coming of Mutants [Deadpool 3, X-Men '97, X-Men], while slowly building up to a threat 'beyond the Multiverse' that we will never see until 616 [is] in absolute shambles."
He's also said that Kang is still the Big Bad of the Multiverse Saga, but won't be the main focus again (and presumably then recast) until Phase 6.
"Oh, and there's another storyline I can't mention yet, but..." *gif of Hulk grinning from Avengers 1*
"They aren’t going to do that. Their plan [at the moment] is to focus on individual story arcs like Devil's Reign [Kingpin vs. New York street-level superheroes - Echo, Daredevil Born Again, Spider-Man 4], the rise of the Midnight Suns [starting with Agatha & Blade], the coming of Mutants [Deadpool 3, X-Men '97, X-Men], while slowly building up to a threat 'beyond the Multiverse' that we will never see until 616 [is] in absolute shambles."
He's also said that Kang is still the Big Bad of the Multiverse Saga, but won't be the main focus again (and presumably then recast) until Phase 6.
"Oh, and there's another storyline I can't mention yet, but..." *gif of Hulk grinning from Avengers 1*
Hulk's Comedy Variety Hour confirmed.
I stand by my original statement, they've done enough with Kang if they want to walk away. Is it lazy or know when to cut your losses (or both...) I'll let others decide. Seemed to me most people weren't very psyched over the Kang storyline anyway.
This.
I was thinking the same thing when I was watching GotG V3 a couple weeks ago. I don't know if they'd want to bring him back for such a big role soon after he was The High Evolutionary. I kept wondering if they'd be any way to have it turn out he was Loki variant, we never really learned anything about his backstory.
He'd be a great choice too.
But if they're going to get rid of Kang and move on the Doom, then the best way to handle it would to just get rid of him quickly and just move on. Having them wipe out the Kangs, would be a great to deal with Kang and establish them as a major Avengers level threat.
If you need to kill something, it's best to just get it over with as quickly and painlessly as possible. Just wiping out the Kangs all at once, would be a good way to do that.
Most of the those seemed to be specifically setting up the next movies in those series, and we have not had any sequels to Phase 4/5 movies yet. That was the one big difference I noticed these last couple Phases, that rather then setting one of the next general MCU movies, like Iron Man 2 showing Mjolnir, or Thor setting up the Tesseract, they're just setting up stuff for their own sequels.
A low follower account dude on twitter?
Plans are great until they met the box office.
He'd be awesome.I am still waiting for Mark Strong as a Sinestro with an active Yellow Power Ring
As I've been saying all along, I would find that the worst way to handle it by far. That's like trying to do bonsai with a machete -- it's crude and blunt without a shred of subtlety or patience. The best way would be to resolve Kang's story in a way that feels organic to the narrative rather than an abrupt swerve forced by external factors. It needs to be something that people watching this series 20 years from now, people who have no knowledge of the Jonathan Majors business, will be able to watch and go, "Ah, that was a satisfying ending to what they set up in Quantumania and Loki," rather than "Huh? Why did they just suddenly abandon everything they spent a whole movie and two seasons of a TV series setting up?" Like bonsai, it should feel like it grew that way organically, like it had always been meant to work that way. What was set up needs to be used and resolved, not just kicked under the rug.
After all, what's the rush? Like I said, this is all planned out years in advance. They took six years building up to Thanos. There's no reason for haste. There's room to take the time to change direction the right way. Threads that might have been intended to stretch out over four or five years can be resolved in maybe two while still feeling like they've been given satisfactory completion.
Which, yes, obviously, would require recasting Kang, a choice that I find it bewildering isn't being taken for granted. After all, the reasons they're pivoting away from Kang aren't just about Jonathan Majors, or they could simply recast and tell the story they intended all along. Their reasons are more about the Kang story not landing the way they hoped it would. But just cavalierly throwing away what was set up as an existential threat to the entire multiverse would make that story arc seem even worse than it does already. It would do more harm than good to the overall MCU. Better to take that multiversal threat seriously and give it a resolution that's worthy of the implied magnitude of it, just faster than originally intended.
The rush is that there is an expected release date of May 2026. You have to factor in VFX, which with the recent Writers & SAG strikes, will make studios think twice before pushing too hard, and wil instead want to give as much time as possible for them, to avoid another problem, which would hugely impact Marvel even more that the other strikes.
Yeah, sure they could re-schedule... but Marvel has scene what the previous wave of re-scheduling has done to their results, and they don;t want to repeat that.
Have you not seen the report s that possibly there was a clause in the contract that prevented recasting of any Kang variants? It seems like a very unlikely situation, and really stupid for Marvel to sign up for that.... but if that is the situation... then , duh, you have to recast.
And even if they are free torecast....while, yes, plenty of in-story reasons that should be easy to recast.... Jonathan Majors has made too big an impact for people to ignore. ANd even though it's a different actor, the memory of JOnathan Majors still hangs. We saw that cloud with Ezra Miller, even after his calming down.
And as you said, Marvel has planned well in advance. So theoretically , they could just cut a part of the plan...sacrifice one piece for the sake of the larger plan. JMS's trap doors for Babylon 5 now seems like extreme wisdom now.
And until we get more definite news, you have been a Trek fan long enough to how how speculation and strong opinion runs rampant. I would think you would have learned to deal with it.
Even if there was such a clause, I would’ve expected that an event like Majors’ conviction would be grounds to frustrate that part of the contract.