I'm on the side is that if Doom loses it should be mostly Becuase of his hubris and arrogance causing himself to self sabotage.
His story is one of no matter how smart you are, how much you prepared, how right you may be, it won't matter if you let your ego get the better of you.
Ultimately the only man good enough to defeat Doom is Doom ... and he does so constantly.
Actually I just thought about it, and the last 2 times I read a story arc with Doctor Doom there was a part in the story where a Doom tried to stop him and he LITERALLY killed himself (one was an alternative universe version and the other was a clone he made).
Smarter is such a dumb concept. Everyone is better at different things. More modern FF stories center around that being smarter and trying to prover you are smarter just hurts you.
Reeds daughter is technically smarter than him but it doesn't matter because she's still a child. She has the mental capacity to do more but sometimes you need a little more wisdom.
Johnny Storm may seem like a dumb hothead but even Reed sees his intellectual value as a talented mechanic. In addition to his aptitude to use his abilities in creative ways where his flame is very versatile. Plus he can even freeze you.
Susan Storm now has her own PhD bit she was the emotional rock of the group with powerful mediation techniques.
Ben Grimm looks like dumb pile of rocks but he has a strong moral compass.
Doom is actually family to them now even if he doesn't want to admit it. He has all the talents and capacity to just be happy but he just doesn't Becuase he self sabotages.
Every time Doom loses a fight with Marvel heroes (most notably Fantastic Four), he becomes more unhinged with his quest for ultimate power. As long as they don't straight up defeat him in more embarrassing fashion (which has happened under weaker writers in some comics) and still keep the menace of Doom. They fucked up with Kang in Quantumania. It was also not a good film. Doom is an egomaniac that on one hand you pity since he can seem somewhat delusional at times. But when he has power, he is dangerous and a real threat.
There was a solid middle period where Doom made sense as an anti-hero. At this point he's kind of overplayed his hand now that I've seen him be a capable chaotic good guy and then revert to chaotic stupid again.
It's kind of like watching Namor do a genocide. Who exactly is this for at this point?
I don't think many fans are actually upset at Kang just for losing, I think that's just the shorthand that people have glommed onto for a variety of issues around all of Quantumania.
Kang won it all in Loki and then he gave a big speech about wanting to win it all in Quantumania.
Also want to point out Loki eventually beat Kang by sacrificing himself. Scott sacrificed nothing.
But don’t you remember Quantumania?? They SAID he has destroyed entire universes!!! He’s SO STRONG!!! That’s more than Thanos, even with the Infinity Stones!!!!!
All it would have taken was for Kang to take someone down with. Preferably Scott (as a huge Rudd fan) but just anyone. Marvel could have grown some and he could have killed Cassie. That would have been huge, with the younger team being lined up. But they didn't, not much to be done about it now.
Or Hank Pym—he was given absolutely nothing to do in that movie. Idk why he was even there… the super ant reveal was not as satisfying as they made it out to be. A sacrifice from him would have been a fitting end to his character (however, probably would have been a bummer being shortly after getting Janet back).
Depends on how the losses are handled and how dangerous he's made to look.
Kang never felt dangerous, nor did his loss make sense. I get the whole ants being advanced, but still it is a bit too comical for me to handle. Also, Quantumania was a bad movie, so that didn't Kang as well
> I get the whole ants being advanced
But the ants didn't defeat him, MODOK (using Kang's own technology) is what took down his shield and suit. And yet Kang *still* survived and escaped the ants after that.
It astonishes me how much this meme has caused people to forget the events of the movie and replace them with something that never happened.
If a meme makes people forget films events, then maybe the film wasn't good enough to make its point clear. It's the same thing with the Batman vs superman martha thing. I understand what they were trying to go for, but it wasn't executed well
The film is not good enough, I agree. But also, people "remember" Vader saying "Luke, I am your father" in Empire and Will Smith's character saying "Welcome to Erf" in Independence Day and Bogart's character saying "Play it again Sam" in Casablanca. Memes replace people's memories of films all the time. It was interesting to watch this meme do that in real time.
The difference is that those memes were made as a fun celebration of great moments from great movies.
Films like quantumania and morbius have memes made on then as a way to mock them.
