Is there a reason Kang couldn't be Recast

That's the question basically I should say I know Jonathan Majors was in Antman and also Loki but I doubt audiences would hold it against marvel for recasting him after the shit he did also I feel like it would've been easier than making changes to the whole plan

Edit: I meant Jonathan Majors not Jeffrey Wright typing and just writing in general ain't a strong suit lol

Voir le contenu lié

Commentaires

Goldman2502026-01-26 11:37

I think you already have, because Kang was played by Johnathan Majors. Jeffrey Wright played the Watcher in What If.

Add3n092026-01-26 11:46

Well I'm sure Jeffrey Wright would nail it lol 😆

Pleasant_Night_6522026-01-26 11:40

I think Marvel wasn't really confident with the original plan anyways. Doom is a great vilain too and I don't have too much problems with him being introduced in Doomsday because the first time we really saw Thanos and it wasn't a cameo was in Infinity War and it didn't stoped him from being a great antagonist. Doom just need a good intro and development in the movie, a good way to do that would actually be to recast Kang just for Doom to anihilate the Council of Kang

Red_Autism2026-01-26 11:47

But we knew that he was the endgame for the avengers for a way longer time, while doom was like in a panic shoved in

Pleasant_Night_6522026-01-26 11:54

was he though ? Or did they plan to have him as a big surprise in Kang Dinasty but had to bring him sooner because of all the drama ? Anyways I think it was a welcomed change for Marvel. If they truly wanted to continue the story as it was they would just had recast the character but they didn't

Jennymagic2026-01-26 12:25

Kinda adds up as well since second movie was always going to be Secret Wars.

ShawshankException2026-01-26 12:54

Kang was introduced in the 2nd ever D+ show. The plan was always Kang and Secret Wars was always the end of the saga

PM_PICS_OF_U_SMILING2026-01-26 14:04

Loki was the third show, not 2nd.

GreenGoblinNX2026-01-26 17:21

> Doom is a great vilain too

The funny thing about this sentence is that it implies that Kang is generally viewed as being a better villain that Doom...and the opposite is true.

SwordMasterShow2026-01-26 11:40

No, you're completely right and it's ridiculous they pivoted their entire phase villain plan when they could have just gotten someone else, especially when multiverse versions are literally baked into the character

DarkSaiyanGoku2026-01-26 11:54

I thought that too. But after Thunderbolts and Fantastic 4, I'm actually more excited for Doomsday now.

LordLoss012026-01-26 12:10

How did Thunderbolts contribute to Doom?

DarkSaiyanGoku2026-01-26 12:15

I really enjoyed Thunderbolts. It took me back to the classic MCU of the Phase 1/2 Eras and the end credits was a neat stinger to Doomsday.

bjwills72026-01-26 12:26

I understand that, I'm excited too. It's just a shame that the legendary build up to kang from the loki show won't be realized.

Before that I was thinking, "how are they going to top thanos?", my doubts were proven wrong with that show. Now I just feel let down.

DarkSaiyanGoku2026-01-26 12:28

Believe me, I feel your pain. I actually liked Kang. However, I do feel like the build up could've been handled better.

bjwills72026-01-26 12:37

I think the loki show was as good as the build up could get and ant-man was as bad as it could get.

I think they could've recovered it had the actor not become problematic (not sure what he did, just know disney dropped him).

Do you feel the same or do you think there was another problem with the build up?

DarkSaiyanGoku2026-01-26 12:40

I actually liked Ant-Man Quantumania.

But I think the build up wasn't handled well because it was split between movies and TV. It became jumbled.

Honestly, I would've had the TV shows and movies have separate storylines. Make the movies have the overarching stories, while the TV shows can be standalone.

bjwills72026-01-26 12:52

I also liked that movie, I just don't think it was a good play to show a formidable version of the MCU's next big bad being taken down by an army of ants or even ant-man himself.

Loki did such a good job of portraying him as someone to fear, then ant-man made him seem much more defeatable.

I get what you mean about the shows but I would argue that the post endgame shows were meant to be much more mainstream than the shows before. The loki show is one of the best post endgame projects IMO.

I think loki was the best way to introduce kang, I would've loved it being a movie but I'm not sure if that story could've been told in one movie and it may have drug on too long if it was more than one.

Ok-Amount33842026-01-26 13:21

The problem with Kang is that the route they were on meant that we would've seen multiple variants of Kang being beaten across multiple movies/shows - we've already seen WHR and Conqueror Kang defeated. So by the time we encounter prime Kang, it'll feel pretty repetitive and meh.

Unlike Thanos, who was largely in the shadows and when he finally made a move, he was really formidable and impressive.

Zephyraine2026-01-26 14:28

Yea, Kang losing to Ants was not a good way to introduce the villain. Some seem to forget that while Loki exists, those who didn't follow the TV shows will see Antman's movie as Kang's debut. And him losing like that does jack all for threat buildup for the supposed next villain. Top it off with the fact that people like me who just wanted an Ant-man story akin to the first 2 films, end up shafted by a half-hearted Avengers threat level buildup movie with an Ant-man logo slapped on it.

