Avengers >> View Post
Post By
America's Captain 

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,524
In Reply To
The Black Guardian

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 24,677
Subj: Re: Kang the Conqueror
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 at 06:28:32 am EST (Viewed 118 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Kang the Conqueror
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 at 04:36:30 pm EST (Viewed 124 times)


      If I had to sum Kang up in one word it would be...cruft.

    That is the perfect word for him, although I really don't mind the Rama Tut part of his story.

I had to look up "cruft" but I agree, perfect word.


      I won't see the Avengers movie that has Kang in it.

    Nor I.

I think Kang could be done well in the films. First, eliminate all the cruft. Absolutely all of it. He is simply Kang, a conqueror from the future. Descendant of nobody special in our time period. Never was anybody famous or infamous in any time period. Will never evolve into anyone new in his personal future. He is simply Kang.

Next, give him a reason for attacking the 21st century. This is important because if he messes with the time stream sufficiently he will cease to exist and he has to know this. I don't see him attacking the 21st century at all, really. I see him abducting the Avengers, bringing them to his time period, and doing something to them while they're there. I don't know what he'd do to them, but that's why Hollywood pays their writers big bucks. The important thing is, Kang attacks the Avengers directly and exclusively, and removes them from their time period, where they would have all the advantages, not the least of which would be the fact that Kang would have to restrain himself considerably so as not to screw up the time stream.

I was thinking Kang might make the Avengers into gladiators but we already saw that concept in the Thor movie. Perhaps he would make them into soldiers for fighting some war he's having trouble winning. Thus a moral conundrum: either (a) help Kang win a war that means nothing to the Avengers and nothing to the 21st century; or else (b) resist his will on principle because he seems nasty. Probably some Avengers will pick (a) while others pick (b) and that will set up the melodrama.

The trickiest element is Kang's super-science. If Marvel sticks with Kang being native to the 40th century, then his science should be invincible. I mean, that's 2000 years from now. If we don't wipe ourselves out, humanity will be gods 2000 years from now. I would reduce this number a bit. The 25th century seems more plausible.

Absolutely go nowhere near any of the cruft. No Egypt. No Nathaniel Richards (even if Marvel has the rights to do so at that point in time). No Doom. No Immortus. Definitely no Iron Lad. None of it.

Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software