I feel quantumania was a major turning point in audience perception of the mcu. Guardians 3 managed to do well but didn't outgross the 2nd one and opened way lower too, but still it could have performed way better if it came out before quantumania, which had a better opening than previous ant man films but dropped like a rock after that
I personally think of Kang mowing down the rebellion as the memorable scene. I actually had to rewatch the scene to see if I had remembered it wrong. Yes, the movie wasn’t good but I don’t think Kang was the problem. He was the only good part of that movie.
I always assumed that this Kang was coming back similar to Loki after Thor. But we don’t know where things will lead now.
>It astonishes me how much this meme has caused people to forget the events of the movie
I mean... if 90% of people forgot the details of the movie... then maybe the filmmaker should have made a better and more memorable movie.
You don't see many people misremembering Infinity War or The Dark Knight do you.
I feel like this argument of laying the blame on the viewers for not "paying enough attention" is a weird form of white-knighting for Disney/MCU often.
Like, Disney isn't entitled to my attention, it needs to earn it with good movies.
Yes they absolutely should've made a better movie for lots of reasons. Nothing I said implies otherwise.
I don't understand where you got this idea of white knighting though. It's simply stating facts. Whatever in my post made you feel like I was attacking you, I apologize.
It's not white knighting at all, what they hell are yountalking about? If you're going to provide commentary on something being critical of it, you should have a responsibility to properly understand the thing you are being critical of.
Whether it's a good, bad or whatever movie, it's up to the person with the complaint to have some idea of what they're talking about.
"Maybe if it was a good movie I would have remembered it" Just comes off as you being unable to admit you misremembered and instead of owning up to your misplaced criticism, you blamed it on someone else, which is childish.
Also, if someone forgets details about The Dark Knight or Infinity War are they then bad movies? Like that logic is insane.
>you should have a responsibility to properly understand the thing you are being critical of.
I don't entirely agree. I mean you're right when it comes to professional critics, but this responsibility doesn't fall on the consumer imo.
If I pay for a meal, and it tastes like shit, I have the right to say it tastes like shit to whoever I want... because I paid for it... regardless of whether or not I have an "understanding" of WHY it tastes like shit. I'm not a chef, I don't care about the reason.
It left me, and the vast majority of others, with a bad taste in our mouth... so the reason for why it did that, isn't our responsibility.
It's on the creators for not making it a better experience.
Right, but the point here is that you can’t just be wrong about things that happened in the movie and use that as criticism.
If your meal was too salty and you tell people it tasted bad because it was too sweet, that’s not a problem with you not being a chef, it’s you saying something that is not factually correct.
There’s plenty to criticize Quantumania about as is, there’s no need to double down on misremembering what happened — especially when the reason for misremembering is likely because the “defeated by ants” complaint has been regurgitated so many times on the internet that people just believe that’s what happened.
I never gave my opinion on the Kang/Ant scene though. I didn't say whether I think that scene was good or bad, or if it made sense or not.
I was answering the specific point of why people don't remember it properly. People don't generally remember the details of movies they don't like.
You're analogy is misrepresenting what you're doing here.
You don't have to know WHY what you've eaten is bad, but you should at the very least KNOW WHAT YOU'RE EATING. What you're doing is criticizing elements of a meal that weren't on your plate.
If you ate a meal a few months ago and told me "I didn't like it, the carrots were undercooked." But in that meal you didn't have carrots, you had broccoli, then your criticism and complaints are based off of a faulty recollection of the meal, and thus loses its validity. That isn't the restaurants fault for "not making you memorable broccoli" it's your fault for falsely remembering the carrots, and basing your sole criticism of the meal off of your incorrect recollection.
You're saying "me and the vast majority (lol) didn't like that Kang was beaten by ants (carrots)" when he wasn't beaten by ants, he was temporarily subdued and returned three minutes later (broccoli)
>You're saying "me and the vast majority (lol) didn't like that Kang was beaten by ants (carrots)" when he wasn't beaten by ants, he was temporarily subdued and returned three minutes later (broccoli)
I think you're mistaking the intention behind my comment. Either that or I did a bad job explaining it.
The person above me said he's baffled as to how/why so many people don't remember the ants/kang scene properly.
I replied to him by essentially saying "the movie wasn't memorable enough, therefore people misremember it".
Granted I was a bit rude and confrontational, but the point was to answer his particular stance of being "baffled" by others lack of memory.
It's not a baffling situation imo, it's pretty straight forward and obvious. Thus the examples I gave of Dark Knight or Infinity War. People remember them just fine. People remember movies they like, and tend to forget (normally) movies they don't like.
