|Fantastic Four: TWGCM >> View Post|
Subj: Re: The Relationship Between Kang And Doom: Do The Two Of Them KNOW That They're Related? Infinity War
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 at 12:43:56 pm EST (Viewed 82 times)
Reply Subj: The Relationship Between Kang And Doom: Do The Two Of Them KNOW That They're Related? Infinity War
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 at 04:54:25 pm EST (Viewed 104 times)
Quote:I was looking through/kind of reading the Infinity War trade last week, and a good portion of the story has the two of them interacting and joining forces to stop the Magus (Who was the big threat for the arc.). Predictably, the two of them plan to double-cross each other and take the other one down after, but at no point or two was the ancestor thing ever mentioned or brought up. Also, during the original Secret Wars, Doom had Kang killed (Although he later brought him back.), but I don't think the relationship was brought up there either. So, I was wondering if the two of them knew that they had a relationship. Come to think of it, when was it first stated that Doom was his ancestor anyway? I THINK that it was during the Stan Lee period, but I've never read the full Doom and Kang origins from that era. Thanks.
I think Stan and Jack did imply Doom was Kang. But Byrne's idea was that Kang was the descendant of Reed's unnamed half brother from Nathaniel Richards marriage to Cassandra from Fantastic Four #272-273 and that Kang's real name was also Nathaniel Richards.
So by the time of Infinity War the Doom = Kang idea wasn't in fashion.
Of course with this being Kang there are several oddities/discrepancies/additions to take into account etc
1. Reed's stepmother Cassandra's timeline as presented in Fantastic Four #272-273 could not be Kang's timeline as Byrne implied. They did not use our calendar for measuring years...they started counting from when they landed on the moon and there was never a dark age. But we know Kang grew up watching holovids of the Fantastic Four. He couldn't have done that because that world didn't HAVE a Fantastic Four.
Byrne's own story undercuts the reason he created it...to explain Kang's link to the Richards.
2. DeFalco's run presents the idea that Kristoff is Nathaniel's son as well. And IMO he makes MORE sense than the idea Byrne came up with. If Kristoff is Kang's ancestor then genetically Kang is descended from the Richards and legally descended (as Kristoff is Doom's adopted son) from Doctor Doom. But that angle was never played up. (I wonder if Latveria is a thing in the 31st century...maybe Kang can make a case he's the rightful king)
3. DeFalco introduced yet another Nathaniel spawn named Huntarra. His intent as I understand it was that Huntarra was Cassandra's baby from Fantastic Four #272. But he didn't notice the baby was stated to be a boy or that he was a part of Kang's lineage as implied in Roy Thomas's Avengers West Coast #61. (there was a subplot in Fantastic Four where it was implied Huntarra might not be Nathaniel's and she might be a missing girl named Mary Alvarez but the final issues of that series imply that Zarathustra was really Mary)
4. That Nathaniel that was such a sower of wild oats in DeFalco's run was retconned into being just an alternate reality version in Hickman's FF run. The "real" version of Nathaniel is in that run. Oh and all the Nathaniels in the multiverse are wiped out but that real one.
5. Iron Boy...yet another version of Kang. I think it's interesting the girl he was after was Ant Man's daughter...also named Cassandra. The names Nathaniel, Cassandra and Marcus seem to pop up a lot in the family tree. I'm convinced Reed's unnamed half-brother should be named Marcus. Kang and Immortus always name their sons that. (I guess Rama Tut had Ramades and he doesn't follow the pattern)
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2017 Powermad Software|