(upbeat music)
- (Greg) Hey Wisecrack, Greg here, and like many of you, I would love nothing more than to break
down the newest film in the MCU. But of course, due to “the bad thing”, that might not be possible
for a very long time. But perhaps, a silver lining to this break in content is the chance to catch
our breaths and consider the future of the MCU. So we’re going to do something different today.
Don’t worry, we’re not gonna get into reckless speculation. Instead, we’re gonna ask the
question: who should be Thanos 2.0? And how could our dream villain add the serious smarts to the
MCU that we all deeply crave? Well, it turns out, our top pick was actually just cast in Ant-Man 3.
That’s right. Kang the Conqueror. So who is this snazzily-dressed bad guy, other than a potential
new PVC pipe player in the Blue Man Group? And what if his… unique... multi-temporal existence
can raise some serious questions about our own human identity? We’ll explain in this Wisecrack
Vlog: on Kang the Conqueror, and the Future of the MCU. Oh, and spoilers for the MCU lie ahead,
as well as potential spoilers for its future if we turn out to be prophets.
- (Greg) Kang is one of Marvel Comics’ most regularly-appearing villains,
tangling time after time with the likes of the Avengers and Fantastic Four and playing a role
in a lot of the comics’ major developments over the years. A time-travelling despot,
Kang hails from one of the multiverse’s many Earths, a utopia in the 31st Century. Essentially,
he’s like a cross-temporal and extra dimensional Genghis Khan, constantly hopping around time and
space in the quest for ever increasing challenges to his martial arts skill and tactical prowess. He
can hand-pick the most powerful beings out of the time stream to fight on his behalf, travel back
to weaken a society or even whole planets before they know he exists, and he controls vast armies
of futuristically armed soldiers. He’s also a scientific genius and master strategist, man talk
about overachiever huh? But Kang is also radically different from most supervillains - Specifically
because he’s not really defined by his conflict with the heroes he fights. Instead, he’s more-so
defined by a conflict he has with himself. Kang, born Nathaniel Richards, has adopted many distinct
identities over his lifetime. And this difference might be able to tell us a whole lot about what
comes next for the MCU - mostly because Kang’s unique past opens the door to exploring all kinds
of questions about identity. See, Kang is less a person and more like a period of Nathaniel’s life,
an identity formed through the experiences and fears he had during a specific portion
of his personal timeline. At other key points, he creates entirely new, entirely conflicting,
identities for himself based on his lived experiences and anticipations for the future.
Like his future incarnation, Immortus, guardian of time itself and wearer of stylish helmets.
Or his teenage version, Iron Lad, founder of the Young Avengers and brazen intellectual
property thief. But the thing that separates these identities from mere costume changes is their
prolific and very personal use of time-travel. You know the common rule in time-travel stories?
- (Doc Brown) You must not see anybody or talk to anybody! Anything you can do
can have serious repercussions on future events! Do you understand?
- (Greg) Yeah, that one. Neither Kang, Immortus or Iron Lad cares one iota about this - all three go
back and forth in their own timelines at various points to influence their past, present or future.
As a result, these identities often come into direct, literal conflict with each other,
in turn influencing each of their respective developments. Hell, they often have a direct
hand in the changes in Nathaniel’s perceptions that lead to the creation of a new identity in
the first place. As you can imagine, this gets real confusing, real quick. You only need to
look at the amount of retcons Kang’s had in the comics as proof. This all makes Kang a pretty
unique character who offers endless narrative possibilities and raises lots of questions about
identity. And we think those questions can be best understood by looking at something called
Narrative Identity Theory. Coined by philosopher Paul Ricoeur, the theory posits that our
identities aren’t locked and fixed, but are formed by an ongoing, active process of narrativization
that we ourselves engage in. Simply put, our identities are the result of the stories we
tell ourselves, about ourselves. Ricoeur posits that we mold our memories into a cohesive plot,
just like a screenwriter takes scenes as raw materials to form acts that make a story.
We interpret the events of our pasts through our perceptions of the present,
which leads us to determine which past events are most relevant to who we feel we are.