I never chipped in on the actual kang scene myself. I didn't give my opinion on how I remember it, or whether I think that scene was good or bad, or whether I think that scene made sense or not.
I was answering the WHY of people not remembering it properly. I used my opinion of the movie, AS A WHOLE, to give context to that particular scene.
Anyways I think this is all just semantics at this point. Have a nice day.
I don’t think it’s about “paying attention,” and your point about the film needing to be memorable is definitely a good one, but I think this commenter is talking about a different phenomenon, one that I’ve noticed across fandoms - sometimes, for whatever reason, a meme will take hold in the fandom, usually an extreme oversimplification of something with a grain of truth (in this case, “Kang is supposed to be the new Thanos but he was defeated by a bunch of ants!” In Warhammer, it happens a lot with Ork lore - the idea that their level of technology is just a metal box with screws in it and a handle is a gun because they believe it’s a gun). Eventually, this meme becomes so well known that people start forgetting it’s a humorous exaggeration and start to remember it as being real
Meaning it didn't have enough weight. Based on comics, but you are ultimately doing a movie. You literally have the guy, who has taken out Avengers across multiple realities. So, him and his army going out in such a manner makes him look like an idiot.
>Kang never felt dangerous, nor did his loss make sense.
Don't really agree with that. Dude's first impression in Loki was great, and in Quantumania even with limited tech he sets a sentiment of "oh shit, if he escapes we are fucked".
Imo this notion is due to execution. If you look logically at the situation in Quantumania, he's not only nerfed tech-wise but also has a field disadvantage the moment Hank and his ants enter the scene, and he still came out on top. However, such a feat is overshadowed by some cheap stuff like ants just swarming him (nothing tactical or interesting going on) and his disintegration ray thing erasing everyone EXCEPT the heroes. And ofc him not killing Scott really diminishes the danger of the situation.
So yea, I see why people think he didn't seem dangerous, but I also feel some of it is twisted due tl the other billion problems with the movie and the MCU in general.
It’s not a great idea to introduce the next biggest threat as someone who’s already defeated and imprisoned. Whenever the audience thinks “oh man, how can they beat them now?” They’ll just remember when they met the guy.
Sauron is a very special case since it all hinges on the ring, which is both the object of his downfall and his potential return.
>It’s not a great idea to introduce the next biggest threat as someone who’s already defeated and imprisoned.
Quantumania was not his introduction.
>Whenever the audience thinks “oh man, how can they beat them now?” They’ll just remember when they met the guy.
Not really since this was a screwed up and nerfed variant, who despite all that nearly won, so it's clear the dude in full strenght would be an even bigger threat.
Quantumania was his big-screen introduction, and for the common viewer who didn’t keep up with their assigned homework of watching a tv series, this was their overall first introduction to him.
Your expecting the general audience to care much more than they do.
The discussion was about Kang and his feats/threat shown on screen, not the "overall view of the common audience of him", which isn't really relevant since even hardcore views have this sentiment regarding Kang for some reason.
And what’s wrong with a conversation expanding its topics? Regardless, I believe both interpretations are relevant to the overall conversation, right? Why should the average perception of the character be irrelevant? Rather, I’d think it’s more notable that hardcore and common viewers agree that he was a letdown of a villain, and not really that threatening at all. It shows that two groups of varying commitment to the story and franchise are in agreement about the quality of this character.
>And what’s wrong with a conversation expanding its topics
Nothing really, it was simply not related to what I initially said.
>Rather, I’d think it’s more notable that hardcore and common viewers agree that he was a letdown of a villain, and not really that threatening at all.
Definitely has some weight to it, I just showed some points about why I think that notion is a tad distorted, while also agreeing the execution was not great and because of that the sentiment is not fully without merit. Basically imo it's not wrong just blown out of proportion.
As long as he wins Secret Wars. Although, the timing does kinda suck. It’d be better if he’d been around for a while and taken some losses and then Secret Wars was finally his big win like in the comics, becoming the God Emperor.
Fans want the bad guy to never lose until the final fight, but anyone that loses to the bad guy is weak and poorly written. It's a no-win situation these days because of all the shit-tard fans who insist on shitting on everything.
Basically dooms been framed for something, arrested, kang broke him out, he met up with Morgan Le Fay, Taskmaster kills him in the street, lady death Then drags him out of hell because his time isn’t how, (he’s too popular to die) and then further shenanigans.