And I myself actually did follow the TV shows. I still wasn't impressed by Quantumania. Loki was good, but the movie pretty much cancelled all the good that Loki did.

Minia152026-01-27 03:59

The biggest issue with Ant Man 3 is that the fun for the audience is the perspective of size.

Ant Man in a tub, or Ant Man on a toy train track are classic.

Put Ant Man in a Quantum realm where size feels meaningless and we lose the fun.

MinusGovernment2026-01-27 12:19

The biggest issue for me was no Luis. He is one of my favorite side characters in all of the MCU. I expected Paul Rudd to be funny and got blindsided when Michael Pena absolutely killed it in his role. I was ok with 3 overall but spent the whole time wishing Luis would show up.

richard-5642026-01-26 18:21

He was dropped due to physical and mental abuse against his gf, along with allegations of the same thing from two other women.

strife6962026-01-26 21:56

He was convicted of physically assaulting his girlfriend

CupOfJay77212026-01-26 12:36

The end credits scene

bjwills72026-01-26 12:39

The end credits of what project? Not sure what you're trying to say brotendo.

LowProfile_2026-01-26 12:56

He probably means the end credit scene from Quantumania.

BigDreamsandWetOnes2026-01-26 13:22

The build up was lame af

Substantial_Pie_86192026-01-26 14:16

Legendary build up he got beat up by ants and punked out by ant man

Educational-Tea-65722026-01-26 14:56

I definitely wouldn't have minded more of the Kang story. That being said, *Loki* somehow managed to end things in a way where it seems Kang has already been taken care of. Even Scott's unease at the end of *Quantumania* about something worse coming could be chalked up to Kang somehow having played a role in stopping Doom, and now Kang being defeated means that won't happen (I doubt Marvel will actually address that dangling plot thread from *Quantumania* but they could if they wanted to).

AmishAvenger2026-01-26 16:49

Ultimately I don’t think the issue was solely with the actor.

It’s also that to general audiences, most of what’s happened since Endgame has fallen flat.

And there’s *so* much content, I can’t imagine them putting out some Kang movie and audiences needing to have watched both seasons of Loki, as well as remember the post-credits scene from the Antman movie, and so on and so on.

Perception is everything. A general audience thinking they need to do homework, or thinking they’ll miss out on something if they don’t, is huge.

Shin-kak-nish2026-01-26 17:27

I’m not. A cloak and a shadow over the face of a mysterious enemy we know nothing about is not enough build-up for me after 6+ years of MCU build up. If you don’t already know who Doom is, you have no reason to be excited about this guy.

SonOfRageNLove262026-01-26 17:58

And if you know a bit too much of who Doom is, you brace for the worst, seeing how they are going to seemingly forever tie him to Tony Stark, while they dont even bother to establish his relationship to Reed and the FF

JakiStow2026-01-26 11:54

It's not ridiculous, it simply means there were other reasons behind the shift. My guess is that they realized the whole Kang thing didn't get anywhere and didn't hype people, so the shift would have happened anyway.

The actor's behavior only gave them a convenient excuse so they wouldn't have to admit that they messed up their storyline.

Lambsauce9142026-01-26 12:33

The issue I think is that people do like Kang in Loki series, and even if you look at all the reviews with Quantumania while people criticize the script, the only thing that reviewers praised are Major's performance with Kang. So people clearly do like Kang, they just wanted a stronger script.

If anything, I am pretty sure the whole "Kang storyline isn't working" is the excuses because of how Kang character already associated with Major, so Disney just wanted to replace the whole character to avoid anymore controversy

JakiStow2026-01-26 13:23

I'm talking about the general movie-going audience, who probably didn't even watch Loki. Whether the small dedicated fanbase who follow every MCU project enjoy Kang or not is irrelevant for the studio execs.

DonnyMox2026-01-26 17:34

"the only thing that reviewers praised are Major's performance with Kang"

But that's irrelevant now that Majors is gone.

AxlLight2026-01-26 21:35

You just said it yourself - People enjoyed Majors acting, and not necessarily the storyline itself.

And regardless of that Marvel is bleeding hard - so continuing with this storyline with a new and untested actor is a leap that has very little chance of landing on its feet.
The shift needed to happen because people don't care about the new characters and stories, they're not invested. But give them a follow up on Endgame and you might just have the miracle Marvel needs.

dahoth2026-01-26 13:27

I think they're just stalling on the storyline personally. Like waiting until after Doom, when everyone has magically forgotten what happened with Majors.

NightlyWinter19992026-02-01 06:55

They made the mistake of Kang being defeated by ants, who would even take him seriously lol

Buffalax812026-01-26 11:58

It would have been sooooo easy too. Loki Season 2, throw the book into the wrong window. Easy peasy.

hoodie922026-01-26 13:16

There's a very simple answer.

