• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

What grade would you give the Marvel Cinematic Universe? (Ever-Changing Question)


  • Total voters
    185
I don't think Majors is in any real trouble...his accuser fled the country rather than show up in court. This whole case is looking to be thrown out.
 
But if the stories that came out about his history after the first accusations, there's a pretty decent chance he could get himself in trouble again. Even if the case is thrown out, Marvel would probably still be better off distancing themselves from him. They have almost no choice but to recast and keep going with the character, if they got rid of Kang they'd have to completely change their plans for the overall arc of the next 2 phases and I just can't see them doing that.
 
But if the stories that came out about his history after the first accusations, there's a pretty decent chance he could get himself in trouble again. Even if the case is thrown out, Marvel would probably still be better off distancing themselves from him. They have almost no choice but to recast and keep going with the character, if they got rid of Kang they'd have to completely change their plans for the overall arc of the next 2 phases and I just can't see them doing that.

Do I agree? Yes.
However, if this does indeed blow over (unfortunately it might), Marvel will most likely save themselves the trouble and hassle of a recast and just let it die down.
 
However, if this does indeed blow over (unfortunately it might), Marvel will most likely save themselves the trouble and hassle of a recast and just let it die down.

Is it really that much of a hassle? They've done it multiple times. As far as I can tell, Majors isn't in any MCU production that's currently filming; he's in Loki season 2, which is presumably completed, and the next things he's been announced for are the two Avengers films that are only in pre-production or development. So nothing's stopping them from replacing him going forward.
 
if they got rid of Kang they'd have to completely change their plans for the overall arc of the next 2 phases and I just can't see them doing that.

Well you raise an interesting side point - what if you put together a multi-film narrative but the public isn't buying what you are selling?

I don't know when Kang's next film appearance is but what if that is a dud as well?

Now that does not mean you change everything but do you hold course or deemphasize the importance?
 
Well you raise an interesting side point - what if you put together a multi-film narrative but the public isn't buying what you are selling?

I don't know when Kang's next film appearance is but what if that is a dud as well?

Now that does not mean you change everything but do you hold course or deemphasize the importance?

That's a different question from the feasibility of recasting an actor, though. A studio would probably retool story plans if several movies bombed, but as long as the issue is a single actor's scandal, that's independent of the storyline, so recasting is a far simpler course. Different problems call for different solutions.
 
Honestly, he's only been in two properties and I feel like he's overused. The problem with Kang is that he's a major Avengers villain but he's not that interesting of a character, particularly as Marvel has been treating him. The Kang of the comics is fundamentally goofy and is a critique of a lot of colonialist tropes. He's a guy from a Utopian future who got bored of it and wants to go slumming with us "primitives." He's a very good Star Trek villain in some respects as he'd be the guy who goes to a world and takes over with his superior technology so he can pretend to be a Pharaoh or whatever.

He's fundamentally a petty dick.

The one in the MCU is obsessed with stopping himself and is either far more powerful than Eternity (destroying universes left and right) or a guy Ant Man can beat in a fist fight.

He's not even as compelling as crazy environmentalist Thanos.

I thought Thanos was a joke. Well, I thought his Plan to kill off half of the universe for the sake of the environment was a joke, especially since it wasn’t going to work in the long run, as others had pointed out. And I thought it was badly written - like the Sokovia Accords. Thanos switch from a "compelling" villain to a one-note one in the second half of "Endgame" didn't seem to help his portrayal in the end.
 
Thanos was a poorly constructed character who is often defended with the "mad" excuse. Then, there's the nature of the Infinity Stones and how it can reverse death, yet has other limitations never considered by anyone using them. Oh, well. In the end, the Thanos "saga" was pointless spectacle even more senseless than Starlin's original version (i.e., a poor Darkseid knock-off).

The Sokovia Accords. SMH. Anyone in that Avengers conference room could have ended the conversation by reminding Ross that he was in no position to chair or enforce restrictions on enhanced beings after his direct participation in the Abomination affair, which caused a number of civilian deaths (there's no doubt Banner informed the Avengers about that). Hell, Rogers was still trusted enough (at that point) to have to world's ear, where he could have addressed the accords and expose Ross (possibly calling Ross's and his government's participation into question), but the plot (if you can call it that) needed an artificial handcuff on the MCU's own continuity in order to slap together the first stage of the Rogers / Stark conflict.

But hey, Spidey-Lad made his MCU debut (also for no logical in-universe reason), so it was all good.
 
It was totally ridiculous ( and I say that as a fan of Civil War ).

"New York. Washington."

Oh, you mean where we stopped an alien invasion and then stopped Hydra from killing hundreds of thousands of people?
 