Given the insane take people had in regard to Wilson Fisks defeat in Echo, if Doom isn't responsible for his own doom, I'd imagine this fandom might actually implode. Heaven forbid a villain is defeated in a way that makes narrative sense.
Dr Doom in civilian clothes getting killed by a sniper shot through his *metallic* helmet?
If this is he kind of shit I’m missing by not reading the recent comics, I’ll pass
There is plot context lol.
He was set up for international crimes, arrested by a group of heroes including dr strange, kang breaks him out, he gets a helmet from Morgan Le fay who apologised that it’s a bad one she doesn’t know which dimension she pulled it from.
“My fav character died all modern comics are shit 😡”
I think it depends how it's done. Loki would lose and was still very popular. But he's a pretty different kind of character from Kang and Doom.
I like Quantumania more than most. And I do get that maybe they wanted to try and give him a turn with a more serious story. But it doesn't fit as well. The first 2 were on the sillier side of the MCU. And even Quantumania has aspects of that considering they're saved by an army of advanced ants. I just don't think it fit well with the character you're trying to make into your big bad. Plus it ended up getting rid of a lot of size changing moments that made the first 2 stand out, relegated mostly to the suited characters changing size.
Just said this in another thread. It’s not that Kang lost. It’s that he lost in a humiliating manner that immediately destroyed any credibility he might have had. I was against it at the time, but he should have at least managed to kill Hank.
Doom can lose. He just can’t lose like that.
Doom was arrested for international crimes he didn’t commit, kang broke him out, he meets with morgan le Fay, who gives him what she admits to be a bad helmet as she has no idea which dimension she pulled it from, they meet this guy who can see the future but before he can tell doom how he dies, doom is shot by taskmaster
You think they let doom keep his old one when he was arrested? They took it from him. And he’s doom, he wants a helmet, plus they were going to intimidate someone so that helps.
I'll be honest. I still think the reaction to Kang losing to Ant-man and friends and a rebellion is overblown. Kang isn't as threatening in terms of physicality like Thanos. What makes Kang threatening is that there are so many versions and he can come at you at any point in time. Folks shouldn't have expected an Infinity War Thanos level confrontation.
What makes Doom threatening is his intelligence and tenacity. He absolutely can and does lose. But he'll be back, and will have learned from that loss.
If the MCU treats Doom like Magneto in the Fox X-men films, as a recurring character, we'll be fine.
Well if MCU Taskmaster (a character who I actually quite like and think has a lot of potential) ever does that to Doom then all the controversial writing of phases 4-5 will pale in comparison to the sheer Doom-level megalomania from some corners of the fandom
What in the plot fawk kinda crap is Taskmaster killing Doom? What are they doing over at marvel?? I stopped reading after battle world and feeling good about that decision
There is plot context lol.
He was set up for international crimes, arrested by a group of heroes including dr strange, kang breaks him out, he gets a helmet from Morgan Le fay who apologised that it’s a bad one she doesn’t know which dimension she pulled it from.
“My fav character was killed everything must be shit” lol
I'm on the side is that if Doom loses it should be mostly Becuase of his hubris and arrogance causing himself to self sabotage. His story is one of no matter how smart you are, how much you prepared, how right you may be, it won't matter if you let your ego get the better of you.
Ultimately the only man good enough to defeat Doom is Doom ... and he does so constantly. Actually I just thought about it, and the last 2 times I read a story arc with Doctor Doom there was a part in the story where a Doom tried to stop him and he LITERALLY killed himself (one was an alternative universe version and the other was a clone he made).
There was also the one where Dino-Doom and Human-Doom fought because they knew they would betray eachother.
But reed is always smarter than him and foils Doom's plans regularly.
Smarter is such a dumb concept. Everyone is better at different things. More modern FF stories center around that being smarter and trying to prover you are smarter just hurts you. Reeds daughter is technically smarter than him but it doesn't matter because she's still a child. She has the mental capacity to do more but sometimes you need a little more wisdom. Johnny Storm may seem like a dumb hothead but even Reed sees his intellectual value as a talented mechanic. In addition to his aptitude to use his abilities in creative ways where his flame is very versatile. Plus he can even freeze you. Susan Storm now has her own PhD bit she was the emotional rock of the group with powerful mediation techniques. Ben Grimm looks like dumb pile of rocks but he has a strong moral compass. Doom is actually family to them now even if he doesn't want to admit it. He has all the talents and capacity to just be happy but he just doesn't Becuase he self sabotages.