Marvel/Disney realised that people weren't enjoying the Kang storyline and they took advantage of Majors' misconduct to shitcan the entire thing.

(Obviously the reason people weren't enjoying it was Marvel's fault in the first place but...)

GodFlintstone2026-01-26 13:24

This.

In all his appearances, they never sold Kang as an "Avengers level threat." And having him defeated by Ant-Man definitely doesn't make that case.

In the meantime, what we saw of him in Loki was little too esoteric and heady. Doesn't help that general audiences mostly don't even watch Disney Plus shows.

Kang really should have been been the villain in a more more serious version of The Marvels. Captain Marvel was at that point - arguably the most powerful hero in the MCU.

If you had Carol and Kamala defeated by Kang and Monica seemingly killed it would have sent a message that this guy is not to be fucked with. AND there are hundreds of him which makes things even worse.

Endgam2026-01-26 22:48

>And having him defeated by Ant-Man definitely doesn't make that case.

He wasn't defeated by Ant-Man. He was beating the shit out of Ant-Man and Wasp bailed his ass out.

*I think a big problem with Quantumania was that a lot of people didn't actually pay attention to the movie.*

random_question41232026-01-27 14:28

All I remember - and the key takeaway - was that aNT-man was going toe-to-toe with the big bad Conquerer Kang, then got some reinforcements from ants, and was eventually outsmarted and defeated.

funnyBatman2026-01-26 13:33

They didn't recast Black Panther too, and I know there's a certain respect aspect to that decision, but I wish they had recast and moved ahead with the charcter of black panther... Those were big shoes to fill for some other character to take over, a recast would've solved so many heartaches...

Wisegoat2026-01-26 17:28

It wasn’t vibing with the audiences. Kang was meant to be the new big bad villain for the new avengers. The issue is that Cpt Marvels sequel was the a huge bomb, The falcon can’t replace Cpt America and they messed up the Thor and Dr Strange movies. Plus Kang didn’t resonate in Antman and you can’t rely on Loki the tv show to get a gist audience for movies.

This was the perfect excuse to do a reset. They’ll bait people in with RdJ and Chris Evans and hope after the two avenger movies that they can identify some new talent to take over the franchise.

DonnyMox2026-01-26 17:31

Mark my words, they'll regret it. You can't pivot at the last minute without seriously damaging the quality of your story.

anothercookie902026-01-26 18:13

It was more PR related but they also showed all of his variants looking like him

Fit-Fee-11532026-01-26 19:49

Should have gotten Terrance Howard to play him. That been hilarious.

LittleBingo962026-01-26 20:30

It wasn't just Majors though. Marvel has had a rough few years. I suspect they overhauled the entire script and movie slate beyond just the identity of the main villain.

ToxethOGrady2026-01-26 11:40

Probably some back end contract clauses saying that only Johnathan Majors can play Kang.

fadec_2026-01-26 11:41

Why recast an ant-man level threat

DuncanRG20022026-01-26 11:42

Jeffrey Wright did not play Kang.

As for recasting some have said there was a contractual thing stating all versions of Kang were to be played by Jonathon Majors but presumably this would have been invalidated when he got arrested.

Which would suggest that they just thought it would be better to pivot to Doom rather than stick with Kang (who general audiences had not engaged with at all)

slunksoma2026-01-26 11:58

I think you’re right re contract, definitely heard that. I do also think that Disney took the chance to pivot back to AAA characters to get things back on track. The Kang introduction flopped so they streamlined everything.

Ancient_Doughnut_8482026-01-26 11:42

Jeffrey Wright, catching strays!

eltrotter2026-01-26 11:43

Allegedly, there was a clause in Majors' contract that prevented Kang from being played by any other actor, possibly because his management was aware that Kang was the kind of character that could be played by multiple actors. I am dubious however; I'm not sure that Marvel would be so desperate to sign a specific actor as to agree to a clause like this.

dreadit-runfromit2026-01-26 11:57

I agree. Without any real sources I've always considered it ridiculous. Like you said, I'm skeptical that Marvel would sign that clause but I'm *especially* skeptical in this case because A) it's a character where other versions would make sense, and B) it's not as if Jonathan Majors has incredible star power to pressure the studio to sign that. He had a string of very critically successful performances but it's not as if he's Leonardo DiCaprio or Denzel Washington or Meryl Streep.

eltrotter2026-01-26 11:59

I'd love for Meryl Streep to play Kang. Only 50% ironically.

peteofaustralia2026-01-26 12:30

She'd do it better.

No_Imagination_24902026-01-26 12:38

"Meryl Streep could play Batman and be the right choice."

