Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
And they'd sneak "the Conqueror" somewhere. Like:
"Kang is coming!"
(character looks alarmed) "...The conqueror."
edited 5th May '15 9:38:44 PM by Gaon
"All you Fascists bound to lose."Going the other way around and just calling him The Conqueror instead also seems feasible.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."Were Ming a different character, perhaps. Ming is a touchy figure due to being a nasty Yellow Peril stereotype and all the baggage that comes with that. Though it's a little off topic, as this is a problem specific to just Ming.
Not trying to say that Kang would have the same Unfortunate Implications, but the name has a similar level of extreme campiness to it.
edited 5th May '15 10:09:55 PM by AlleyOop
But why exactly "Kang the Conqueror" calls this kind of crap to mind? I mean, I understand you saying it sounds goofy, but saying it is comparable to a racist caricature is a big stretch.
Unless there is more to Kang than I know, of course. Until just now I didn't even know he was Nathaniel Richards. Pretty much all I know about him comes from Young Avengers, which is not much.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/joss-whedon-on-leaving-twitter#.itMmE6VZz8
Welp, there we have it. Figured as much, although the comments about no Buffy trolls is kind of odd considering Buffy is far from immune to Fan Dumb.
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/why-avengers-age-ultron-killed-235000063.html
Why Ao U killed the wrong character. Tl;dr: Hawkeye should have died because he blows chunks and Quicksilver is both more interesting and more useful in literally every conceivable way.
Hawkeye was a lot more entertaining than Quicksilver. I also think it's funny that they think Ao U should have been MORE clichéd, with the family/retirement/going back to rescue a kid death markers (that were 100% intentional according to Whedon) actually leading to Hawkeye being killed off.
He is always great, though he really tends to play the down-to-earth everyday man. That's his forte. (He was especially lol-worthy in Love Actually).
Honestly, I love the idea that there is an Avenger who not only managed to raise a family despite his "job", but apparently even gets his happily ever after with them. I hope it stays that way!
When he and Wanda confronted the Vibranium miner, the guys shoots at Pietro, and he neatly lines the shells up on the guy's desk.
EDIT: Actually, in retrospect, I think those shells were too big for that gun. That probably wasn't what happened. Ignore me.
edited 6th May '15 6:48:12 AM by Psychobabble6
And if I claim to be a wise man, well, it surely means that I don't know.

Eh
Kang
Kang is fine but geez he has some exceptionally blah stories to him. Even the supposed iconic Celestial Madonna story
he goes back in time to try to force a woman to marry him and give birth to a super strong baby. But which woman could it be? Mantis? Scarlet Witch? The woman who is probably 90 years old?
Can't take any chances, you kidnap that old woman, Kang!
Forever liveblogging the Avengers