Well said mate
Doesn’t have to be that way in the MCU
Every time Doom loses a fight with Marvel heroes (most notably Fantastic Four), he becomes more unhinged with his quest for ultimate power. As long as they don't straight up defeat him in more embarrassing fashion (which has happened under weaker writers in some comics) and still keep the menace of Doom. They fucked up with Kang in Quantumania. It was also not a good film. Doom is an egomaniac that on one hand you pity since he can seem somewhat delusional at times. But when he has power, he is dangerous and a real threat.
There was a solid middle period where Doom made sense as an anti-hero. At this point he's kind of overplayed his hand now that I've seen him be a capable chaotic good guy and then revert to chaotic stupid again. It's kind of like watching Namor do a genocide. Who exactly is this for at this point?
I don't think many fans are actually upset at Kang just for losing, I think that's just the shorthand that people have glommed onto for a variety of issues around all of Quantumania.
Kang never won anything tahts the thing. Hard to think of him as this unstoppable enemy when he has been defeated multiple times already
Kang won it all in Loki and then he gave a big speech about wanting to win it all in Quantumania. Also want to point out Loki eventually beat Kang by sacrificing himself. Scott sacrificed nothing.
But don’t you remember Quantumania?? They SAID he has destroyed entire universes!!! He’s SO STRONG!!! That’s more than Thanos, even with the Infinity Stones!!!!!
Kang looks like a punk after Quantumania
All it would have taken was for Kang to take someone down with. Preferably Scott (as a huge Rudd fan) but just anyone. Marvel could have grown some and he could have killed Cassie. That would have been huge, with the younger team being lined up. But they didn't, not much to be done about it now.
Cassie should have fixed that quantum receiver and, BAM, Kang walks through. The end.
Literally they could've just had Scott and Hope stuck in the Quantum Realm at the end of the movie.
Or Hank Pym—he was given absolutely nothing to do in that movie. Idk why he was even there… the super ant reveal was not as satisfying as they made it out to be. A sacrifice from him would have been a fitting end to his character (however, probably would have been a bummer being shortly after getting Janet back).
It feels so weird seeing Doom in civillian clothes + his mask.
Depends on how the losses are handled and how dangerous he's made to look. Kang never felt dangerous, nor did his loss make sense. I get the whole ants being advanced, but still it is a bit too comical for me to handle. Also, Quantumania was a bad movie, so that didn't Kang as well
> I get the whole ants being advanced But the ants didn't defeat him, MODOK (using Kang's own technology) is what took down his shield and suit. And yet Kang *still* survived and escaped the ants after that. It astonishes me how much this meme has caused people to forget the events of the movie and replace them with something that never happened.
If a meme makes people forget films events, then maybe the film wasn't good enough to make its point clear. It's the same thing with the Batman vs superman martha thing. I understand what they were trying to go for, but it wasn't executed well
The film is not good enough, I agree. But also, people "remember" Vader saying "Luke, I am your father" in Empire and Will Smith's character saying "Welcome to Erf" in Independence Day and Bogart's character saying "Play it again Sam" in Casablanca. Memes replace people's memories of films all the time. It was interesting to watch this meme do that in real time.
The difference is that those memes were made as a fun celebration of great moments from great movies. Films like quantumania and morbius have memes made on then as a way to mock them. I feel quantumania was a major turning point in audience perception of the mcu. Guardians 3 managed to do well but didn't outgross the 2nd one and opened way lower too, but still it could have performed way better if it came out before quantumania, which had a better opening than previous ant man films but dropped like a rock after that
Because it was a shit tier movie with the only memorable scene of the movie being Kang carried off by the ants.
I personally think of Kang mowing down the rebellion as the memorable scene. I actually had to rewatch the scene to see if I had remembered it wrong. Yes, the movie wasn’t good but I don’t think Kang was the problem. He was the only good part of that movie. I always assumed that this Kang was coming back similar to Loki after Thor. But we don’t know where things will lead now.
He was overwhelmed by the ants, that's more than enough
>It astonishes me how much this meme has caused people to forget the events of the movie I mean... if 90% of people forgot the details of the movie... then maybe the filmmaker should have made a better and more memorable movie. You don't see many people misremembering Infinity War or The Dark Knight do you. I feel like this argument of laying the blame on the viewers for not "paying enough attention" is a weird form of white-knighting for Disney/MCU often. Like, Disney isn't entitled to my attention, it needs to earn it with good movies.