Thanos was a poorly constructed character who is often defended with the "mad" excuse. Then, there's the nature of the Infinity Stones and how it can reverse death, yet has other limitations never considered by anyone using them. Oh, well. In the end, the Thanos "saga" was pointless spectacle even more senseless than Starlin's original version (i.e., a poor Darkseid knock-off).

The Sokovia Accords. SMH. Anyone in that Avengers conference room could have ended the conversation by reminding Ross that he was in no position to chair or enforce restrictions on enhanced beings after his direct participation in the Abomination affair, which caused a number of civilian deaths (there's no doubt Banner informed the Avengers about that). Hell, Rogers was still trusted enough (at that point) to have to world's ear, where he could have addressed the accords and expose Ross (possibly calling Ross's and his government's participation into question), but the plot (if you can call it that) needed an artificial handcuff on the MCU's own continuity in order to slap together the first stage of the Rogers / Stark conflict.

But hey, Spidey-Lad made his MCU debut (also for no logical in-universe reason), so it was all good.

Actually, the response there is, "Can anyone in the Avengers give a compelling reason why the rest of the world should give them absolute total law enforcement powers across the globe after the whole Ultron thing?"

I'm comfortable with the Avengers being illegal rebels doing cool edgy rebellious things.

But I have yet to hear any argument that what they should do should be legal.
 
It was totally ridiculous ( and I say that as a fan of Civil War ).

"New York. Washington."

Oh, you mean where we stopped an alien invasion and then stopped Hydra from killing hundreds of thousands of people?

Exactly:two events where no one complained about "unauthorized" action against a threat taking place. Ross and his government cronies were completely unprepared for an alien invasion, and had no clue Hydra had become a part of SHIELD since the 40s. That's two more examples that a sensible screenwriter would have added as Rogers' counter to Ross, which could not be argued...but you know...the MCU had to jump to that toothless conflict bit.
 
Well you raise an interesting side point - what if you put together a multi-film narrative but the public isn't buying what you are selling?

I don't know when Kang's next film appearance is but what if that is a dud as well?

Now that does not mean you change everything but do you hold course or deemphasize the importance?
Isn't that pretty much what happened with the DCEU? They were pretty quick to dump the whole arc Snyder had been working on the moment BvS wasn't as successful as they hoped and he backed out of JL.
I doubt the MCU creative team would be as quick to just dump a storyline, they'd probably just try and tweak and adjust things based on what people's reactions were.
 
Thanos was a poorly constructed character who is often defended with the "mad" excuse. Then, there's the nature of the Infinity Stones and how it can reverse death, yet has other limitations never considered by anyone using them. Oh, well. In the end, the Thanos "saga" was pointless spectacle even more senseless than Starlin's original version (i.e., a poor Darkseid knock-off).

The Sokovia Accords. SMH. Anyone in that Avengers conference room could have ended the conversation by reminding Ross that he was in no position to chair or enforce restrictions on enhanced beings after his direct participation in the Abomination affair, which caused a number of civilian deaths (there's no doubt Banner informed the Avengers about that). Hell, Rogers was still trusted enough (at that point) to have to world's ear, where he could have addressed the accords and expose Ross (possibly calling Ross's and his government's participation into question), but the plot (if you can call it that) needed an artificial handcuff on the MCU's own continuity in order to slap together the first stage of the Rogers / Stark conflict.

But hey, Spidey-Lad made his MCU debut (also for no logical in-universe reason), so it was all good.

Blonsky injected himself with the Gamma Blood that caused his final transformation without Ross' approval, so Ross had room and political power enough to evade culpability.

Thanos is no more poorly constructed than Magneto, who thought killing off all of Humanity in X2 wouldn't hurt Mutants.
 
Isn't that pretty much what happened with the DCEU? They were pretty quick to dump the whole arc Snyder had been working on the moment BvS wasn't as successful as they hoped and he backed out of JL.
I doubt the MCU creative team would be as quick to just dump a storyline, they'd probably just try and tweak and adjust things based on what people's reactions were.

I don't think the DCEU was ever as well-planned as the MCU. Feige has a clear vision and knows how to manage it well, while the decision-making behind the DCEU has been erratic and poorly judged, as well as frequently changing hands. The best phase of the DCEU was when they stopped trying to have a master plan and just let each film be its own thing.
 
But if the stories that came out about his history after the first accusations, there's a pretty decent chance he could get himself in trouble again. Even if the case is thrown out, Marvel would probably still be better off distancing themselves from him. They have almost no choice but to recast and keep going with the character, if they got rid of Kang they'd have to completely change their plans for the overall arc of the next 2 phases and I just can't see them doing that.

Those stories really seem more like heresay rather than anything with solid evidence. Just some disgruntled folks wanting to jump on the bandwagon.

Really, this isn't anything like the Depp fiasco.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top