Hash-Edit2026-01-26 13:02

Aye Kameraon fans in the house

Kettle_Whistle_2026-01-26 12:44

Because she’s *fantastic* in *anything*…

cptamerica832026-01-26 18:27

![gif](giphy|YPKIJdwYWJ3Ik)

brycifer6662026-01-27 03:02

Ultimate Kang was Sue Storm so I mean...

dr_olfin2026-01-27 20:07

I'm also sure they would have break-clauses based on behaviour or reputation like they're rumoured to have had with other actors.

come-join-themurder2026-01-28 02:00

C) I would assume Marvel is smart enough that if they DID agree to some kind of stipulation preventing them from recasting Majors, there'd be a clause that states it is null and void if he is involved in any scandal/criminal case/civil case that damages his and therefore Marvel's name. All the actors, afaik, have this or a similar rule in their contracts that gives Marvel an out if they become problematic.

slunksoma2026-01-26 11:59

I dunno man, at the time Majors was a big get and his career was going places.

eltrotter2026-01-26 12:07

He was on the up-and-up, no doubt, but he was still an emerging star rather than a Hollywood heavyweight at that stage. I can see why they wanted to get him, but I sincerely doubt he had that kind of bargaining power even given the trajectory he was on at that point in time.

Joshawott272026-01-26 12:12

Yeah, I always thought those reports sounded iffy, because surely *any* contract would have clauses to account for things that put the brand in disrepute, would be gross misconduct, etc.

eltrotter2026-01-26 12:16

Either that, or some junior legal counsel at Disney got fired so fast it made their head spin.

CaptHayfever2026-01-26 21:13

I'm sure there was such a clause, considering they fired him immediately after the conviction was announced.

CryoFeeniks2026-01-26 12:52

Weird how those clauses work. I thought when actor break itfirst whole deal would be null. Rhodey got swapped so fast

hoodie922026-01-26 13:12

Terrance Howard presumably didn't sign a long-term contract. It was literally the first MCU film, he probably barely signed any kind of contract.

eltrotter2026-01-26 13:22

Absolutely; remember also that the whole Terrance Howard thing was pre-Disney. I imagine the House of Mouse are a lot more aggressive in how they lock down actors.

ThenAnAnimalFact2026-01-26 12:54

It would be weird for them to agree to a clause like this before a clause requiring him to actually be found guilty of a crime to be fireable. The latter is more standard than the former.

I think it is simply two things (1) Antman didn't do that well and the development of Cretton's Avengers probably wasn't a knockout and (2) They were unsure of how bad Jonathan's crimes were, so they calculated the risk of having Kang the character constantly bring up the association, over and over again.

nipplesaurus2026-01-26 12:57

Agree. I think that clause is just a nonsense rumour

UltraShadowArbiter2026-01-26 13:59

I wouldn't be surprised. Majors seemed like the kind of actor to have a big enough ego to have a clause like that in his contracts.

DJfunkyPuddle2026-01-26 16:28

I'm absolutely astounded that people believe Disney would sign something like that, like it legit makes me angry that people can be so fuckng gullible.

When1Falls2026-01-26 16:43

I think you're forgetting or are unaware how huge Majors felt like he was becoming in Hollywood.

He was developing a reputation as the next beloved incredibly great actor who's gonna be around for decades. Denzel, Meryl Steep, Daniel Day Lewis, Deniro, Pacino etc type guy.

They locked him down for as long as possible because they were going to literally give him the keys to the kingdom.

GreenGoblinNX2026-01-26 17:19

Key word is "becoming". He had potential, but he never reached that potential, and he damn sure didn't have enough stroke to dictate terms to Disney.

When1Falls2026-01-26 17:24

There was no reason for them to think there was a risk, they thought they were bringing him in to be the face of the MCU, they absolutely would give him the term of "no one else can play this character" because they didn't want anyone else to play the character, and Chadwick Boseman, the guy they were going to make the face of the MCU had just died. They were in position to be more than happy to give the guy whatever he asked for.

fayemoonlight2026-01-26 17:13

There is no way on God’s green earth that clause exists. Robert Downey Jr wouldn’t even be able to get a clause like that as Feige, Marvel, and Disney aren’t stupid enough to prevent themselves from using any character. Comic book characters get new castings all the time. That’s just the way it is and an almost unknown actor wouldn’t be exempt from that

ZzzZandra2026-01-26 17:57

I can see that being possible since in antman, every kang was played by Major, while in Loki, almost every loki is played by different actors/actresses.

Tho I agree it’s kind of pathetic that marvel agreed to that. Rumor I heard there were some political battling within marvel at the time, and the downfall in quality we’ve seen it’s because of the new management. So it might be managed poorly and signed that clause.

Eisgboek2026-01-26 18:21

Even if there was a clause preventing re-casting, most major contracts would have some sort of morality clause for exact situations like his that would supercede it.

I think the honest reason he wasn't recast is that Marvel saw the lukewarm reaction to Kang and the multiverse saga in general and decided to look for opportunities to pivot.

Then RDJ said he'd come back as Doom and that was just a way better proposition than anything they could do with Kang.