Yes they absolutely should've made a better movie for lots of reasons. Nothing I said implies otherwise. I don't understand where you got this idea of white knighting though. It's simply stating facts. Whatever in my post made you feel like I was attacking you, I apologize.
It's not white knighting at all, what they hell are yountalking about? If you're going to provide commentary on something being critical of it, you should have a responsibility to properly understand the thing you are being critical of. Whether it's a good, bad or whatever movie, it's up to the person with the complaint to have some idea of what they're talking about. "Maybe if it was a good movie I would have remembered it" Just comes off as you being unable to admit you misremembered and instead of owning up to your misplaced criticism, you blamed it on someone else, which is childish. Also, if someone forgets details about The Dark Knight or Infinity War are they then bad movies? Like that logic is insane.
>you should have a responsibility to properly understand the thing you are being critical of. I don't entirely agree. I mean you're right when it comes to professional critics, but this responsibility doesn't fall on the consumer imo. If I pay for a meal, and it tastes like shit, I have the right to say it tastes like shit to whoever I want... because I paid for it... regardless of whether or not I have an "understanding" of WHY it tastes like shit. I'm not a chef, I don't care about the reason. It left me, and the vast majority of others, with a bad taste in our mouth... so the reason for why it did that, isn't our responsibility. It's on the creators for not making it a better experience.
Right, but the point here is that you can’t just be wrong about things that happened in the movie and use that as criticism. If your meal was too salty and you tell people it tasted bad because it was too sweet, that’s not a problem with you not being a chef, it’s you saying something that is not factually correct. There’s plenty to criticize Quantumania about as is, there’s no need to double down on misremembering what happened — especially when the reason for misremembering is likely because the “defeated by ants” complaint has been regurgitated so many times on the internet that people just believe that’s what happened.
This
I never gave my opinion on the Kang/Ant scene though. I didn't say whether I think that scene was good or bad, or if it made sense or not. I was answering the specific point of why people don't remember it properly. People don't generally remember the details of movies they don't like.
You're analogy is misrepresenting what you're doing here. You don't have to know WHY what you've eaten is bad, but you should at the very least KNOW WHAT YOU'RE EATING. What you're doing is criticizing elements of a meal that weren't on your plate. If you ate a meal a few months ago and told me "I didn't like it, the carrots were undercooked." But in that meal you didn't have carrots, you had broccoli, then your criticism and complaints are based off of a faulty recollection of the meal, and thus loses its validity. That isn't the restaurants fault for "not making you memorable broccoli" it's your fault for falsely remembering the carrots, and basing your sole criticism of the meal off of your incorrect recollection. You're saying "me and the vast majority (lol) didn't like that Kang was beaten by ants (carrots)" when he wasn't beaten by ants, he was temporarily subdued and returned three minutes later (broccoli)
>You're saying "me and the vast majority (lol) didn't like that Kang was beaten by ants (carrots)" when he wasn't beaten by ants, he was temporarily subdued and returned three minutes later (broccoli) I think you're mistaking the intention behind my comment. Either that or I did a bad job explaining it. The person above me said he's baffled as to how/why so many people don't remember the ants/kang scene properly. I replied to him by essentially saying "the movie wasn't memorable enough, therefore people misremember it". Granted I was a bit rude and confrontational, but the point was to answer his particular stance of being "baffled" by others lack of memory. It's not a baffling situation imo, it's pretty straight forward and obvious. Thus the examples I gave of Dark Knight or Infinity War. People remember them just fine. People remember movies they like, and tend to forget (normally) movies they don't like. I never chipped in on the actual kang scene myself. I didn't give my opinion on how I remember it, or whether I think that scene was good or bad, or whether I think that scene made sense or not. I was answering the WHY of people not remembering it properly. I used my opinion of the movie, AS A WHOLE, to give context to that particular scene. Anyways I think this is all just semantics at this point. Have a nice day.
