Originally posted by tkitna
I dont know. I'm just not really into Kang all that much.
We know he's the big bad coming because they have an Avengers movie named for Kang coming in less than three years. That's time enough to sell him. I remember when people got cynical about Thanos and thought it's taking too long for his to arrive and he won't live up to the hype, but he did and exceeded our expectations.
In the comics, I'm not a big fan of someone who's mastered time travel, because I just ask myself 'why aren't they the master of everything anywhere? Why would they bother fighting at all?' It's like someone with super speed so extreme they can break the time barrier. But we have seen our time travel works in the MCU and it is messy and complicated, so I'm hoping to see Kang not just be all powerful.
Originally posted by roughrider
In the comics, I'm not a big fan of someone who's mastered time travel, because I just ask myself 'why aren't they the master of everything anywhere? Why would they bother fighting at all?' It's like someone with super speed so extreme they can break the time barrier. But we have seen our time travel works in the MCU and it is messy and complicated, so I'm hoping to see Kang not just be all powerful.
The thing i don't get with Kang is when he gets defeated. Why doesn't he just go somewhere prepares for that moment for when he gets defeated and then return back to that one point and win.
Originally posted by Kazenji
The thing i don't get with Kang is when he gets defeated. Why doesn't he just go somewhere prepares for that moment for when he gets defeated and then return back to that one point and win.
One could argue it's because Kang doesn't really care about winning:
Originally posted by Bentley
[b]Histrionics.Chaplin would be proud.
I decided to make a small contribution to Kang's mythos by condensing and discussing one of his most defining features as a character that can be overlooked when you first encounter him: Kang is an actor.
It could be argued that this intention appeared and faded in certain points of his history, and that several writers deemed such features inconsecuential and tried different approachs which never quite suceeded. They cannot be blamed, Kang's histrionism is hard to see given the media in which characterization tends to be weak and writers aren't invested enough to look at the characters closely.
So we have this misunderstood character that has never managed to be very popular since every bit of its complexity is hidden, his stories always involve an absurd time-puzzle and at first sight acts as the most stereotypical villain. To help him a little I'm going to explain what the character does, why it works and what's so cool about him.
First of all, no matter which version of Kang you pick, he's essentially this dude:
He wears a hat when he goes to the ruins, it may seem inconsecuential but it actually isn't.
In his first appearance he's pretending to be a pharaoh, in the second one he changed costumes and has become a time-conqueror. You could even think he's some sort of clown by the way he dresses and the color he uses; there is certainly some victorian age thing going on in those futurist robes.
The second great theater break we get is when Kang falls in love with Ravonna, the princess of a kingdom he must conquer. She sacrifices her life to save him, he lives to suffer his own failure. A Conqueror is one of those characters played in the big tragedies, think Othello going to war, or Julius Cesar. He used to play a pharaoh and now he's a conqueror? How can it be more obvious? Nathaniel Richards is an actor, Kang is his character; even his storylines are filled with theatrics.
Next arc: He plays against the Grandmaster, he wants power over life and death and if he loses his world dies; this is to save her loved Ravonna.
Given the stakes one should think he's serious, that he cares about Ravonna. He doesn't save her.
At this point most readers probably dismissed Kang already as the stereotypical villain who is just evil and cannot do otherwise. This is actually one of the bumpy roads of the characters, Kang is a conqueror, he kills before he loves, its part of his persona. Kang will mourn Ravonna for years to come.
Another important point of the character appears: His future as Immortus, his alternate future as the Scarlett Centurion, his past/future as Rama-tut or as Victor Timely. Those are other roles Nathaniel Richards will play and since time is the canvas there is already an ending. Kang's destiny is written, just like a tragedy.
Most of what makes it possible to understand the character is already in play: his future as Immortus, his acting, his love for Ravonna and the Conquering. Other stories will come with inferior caracterization, such as the Cross-time Kangs and Avengers the Crossing (gladly retconned).
We have four stories left which will shed light over Kang's histrionism: Citizen Kang, Terminatrix Objective, Avengers Forever and Kang's Dynasty.
Citizen Kang was the first attempt to make sense of Kang's whole story and motivations, funnily enough, it ends with Kang sacrificing himself to save Terminatrix.
Then Terminatrix Objective will come and undo every sense it tried to make, because suddenly Alioth is Kang's prime opponent, suddenly his fall and Citizen Kang was intentional. And this on time will be retconned into oblivion, because Kang's intention are never quite clear.
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb6/Enteithegreat/Kang%20the%20Conqueror/Kang-Histrionics/Thisisbs.jpg
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb6/Enteithegreat/Kang%20the%20Conqueror/Kang-Histrionics/Totallyposing.jpgIf anything these arcs marked again how over-the-top Kang tends to be, how his half-cooked ideas and motivations are worth dying for, how he can have everything he wants, but if he's not into it its not worth a dime.
By the way, its established that Kang doesn't give a sh*t about women:
But he still mourned Ravonna for years. By acting and investing himself Kang tries to inject some reality at everything he faces, he conquers because fighting for things make them valuable. Having power would be meaningless unless there is opposition. [/B]