Twindo2026-01-26 18:40

It makes sense if you consider that Kang was never meant to stick around for too long and was going to be eliminated by Doom who would replace him as the true villain of the multiversal saga. Like a “yeah sure we’ll allow only Majors to play Kang” knowing he wasn’t going to be around for long. This probably also influenced their decision to drop him and move straight to Doom since they were planning to do that anyways. This is purely speculation but I can imagine this being the case.

titeefelix2026-01-26 11:43

Honestly? No.

Marvel has done recasts before and treated them like it was nothing. In a saga that already involves other dimensions and alternate versions, they had the perfect setup to simply recast Kang.

Overall, what it feels like to me is that they used this as an excuse to recalculate their route and lean into the classic “nostalgia sells” approach. Personally, it made me lose all the interest I had in the MCU.

legalskeptic2026-01-26 12:20

Avengers: Memberberries

movieman9942026-01-26 12:35

True Steve Rogers and RDJ were done and to bring them back is just Marvel saying we aint topping that.

And what angers me is they absolutely can even with everything thats happened till now. Not to mention the underwhelming movies they did in the first place and utter shit movies and over flood of TV shows are the cause of this mess in the first place.

titeefelix2026-01-26 12:43

What really gets me is that they introduced such a great range of characters, but didn’t know how to work with them. For example, nowadays people love to downplay Ms. Marvel, but her comics were a massive success when she first came out.

Focusing on quantity over quality hurt them a lot, but even that had a possible fix.

Bringing RDJ and Evans back, along with all the FOX X-Men, gives me the impression that Marvel movies can’t survive without them. And that raises the question: what happens when they can’t use them as a crutch anymore?

StewiesCurbside2026-01-26 14:25

I think they saw this as an opportunity because Kang simply wasn’t popular. He wasn’t as well known as Thanos, and after an unpopular appearance in Quantumania due to lackluster writing, they chose to pivot to a new villain.

SonOfRageNLove262026-01-26 18:01

Thanos wasnt well-known by the general audience before Infinity War

skronk612026-01-26 11:44

Disney are terrified of recasting and this in turn has trained the fans to be hostile to the idea. It’s a prison of their own making.

xDURPLEx2026-01-26 11:47

I think he may be back for a couple scenes and it's not going to be announced. He was charged with a misdemeanor for picking up a girl and putting her in an Uber who then got out and chased after him running away. Disney just used the whole situation as an excuse to pivot because things were not working.

inFAMXS2026-01-26 13:01

Yea plus they can just bring Kang back after the reboot since he can never die as long as there is a multiverse

Jertimmer2026-01-26 11:49

No.

That said, maybe Marvel felt like Kang wasn't the right direction anymore and decided to move into a different direction. I think this is the most sensible explanation, given that they've recast actors in the past.

mercy_death2026-01-26 11:49

Honestly I imagine most black actors wouldn't touch the role. Out of principal.

Similarly very few would have jumped into Black Panthee if they immediately recast out of respect for the cultural impact Chadwick had.

People can disagree but this controversy would not have gone as big as it did (or impacted the career of) a white actor.

Yes they could recast with a non black actor but that is controversial enough in and of itself. They should never have shown every variant being the same actor.

AceOThorns2026-01-26 11:50

Two words.

Giancarlo Esposito.

RockSignificant2026-01-26 12:09

He was already cast in the most recent Captain America movie as one of the antagonists.

Add3n092026-01-26 12:11

Nah Marvel wanted to waste him on minor villain apparently

LaylaLegion2026-01-26 12:48

And he went in to be Professor X! How did he fumble that interview so hard?!

ShawshankException2026-01-26 12:54

He would've been such a good Kang

bjwills72026-01-26 13:08

Damn. Picturing him delivering the same lines johnathon majors delivered gives me chills.

Great pick. This guy delivers intensity like few others.

aestus2026-01-26 11:52

I'd be surprised if Kang doesn't turn up at some point in the next Avengers films

Extra_Age25052026-01-26 11:54

I think you meant to say Jonathan Majors but I don’t see why not. Not every Kang would look the same. The MCU has had different-looking versions of Peter Parker, Reed Richards and Elektra so they could have had a Kang who looks different to all the ones we’ve seen before too. Maybe introduce him as having just destroyed the Council of Kangs to show how much of a threat he is and sidestep the Majors casting issue

KostisPat2572026-01-26 11:56

I think it wasn't just the whole controversy that made them pivot to Doom, it was also the general apathy that the general audience had towards Kang and the threat he posed due to how he was portrayed in Quantumania. They realized this might not be as good of an overarching villain as they originally had in mind.

fuzzyfoot882026-01-26 11:56

They had ample time to reshoot the council of kangs scene with a different actor, before the movie hit disc and streaming. Loki had already setup that different actors can play the same role.

So the likely reason they pivoted off the character itself hard was because most people seem to hate AM3 with such a passion it probably embarrassed them to the point of saying “ok Kang isn’t working.”

frompartsunknown1282026-01-26 11:57

They should have had the High Evolutionary as a Kang variant and had Chukwudi Iwuji take the role over.