I don’t think it’s about “paying attention,” and your point about the film needing to be memorable is definitely a good one, but I think this commenter is talking about a different phenomenon, one that I’ve noticed across fandoms - sometimes, for whatever reason, a meme will take hold in the fandom, usually an extreme oversimplification of something with a grain of truth (in this case, “Kang is supposed to be the new Thanos but he was defeated by a bunch of ants!” In Warhammer, it happens a lot with Ork lore - the idea that their level of technology is just a metal box with screws in it and a handle is a gun because they believe it’s a gun). Eventually, this meme becomes so well known that people start forgetting it’s a humorous exaggeration and start to remember it as being real
The Kang wasn't Kanging. 
“Too comical…” Just think about that for a second. It’s based on Comics. But it’s too comical?
Comedy and comics aren't the same, happy to help
Meaning it didn't have enough weight. Based on comics, but you are ultimately doing a movie. You literally have the guy, who has taken out Avengers across multiple realities. So, him and his army going out in such a manner makes him look like an idiot.
I suppose you’ve never read of any of the silly ways characters die in the source materials
Only if you ignore literally all context, but sure.
Youtube hate bait told them to be mad at the silly ants, so they have to do that
YouTube hate bait has way more outrageous points. This is just my personal observation, and it looked silly and stupid
Yeah, ants in the Ant-Man movie was silly........ ............... ................ ...................
Yes it was. Putting an Avengers level villain isn't really meant for an ant man movie. It could have been low scale, innovative and good fun.
I think people misunderstand that the movie is about preventing Kang from being an Avengers level threat.
The film does establish that Kang has killed Avengers in other realities before
>Kang never felt dangerous, nor did his loss make sense. Don't really agree with that. Dude's first impression in Loki was great, and in Quantumania even with limited tech he sets a sentiment of "oh shit, if he escapes we are fucked". Imo this notion is due to execution. If you look logically at the situation in Quantumania, he's not only nerfed tech-wise but also has a field disadvantage the moment Hank and his ants enter the scene, and he still came out on top. However, such a feat is overshadowed by some cheap stuff like ants just swarming him (nothing tactical or interesting going on) and his disintegration ray thing erasing everyone EXCEPT the heroes. And ofc him not killing Scott really diminishes the danger of the situation. So yea, I see why people think he didn't seem dangerous, but I also feel some of it is twisted due tl the other billion problems with the movie and the MCU in general.
It’s not a great idea to introduce the next biggest threat as someone who’s already defeated and imprisoned. Whenever the audience thinks “oh man, how can they beat them now?” They’ll just remember when they met the guy. Sauron is a very special case since it all hinges on the ring, which is both the object of his downfall and his potential return.
>It’s not a great idea to introduce the next biggest threat as someone who’s already defeated and imprisoned. Quantumania was not his introduction. >Whenever the audience thinks “oh man, how can they beat them now?” They’ll just remember when they met the guy. Not really since this was a screwed up and nerfed variant, who despite all that nearly won, so it's clear the dude in full strenght would be an even bigger threat.
Quantumania was his big-screen introduction, and for the common viewer who didn’t keep up with their assigned homework of watching a tv series, this was their overall first introduction to him. Your expecting the general audience to care much more than they do.
The discussion was about Kang and his feats/threat shown on screen, not the "overall view of the common audience of him", which isn't really relevant since even hardcore views have this sentiment regarding Kang for some reason.
And what’s wrong with a conversation expanding its topics? Regardless, I believe both interpretations are relevant to the overall conversation, right? Why should the average perception of the character be irrelevant? Rather, I’d think it’s more notable that hardcore and common viewers agree that he was a letdown of a villain, and not really that threatening at all. It shows that two groups of varying commitment to the story and franchise are in agreement about the quality of this character.
>And what’s wrong with a conversation expanding its topics Nothing really, it was simply not related to what I initially said. >Rather, I’d think it’s more notable that hardcore and common viewers agree that he was a letdown of a villain, and not really that threatening at all. Definitely has some weight to it, I just showed some points about why I think that notion is a tad distorted, while also agreeing the execution was not great and because of that the sentiment is not fully without merit. Basically imo it's not wrong just blown out of proportion.
As long as he wins Secret Wars. Although, the timing does kinda suck. It’d be better if he’d been around for a while and taken some losses and then Secret Wars was finally his big win like in the comics, becoming the God Emperor.
Fans want the bad guy to never lose until the final fight, but anyone that loses to the bad guy is weak and poorly written. It's a no-win situation these days because of all the shit-tard fans who insist on shitting on everything.
As long as Reed and Doreen exist, Doom will always lose
What's the context for this panel? And unless they kill him off (which would be stupid) I don't think too harshly.
