Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[fireproof78]

This is the internet, people will still argue about it.

Yes, but is your enjoyment impacted?

 

[MikHutch]

I'm enjoying Echo so far

I also just finished Luke Cage s2. It was fairly good

 

[Grendelsbayne]

No, he was just one of the Kangs who was defeated and Exiled by "He Who Remains". The more powerful Kangs (Immortus, Rama-Tut, Centurion) simply keep tabs on the others.

No, he was explicitly exiled by the army of other Kangs who were afraid of him.

He Who Remains' victory was undone by the events of Loki - that's the only reason the multiverse even exists because if HWR was still in charge, all the variant timelines would still be pruned as a matter of course (and pruning those timelines consistently was the only thing that kept HWR's victory permanently intact). Plus, if HWR had defeated this Kang, he would've also just pruned him out of existence, not just exiled him to the QR.

 

[MikHutch]

But his exile meant he was outside of time, and thus didn't have the powers he would in the regular timeline

 

[Turtletrekker]

I'm enjoying Echo so far

I also just finished Luke Cage s2. It was fairly good

Luke Cage S2 desperately needs follow-up. Of course, the blip occurs about 8 months afterwards, so wrapping up Luke's time as a crime lord could be as simple as, "And then I blipped."

 

[MikHutch]

Luke Cage S2 desperately needs follow-up. Of course, the blip occurs about 8 months afterwards, so wrapping up Luke's time as a crime lord could be as simple as, "And then I blipped."

Then he returns and we see what happened to Harlem. Maybe crime goes down and he wonders what to do next

 

[Morpheus 02]

But that's exactly the point. You claimed, verbatim, that "You can't make a villain who's already lost once into a threatening antagonist easily, because it's been shown they can be defeated." Your own example of TESB disproves your earlier claim, because Vader was "a villain who'[d] already lost once," and you acknowledge that that did not prevent TESB from making him compelling. Okay, maybe that doesn't count as doing it "easily," but good filmmaking is never easy, so that one variable doesn't make it any more prohibitive.
[/qoute]
For a professional writer, you astound me how you seem to not understand other people's point of views! (Isn't that essential in writing good characters???)

C'mon.. you know darn well, no one knew if Star Wars would be a one-and-done (which many might have predicted due to budget over runs, and how different this was).... so of course Vader had to be defeated.

But because it was such a success, they were able to create not just one but 2 sequels... while not filmed back-to-back,
it's success was assured so that it works to some degree as one big story (i.e. Empire & Jedi).

So it's clear that Vader is shown to be a better villain/antagonist than in Star Wars (which more simply established his "coolness")

And that is what I am seeing what people want with Kang (more on that at the bottom)

[qoute]
Except we're talking about the MCU, which is unlike past movie series in that it's deliberately structured to work more like comic book narratives. It's invalid to compare it to older movie series that weren't planned out as continuous in the same way.


[/qoute]
And now you are the one disproving your earlier claim by invalidating the Star Wars example to suit your own argument

Yes, the MCU has been more structured and planned... however, i don't think they were as planned as JMS' Babylon 5, which is famous for having "trap doors" to move the narrative if some real world problem happens (such Michael O'Hare leaving).

ALso, a lot of your complaining is based on merely rumors and other people's legitimate points of view , but since they are different than your wishes, you berate. Marvel hasn't really announced anything official on what will be happening next in lieu of dropping Jonathan Majors
[qoute]

I remain bewildered that people keep forgetting the concept of an underdog story when it comes to this movie. Come on, in SW, Luke Skywalker was just some gawky 19-year-old farmboy whose only combat training was shooting defenseless rodents while joyriding. In Die Hard, John McClain was explicitly, textually an ordinary, unremarkable cop who'd never faced a crisis like this before (never mind the sequels). The fact that the hero is a seemingly unimpressive little guy triumphing over a vastly superior foe is the whole point. How the hell is this any different?
[/qoute]
In those stories, we had villains who clearly didn't anticipate our wild card heroes... definitely McClain, who had the element of surprise for much of the movie...as well as an outside contact who was also an Underdog that proved himself (Reginald Van JOhnson's character)

Vader was slightly distracted by Luke's force abilities as well as the Death Star somehow missing the Millenium Falcon approaching the trenches. I think there are many, especially in today's age, who would have a little bit of an issue with Luke

[qoute]
Also, it's naive to think that a man who can control ants is a "lesser" Avenger. Ants are arguably the dominant multicellular life form on the planet, vastly exceeding humans in biomass, so whoever rules the ants basically rules the world. It's kinda like Aquaman -- people think of him as less important, but he's the literal king of the largest territory on Earth. The whole point of the movie was that Kang was foolish to underestimate Ant-Man, so it's bizarre that so many viewers make the same mistake that proved fatal for the villain.

This is a valid point... but did Quantumania able to adequately show how Scott's unique talents/thought process would spotlight that underdog quality? Avengers Endgame probably did a better job of that for Scott. I think THAT is what the issue is for some people.