Monkeyman76522026-01-26 12:00

It wasn't that long ago, do people not remember there being news stories where black actors had been floated as replacements and they would make statements that they didn't want it. People weren't into the multiverse story line, so not recasting was palatable for Disney.

CharacterOld86912026-01-26 12:12

Terence Howard would take the role, he already did the math!

RockSignificant2026-01-26 12:08

Just bring back Majors. No one is saying that what he did or didn't do is right, and sure, he should face the appropriate punishment as decided by the judge. However, let's not forget Downey Jr. has spent time in prison in the past too. The guy still has to make a living.

Joshawott272026-01-26 12:08

I think if Jonathan Majors was the only issue, a recast could have been possible. However, *Ant-Man* also flopped critically and commercially. So, the combination of the two issues made steering away from Kang in general the better option.

mcmanus20992026-01-26 12:14

You are looking at this completely the wrong way.

Marvel execs got high on Endgame and Infinity War and they want more. Their shows and movies were slumping in box office. Dr Doom is the biggest most recognizable villain so execs were like, "why are we dicking around with anything else when we could guarantee mega bucks throwing Doom on-screen. Get RDJ and Chris Evans back and let's get back to that cash cow.

Majors' behaviour just gave them an excuse, it was always about greed and making money more than storytelling.

The_Iceman22882026-01-26 12:14

Not really but I'm happy with how his story went - intro in Loki season 1, big movie appearance in Quantumania, epilogue in Loki season 2. For all it's flaws, it was the perfect synergy between the movie and Disney+ side of the MCU.

lumidanny2026-01-26 12:17

I’m sure someone pitched Doomsday with RDJ to Disney and they bit

WatchingInSilence2026-01-26 12:19

The big announcement that RDJ was coming back as Doom reminded me of the pivot Marvel Studios attempted by replacing Emma Fuhrmann with Kathryn Newton when Phase 4 was underperforming.

The studio get so fixated on 'righting the ship' that they do more harm than good.

Away_Reason_61882026-01-26 12:20

I never liked Kang as the new big bad all that much from day 1. The character himself is interesting yes but I don’t think he was a massive force to be reckoned with that heroes have to team up again to defeat. I much would’ve preferred him being a red herring antagonist who was meant to stifle the actual multiversal threat (maybe superior iron man if you must have RDJ come back).

Soulwarfare422026-01-26 12:21

No

I am pretty sure they considered it but decided to pivot because of the negative reaction to Kang in Ant-Man and The Wasp Quantumania. The most iconic Kang, Kang The Conqueror, losing to Ant-Man

Gonza6EUW2026-01-26 12:21

Aaron Moten (Maximus from Fallout) would be a great recast.

Mr_Rafi2026-01-26 12:21

I'm glad he's done. Found him to be a tremendously boring villain.

Sick_Fantasy2026-01-26 12:27

Because they ruined Kang. Depicting him as always losing makes him look weak. In Ant-Man, someone should have died trying to fight Kang. Ant-Man, Wasp or at least one of them should have been stuck in the Quantum Realm. But no. They were too soft in storytelling, too incoherent, and people lost interest. So they used the opportunity to pivot and hit us with the same old rusty hammer of nostalgia right in the face.

That’s why we have RDJ as Doom instead of a recast Kang.

Rossco18742026-01-26 12:36

I am assuming it will be down to some very messy contractual obligations. By postponing they could be negotiating a legal route out of the contractual obligations Unless he has actually been fired by Marvel but not sure if he has, if he has then it could be a case of studio are taking him to court for breach of contract which also will be a lengthy process

Co-opingTowardHatred2026-01-26 12:40

Coulda been, but I think the multiverse wasn’t going as well as they had hoped anyway.

Naive_Nerve53712026-01-26 12:44

As things were left, Kang is completely off the board. The TVA left it that they were monitoring any and all Victor Timely’s across time and space to make sure none of them ever become a Kang.

So as it stands, no Victor Timely will never ever become a Kang, meaning the council of Kang’s scene at the end of Quantumania is written out of ever happening.

They can leave this like this forever now. Kang is cleared away forever.

But, there’s nothing to say they can’t recast him and bring him back.

Considering the crowd goes mild reception to the character in general and the fact that Slaphappy Majors killed the character’s chances in the real world, I’m gonna say they leave this one where it is and don’t go back to it.

If they do go back to it, it’ll be recast in about another 5-10 years when they’ve done X-Men again then Avengers v X-Men and have not much else to do. Then a callback to Kang with a new actor will be a pop for them.

But they won’t touch Kang with shit on a stick before Secret Wars, if ever. Anything Kang was planned to do is in Doom’s hands now.

PraetorianSoil2026-01-26 12:44

Same thing with Black Panther.