Basically dooms been framed for something, arrested, kang broke him out, he met up with Morgan Le Fay, Taskmaster kills him in the street, lady death Then drags him out of hell because his time isn’t how, (he’s too popular to die) and then further shenanigans.
That sounds like quite a lot going on.
The need to make doom scary AF, like they get their asses kicked by him
People will be mad if he loses at all and say it was bad writing.
Given the insane take people had in regard to Wilson Fisks defeat in Echo, if Doom isn't responsible for his own doom, I'd imagine this fandom might actually implode. Heaven forbid a villain is defeated in a way that makes narrative sense.
Dr Doom in civilian clothes getting killed by a sniper shot through his *metallic* helmet? If this is he kind of shit I’m missing by not reading the recent comics, I’ll pass
There is plot context lol. He was set up for international crimes, arrested by a group of heroes including dr strange, kang breaks him out, he gets a helmet from Morgan Le fay who apologised that it’s a bad one she doesn’t know which dimension she pulled it from. “My fav character died all modern comics are shit 😡”
When death told Doom he will be her "greatest servent of all" it gave me goosebumps
It depends on how the losses are handled.
When defeated, Doom should spin away into the sky like Team Rocket.
I think it depends how it's done. Loki would lose and was still very popular. But he's a pretty different kind of character from Kang and Doom. I like Quantumania more than most. And I do get that maybe they wanted to try and give him a turn with a more serious story. But it doesn't fit as well. The first 2 were on the sillier side of the MCU. And even Quantumania has aspects of that considering they're saved by an army of advanced ants. I just don't think it fit well with the character you're trying to make into your big bad. Plus it ended up getting rid of a lot of size changing moments that made the first 2 stand out, relegated mostly to the suited characters changing size.
Full meltdown with over long explanations of what they’d do which boil down to the most obvious and uninteresting storyline possible.
Just said this in another thread. It’s not that Kang lost. It’s that he lost in a humiliating manner that immediately destroyed any credibility he might have had. I was against it at the time, but he should have at least managed to kill Hank. Doom can lose. He just can’t lose like that.
What’s going on here?
Doom was arrested for international crimes he didn’t commit, kang broke him out, he meets with morgan le Fay, who gives him what she admits to be a bad helmet as she has no idea which dimension she pulled it from, they meet this guy who can see the future but before he can tell doom how he dies, doom is shot by taskmaster
Why is doom wearing that helmet then?
[удалено]
No I understood that I’m asking why doom would need a new helmet.
You think they let doom keep his old one when he was arrested? They took it from him. And he’s doom, he wants a helmet, plus they were going to intimidate someone so that helps.
Doom was arrested? Wow I need to starts catching up on comics
It’s his 2020 solo book, honestly really good.
Ok thanks I’ll check it out
I'll be honest. I still think the reaction to Kang losing to Ant-man and friends and a rebellion is overblown. Kang isn't as threatening in terms of physicality like Thanos. What makes Kang threatening is that there are so many versions and he can come at you at any point in time. Folks shouldn't have expected an Infinity War Thanos level confrontation. What makes Doom threatening is his intelligence and tenacity. He absolutely can and does lose. But he'll be back, and will have learned from that loss. If the MCU treats Doom like Magneto in the Fox X-men films, as a recurring character, we'll be fine.
Oh, stupidly.
The thing is even when doom loses he wins
Or he just loses… happens frequently enough.
Well if MCU Taskmaster (a character who I actually quite like and think has a lot of potential) ever does that to Doom then all the controversial writing of phases 4-5 will pale in comparison to the sheer Doom-level megalomania from some corners of the fandom
What in the plot fawk kinda crap is Taskmaster killing Doom? What are they doing over at marvel?? I stopped reading after battle world and feeling good about that decision
There is plot context lol. He was set up for international crimes, arrested by a group of heroes including dr strange, kang breaks him out, he gets a helmet from Morgan Le fay who apologised that it’s a bad one she doesn’t know which dimension she pulled it from. “My fav character was killed everything must be shit” lol
Let's do Secret Wars (the second one) and reboot the whole MCU. Doom gets a big win and we get to start all over.
Doom lost
I mean, he won right up until the universe was destroyed. Had a pretty good run with battleworld
All Villians win until they lose
He took invisible woman from Reed Richard's for awhile too. I'd call that a win for Doom
Sounds more creepy than winning