Marvel Cinematic Universe general stuff

Absolutely agreed that they have to reduce the budgets, but they're at a point where their last few smoking guns do require a big budget. I mean they're talking about Galactus and his Heralds being in the first FF Film, they can't cheap out there.

I think they shouldn't release more than 2 films in the MCU in a year from now on, and only one of them should be a massive production. For example Blade will be done on a tight budget, while FF will be more lofty.

I've just been alerted by RTE he's found guilty. He's got to go surely

Considering it’s already canon for a multiverse variant to look different this is the easiest recast ever.

Recast(even with multiple actors) and move on.

Actually, considering the end of Loki, they could even move on from Kang pretty swiftly if they wanted. Only think that might be an issue is currently filmed projects with him in mind.

And he's gone...

Marvel cleaning up.

A nasty piece of work who gets what he deserves.

As someone who hasn't seen the Disney+ stuff, he wasn't much of a presence at all. A very poor follow-up to Thanos IMO.

Absolutely. I wonder why Ezra Miller is still in the DCEU but that's literally on its last legs anyway. Wouldn't mind seeing no more of him either.

As for Kang, I don't think it matters. Most people don't know who he is but there's of course plenty who'll flock to see any MCU offering but it's well past its peak now. Since Kang seems to have some backstory, recasting the role would seem to be the best option given the time and money already invested in the character.

My favourite thing this morning was some people are trying to get momentum behind a motion to recast Terence Howard as Kang.

Another theory would be to pivot towards Wanda being an antagonist again, trying to attone for her mistakes in Multiverse of Madness but being corrupted by the Darkhold. That could easily happen to marry into your multiverse threat idea featuring Theron.

Loki eliminates Kang for the most part easily, while Wanda could absolutely wreck the Council of Kangs thus burying the character utterly.

Whats the deal with Dr Strange and Charlize Theron?

Could do a bait and switch and have Kang dispatched by a new big bad, and a highly anticipated one like Doom. I don't know anything about Marvel of the intricacies of setting up that storyline, but the thing is the 'Kang' name just seems like box office kryptonite at this point. People really don't care.

Reminded of that scene in Twin peaks season 2 where when Lynch came back he gave a character that he did not like a fairly gruesome end.

Dr. Doom electing himself hero of the multiverse and just up and removing Kang from it would be entirely doable but, personally, the MCU is struggling at the moment to have worthwhile individual films let alone pretend they're pieces leading to Secret Wars.

I'm still hoping to get a good Fantastic Four movie not just a meh preamble to a post-credits scene of Chris Evans high-fiving Michael B Jordan or whatever.

Physical manhandling without consent is not an opinion, it's a fact. And there is no logical reason that the condemnation of said actions should be challenged.

He was found guilty of:

1) being reckless and hurting her while getting his property back that she'd stolen, not going out to intentionally hurt her like the victim claimed under oath.

2) putting her back in the car when she was chasing him and he was trying to get away. We can all see in the video that it was not 'throwing her in like a football' like the prosecution claimed.

If people want to condemn him for the facts, those are them. Throwing out terms like 'physical manhandling', 'assault', and 'harassment' are accurate but either lazy or purposefully misleading.

Beyond what he is found guilty of everything else is purely people's opinion, mostly sourced through the media that has been very one sided in their coverage.

I am not defending it, I am stating the facts of the case. I understand why everyone wants this to be a cut and dry easy conclusion but it isn't.

All you're showing there is the misleading headlines and framing by the majority of the media and that you've clearly bought into it.

He wasn't found guilty of the more serious charges - what the victim claimed and the prosecutors built their case. The jurors didn't believe them or didn't have enough evidence. He was found guilty of the lesser ones, where the bar is very low.

Some articles do include the difference and what it means but they're buried in the article:

Majors' biggest loss is in the court of public opinion, which is why he is no longer in his lucrative role. He fully deserves to lose the role based on putting himself in this mess and making himself so toxic but it is a fact that he wasn't found guilty of the more serious things the victim claimed.