LaylaLegion2026-01-26 12:47

A bunch of losers whined that the Multiverse saga sucked and they didn’t care about Kang so the studio freaked out and decided to ruin Doctor Doom with nostalgia baiting and whitewashing.

Raida-7772026-01-26 12:49

The only reason is Kang was in a flop movie (also that After Credit is a joke) so they decide to no one cares about him enough.

Hence a quick nostaliga cashgrab is a better option.

Zerosix_K2026-01-26 12:51

My guess is that they abandoned the Kang arc because it wasn't well received by audiences. Thanos was built up as a massive threat and only had a couple of post credit scenes before Infinity War. Kang never seemed like he was on the same level despite having more screen time. It didn't help that a majority of the post Endgame releases have been mediocre at best. They probably just used Majors firing and Kang's demise at the end of Antman 3 to pivot towards Doom instead.

BlerghTheBlergh2026-01-26 12:51

Recasts are generally frowned upon in the long run, if it’s not James Bond a lot of media tends to evolve into the “oh they were lazy so recast this character” conversation.

Marvel likes to avoid pissing fans of in the present but even more so in the long run. These movies are supposed to be hot sellers till we’re all dead and gone.

The same about the conversation around recasting Chadwick post death, fans argued to recasting T’Challa thinking about their love for the character.

But articles like these prove that Marvel made the right decision to maintain a level of integrity to avoid being taken aim at by gossip journalists 20 years from now:

https://www.tvline.com/lists/best-worst-tv-character-recasts/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/bendzialdowski/characters-recast-with-different-actors

https://screenrant.com/tv-show-characters-recast-jarring/

Fans may complain now but blame the buzzfeeds of today

AwarenessNo49862026-01-26 12:52

Why recast when the actor paid his dues with the law? Does Hollywood like to ensure criminals suffer more than the law?

Adversary-of-Tyrants2026-01-26 12:56

I think Marvel saw that general audiences were just not feeling Kang after the reception to Ant-Man 3 and Major's abuse scandal gave them an easy off-ramp/pivot to speedrun getting X-Men/F4 in to the MCU.

mr_miggs2026-01-26 13:05

They could easily recast. The nature of the character makes it extremely easy. That said, I’m not sure that they’ve really set that character up to feel like enough of a real threat. I prefer they just move on

helloween1232026-01-26 13:21

If war machine can be recast, kang can be too

Hanzzman2026-01-26 13:22

Maybe after the experience of recasting token black guy from Ironman, actors now ask for a clause in their contracts, blocking any recasting in a span of time (?) like for 10 years

Story wise, they did the post credits of Antman with multiple copies of Kang, rather than multiple actors (like Loki S1)

TexFun2882026-01-26 13:26

here’s the thing. the black community doesn’t get much representation in media generally, and even less in superhero fare. it would have caused massive riots and unrest if, during the worst time to be black ever in america, they then replaced the only black character in the mcu worth watching with another black guy. the black community would have (rightly) seen this as white executives just seeing them as interchangeable

cardiffman1002026-01-26 13:34

I really don't know why they didn't and as a result Phases 4-6 have seemed quite directionless because they've had to pivot away from planned plotlines. Maybe Majors had something in his contract that the character couldn't be recast for a certain number of years, but that's just speculation on my part.

HordeOfTheDance2026-01-26 13:39

Terrence Howard as Kang: “Look, it’s me. I’m here. Deal with it. Let’s move on.”

MavrykDarkhaven2026-01-26 13:43

I don’t think many people knew that Kang was anyone special, let alone the Thanos of the next arc of stories.

The reason why Thanos worked was because of the infinity stones. We saw how powerful each one was in the movies leading up to Thanos putting on the infinity gauntlet. We had Gamora and Nebula to tell us how bad Thanos was. And when he showed up, he took on Thor and the Hulk and won.

Kang on the other hand was the villain of Ant-Man, and was beaten by Ant-Man. In Loki, supposedly Loki’s actions stopped Kang. And beyond that, no other movie even hinted towards the multiverse being an issue. It was poorly set up, and executed. No one would care about Majors’ recast because no one would remember (I’m talking the general audience) Kang. Marvel studios dropped the ball hard for phases 4 and 5, and are trying to make 6 cohesive enough to right the ship.

the_other_Scaevitas2026-01-26 13:46

with the whole multiverse thing, they could've just said yeah Kang looks like Johnathan Majors in these timelines but looks completely different in other timelines and recast him

Silvuh_Ad_90462026-01-26 13:50

He was a boring villain who wasn’t well received, infinite versions who keep dying are lame and cheap

MothmanIsALiar2026-01-26 13:50

They chose Kang to fit Johnathan Majors. They build the whole character around him.

Aglet_Green2026-01-26 14:00

I honestly don't know why Marvel and Disney make the decisions they do. After all, they recast Rhodey, Scott Lang's daughter and Bruce Banner. (In another universe, Ed Norton stuck around and was in 'the Avengers.') And most importantly, Fandral. If you can recast Fandral, you can recast Kang.