===

I feel like the mistake we are making is thinking of Kang as one individual... the threat is rather the identity of Kang -- and because it is a multiverse... it really isn't one Kang we are walking about... it is multiple. So yeah,... the Kang we see in QUantumania may seem like a "weak" villain....but that's because there are way more versions of him, who are smarter and are working together.

The Kang Dynasty could have been about having one version of Kang rule throughout history... almost like the Cleon Dynasty of FOundation... but with time and the multiverse as upping the ante.

And regarding Dr. Doom ... With Fantasic 4 planned for next year, i assume we will either see him as Villain (again), or else in a teaser at the end. I know people want to build him up. first... but i think the oppostie could work here... The Secret Wars is more like where we first see Doom, and see how is smart enough to organize the villains.... but unlike Thanos, who "needed" to be killed, Doom will be an ongoing antagonist, who. is pulling the strings of the villains in future Marvel movies .

They will need something different for Phase 7 (possibly smaller??)

 

[MikHutch]

Actually I felt QM made Scott feel less of a joke than previous movies do. He felt like an actual powerhouse here. Which I liked. Because mocking a guy who can becoming gigantic on a team with bow-man and kick-lady seems ridiculous to me

 

[Grendelsbayne]

But his exile meant he was outside of time, and thus didn't have the powers he would in the regular timeline

I don't follow the character in comics so I don't know if he generally develops actual powers of some kind but my overall impression from the mcu so far is that he's entirely a (brilliant) technology dependent villain. So obviously being exiled with nothing but the pod that brought him there meant that he had to rebuild his entire technological power base almost from scratch. But that actually makes it rather impressive how much he was able recreate there, especially since the quantum realm doesn't seem to have any notable industrial or manufacturing capabilities of its own.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Also he can turn into a giant and squash you.

...like an ant.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

 

[JD]

And regarding Dr. Doom ... With Fantasic 4 planned for next year, i assume we will either see him as Villain (again), or else in a teaser at the end. I know people want to build him up. first... but i think the oppostie could work here... The Secret Wars is more like where we first see Doom, and see how is smart enough to organize the villains.... but unlike Thanos, who "needed" to be killed, Doom will be an ongoing antagonist, who. is pulling the strings of the villains in future Marvel movies .

I'm pretty sure Kang is going to be the villain in both the Kang Dynasty and Secret Wars. It would be rather strange to have Kang as the Big Bad for the entire Multiverse Saga, and then suddenly at the end bring in some other random guy who we've never seen before as the villain for the final movie. The only way something like that could work would be if we had hints and a build up to Doom in the lead up to Secret Wars, but so far we've never seen any hints of Doom, and I'm pretty sure if they had planned on setting him up for Secret Wars, they have started it by now.
I know Doom was the villain in the 2015 Secret Wars, but they've already made some pretty big changes when adapting specific comic storylines, so them switching Doom out for Kang wouldn't be that big of an issue.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I feel like the mistake we are making is thinking of Kang as one individual... the threat is rather the identity of Kang -- and because it is a multiverse... it really isn't one Kang we are walking about... it is multiple. So yeah,... the Kang we see in QUantumania may seem like a "weak" villain....but that's because there are way more versions of him, who are smarter and are working together.

I don't think they're all supposed to be seen as equally capable and interchangable either but that seems to have been lost in the shuffle.

 

[theenglish]

I'm actually thinking Doom will be an ally for Secret Wars, with and ending that sets him up as the major villain and world power for the final phase, maybe taking Osborne's place in a Dark Reign type era.

Marvel will need a quicker turn around in its build up to Avenger 7 anyway.

 

[Dee1891]

Kang in "Ant-Man 3" was a weak villain? I believe that honor goes to Walton Goggins in "Ant-Man 2". I believe he was the trilogy's only weak villain. Which is why it's the weakest of the three films to me.

 

[Tuskin38]

I was rewatching a scene from Winter Soldier, and realized the Captain America motif exists in-universe, it plays as part of the Smithsonian exhibit music.

I also just learned that Rhodey’s ring tone for Tony in Iron Man 1 is the 1966 Iron Man animated series theme

 

[JoeZhang]

Kang in "Ant-Man 3" was a weak villain? I believe that honor goes to Walter Goggins in "Ant-Man 2". I believe he was the trilogy's only weak villain. Which is why it's the weakest of the three films to me.

I don’t remember anything about that film let alone that Walter Goggins is in it…which supports your point I guess.

 

[Dee1891]

That's because I had misspelled his first name. And yet, you had used a minor mistake on my part to dismiss my post. How utterly childish.

 

[JoeZhang]

That's because I had misspelled his first name. And yet, you had used a minor mistake on my part to dismiss my post. How utterly childish.

Are you high? I had no idea that you had misspelt his name because without googling it I did think that was his name, but I know the actor you mean, and my point was that he's a charismatic, excellent actor, so the film must be forgettable that I cannot even remember it or him being in it.

 

[The Knappos]

They wasted the chance of casting Walton Goggins in the MCU on that role. That was like casting Charlton Heston as some, two line random gas station attendant or something.