Star_Powerup2026-01-26 14:11

So the big thing is that when quantumina came out, not only was that movie a bomb but also while everyone praises kang performance. Everyone made fun of how he got beaten by ants. Any type of threat he was to the general audience was completely gone. Back then everyone grown when the reveal that there were multiple kangs because they didn't find him threatening even now that scene is treated as a meme. Then this also combined with the fact that Jonathan majors abuse charges were widely known to even the general public and this is around the same time the flash movie came out where that bombed because of Ezra Miller. So that all eventually lead to his firing and not getting recast

Affectionate_Rub_6382026-01-26 14:15

Jonathan Majors is an amazing actor it's really dumb to recast him esp just because he allegedly choked a white b.

lsm-krash2026-01-26 14:16

I agree with you, even more when multiversal versions of him could have different appearance and nothing would change. But the thing is, Kang was not interesting and marvel was losing fan's attention. Doom on the other hand is a much more interesting villain, and casting RDJ was the cherry on the top. They pivoted not just the story, but their business too.

semperknight2026-01-26 14:32

I think you're asking the wrong question.

I think the question should be "Did Marvel @#$% up the introduction of Kang so badly with Ant-Man and the Wasp that Johnathan Major's allegations were a blessing to give them an reason to dump the character and story line with a perfect excuse and no consequences".

In that case, I would say "Yes".

Symbi0tic2026-01-26 14:39

Kang was only mildly interesting at best. Better it turn out this way than they burn half a decade or longer on Kang movies. We'll see how Doom goes.

Specialist_Bottle5702026-01-27 13:16

No one cared about Kang, thats the honest truth. Kang was not interesting as a character. Doom is infinitely more loved and interesting

Responsible_Pea_56212026-01-28 20:42

I can’t even remember him from the antman movie, but I am also not sure if I watched that movie to the end.
As a none comic book reader I don’t have a clue who Kang is and that movie for sure didn’t help.

DWPhoenix0012026-01-26 14:48

Honestly? I feel Marvels decision to pivit away from Kang had nothing to do with Majors and was just an excuse. Regardless of what you think of the MCU post endgame (personally I didnt have any problems with it), theres no denying that the films had failed to capture the same interest or even report as anything pre-endgame. I think Marvel saw this, realised that the Kang storyline wasnt working how they hoped and pivited to Doom/Secret Wars. It was a way of generating fresh buzz and trying to bring the audiences back to the cinemas. I also think its why RDJ was brought back rather than casting a fresh face.
You go to SDCC, you bring out any A List star in a Doom mask and you'll get screams of excitement. What matters is the other 99%, something that would give general movie goers to something to gossip about. Bring out the biggest star Marvel has had, a character killed off in the biggest movie of all time, and that gives you hype like nothing else.

Soggy-Mistake89102026-01-26 15:03

When Chadwick Boseman passed people were all it would be disrespectful to recast Black Panther, now it's people making out as if recasting Kang would confuse the audience or some dumb stuff.

I mean, how many actors have played James Bond, Spiderman etc. It just seems silly

SonOfRageNLove262026-01-26 18:09

Then they procedeed to recast Thunderbolt Ross without making any big fuzz. Yes he was a minor character, but somehow he already had more appearances than Kang or even T'Challa

StillBringer2026-01-26 15:04

I think they were taking a wide swing with Kang. Jonathan Majors could pull it off. However, there is a fear that another actor may not have the range to reliably play all those variants. Originally in the comics Kang was a villain of the week type character but they've done a lot of character work with him over the years with some great comic runs like Only Myself left to Conquer. I think they wanted to draw from those backstories and it would require some pretty good committed acting to pull it off. Honestly, after Loki and Magazine Dreams I'm sure they cast the best guy for the role. That doesn't mean he isn't replaceable. It's just that they don't want the narrative to be the lack of range of another actor.

DMast22172026-01-26 15:37

Didn’t Loki basically beat him at the end of Loki S2? He takes control of the timestream himself and the TVA is monitoring any potential Kang variants.

Windst2026-01-27 20:54

That’s what I saw

Chance5e2026-01-26 15:50

No, but he clearly wasn’t the box-office draw they hoped he’d be. That Antman movie really didn’t help much.

redsandsfort2026-01-26 16:08

Quantumania killed the character. Especially that last scene. Made the character seem like a joke.

"How many did you call?"
"All of them"

LOL

Llonkrednaxela2026-01-27 11:39

Alright, here's the pitch:

Kang has caused widespread damage and the avengers are forced to take action. One of the tech wizards, prolly shuri or richards combines some good facial recognition tech with some pym-powered multiversal travel drone. They launch thousands of them into the muliverse, eliminating Kangs.

Thing is, there's quite a lot of universes, and some universes have kangs that don't look like Kang. Only the Kangs that don't look like kang survive the purge but they're even more pissed now or something. Idk. No more Jonathan Majors, but kang is still there.