What’s more, we also anticipate potential futures, which inform our actions in the present,
thus creating new events for us to interpret and add to our story. The futures we predict as most
likely, or desire most, or are most scared of, provide endings to the story we are creating,
which in turn colors our interpretation of the past. Like how it’s much easier to pick out themes
and motifs in a movie the second time you watch it, with the ending and therefore the complete
narrative in mind. In this way, Narrative Identity integrates our reconstructed pasts,
our perceived presents and our imagined futures into one perpetually shifting, but cohesive,
story that we tell ourselves. And if the story changes, if our interpretations of the past
or expectations for the future are altered, then we can integrate them into our stories,
thus altering our identities. As convoluted as their stories can get, Kang the Conqueror,
Immortus and Iron Lad, the temporally disparate identities that form Nathaniel Richards, are a
great demonstration of Narrative Identity Theory. Specifically, these stories explore the interplay
between our past, present and future. Kang, being the identity we follow most, is the present,
Immortus is the future, and Iron Lad is the past. Immortus, observing all of the past and future
in the timeless dimension of Limbo, actively works against Kang, his past identity, but also
manipulates or outright changes events to ensure that Kang always becomes Immortus. There will
be no Marty McFlying here, sir. Kang, meanwhile, actively tries to prevent his potential future as
Immortus. At the same time, Kang also travels back in his own timeline to try and spur his teenage
self to take up all the conquering even earlier, attempting to influence his past self, just as
Immortus tries to influence him. This leads his teenage self to rebel against his potential future
forming a new identity as Iron Lad, hanging out with the Avengers and trying to stop Kang.
Eventually, he becomes a straight-up superhero and forms the Young Avengers as a result. In
their multi temporal interactions, which become crucial to the identity formation of each,
Kang, Immortus and Iron Lad can be seen as literal embodiments of Ricouer’s ideas. They’re heightened
forms of the interpretations, perceptions and anticipations that we all make on a daily basis
in our own lives, made possible through delicious time-travel weirdness. All together, they form an
overall narrative of their own, showing how the same man could be a superhero, supervillain and
indifferent guardian of time in a single lifetime. Narrative Identity Theory is interesting because
it gives us agency over our own self-conception. Compare this to more essentialist views,
like Plato’s, which tie identity to a fixed, mostly unchangeable nature. In Plato’s view,
people could change, to a degree, but someone born to be a farmer was never going to be a
king. Ricouer is far from the only philosopher to ask questions about how people can change,
but his theory can help us understand who we are, how our identity is formed, and how we can shift
that identity to become the person we want to be. So, the complex interplay between Kang,
Immortus and Iron Lad mirrors the constant process we engage with in forming our own identities.
That’s why we’re so psyched to see him in the MCU, and why we reckon he’ll be the next big bad.
After all, the next overarching MCU villain needs to fill an awfully big pair of boots. Kang’s
conflict with Immortus, and Iron Lad’s desperate attempts to assert agency over his future,
provide a baked in character arc that makes him distinct from Thanos, but
still matches the massive narrative stakes that the inevitable purple-man brought to the table:
- (Thanos) I am inevitable.
- (Greg) But more than just matching Thanos, we think Kang has the potential to address one of
the biggest narrative issues the MCU faced in the Infinity Saga: Thematic cohesion.
Based on where the MCU is post-Endgame, and what we know about upcoming projects,
it seems like the nature of identity could be an overarching theme in future MCU films.
What’s more, this theme could help make connections between various characters and across
various worlds. In fact, we’ve even had a little taste of this with Spider-Man: Far From Home,
which saw the web-shooting high school heartthrob contemplating Tony Stark’s legacy amidst pressure
to shift his own identity to that of “the new Iron Man.” By introducing Kang as the new big bad,
Marvel has the opportunity to really tie the larger narrative of the MCU together around
themes of identity - how we form them, how we adapt them to circumstances outside of our control
and how we reconcile our pasts with who we know we can become. And if the MCU goes in this narrative
direction, Kang could serve as an antagonist alongside the heroes, both camps confronted
with the same thematic challenges, but taking different paths. In order to pull it off though,
they’ll have to really commit to developing all three identities. That means building up Kang,
Immortus and Iron Lad over a series of appearances, and having an ongoing macro-plot
centred around discovering the full extent of Kang’s cross-temporal dickery. And this complex
identity has the potential to make Kang a much more interesting and nuanced villain than Thanos.
Don’t get us wrong, we love the big purple Snap Daddy, and his themes of sacrifice and purpose
drove Infinity War. But a stronger thematic unity within the wider story would be a huge
step forward for the pioneering kind of interwoven narrative Marvel’s been honing for the past twelve
years. And by exploring Kang’s personal arc and interactions with his past and future identities,
Marvel can dig into internal narrative dilemmas as much as they do external cosmic beefs. But hey,
maybe we’re wrong and no one at the MCU brain trust has ever heard of Paul Riceour. Maybe Kang
shows up in Ant-Man 3 and dies at the end, like so many MCU villains with squandered potential before
him. Even if that’s the case, we’re still psyched to finally see Kang in the MCU. Whatever direction
Marvel decides to go in, we’re confident it’ll live up to the legacy they’ve created thus far.
Look if we’re super off the mark with all this Kang stuff, we’re sorry for getting your hopes up,
but rest assured, if we’re right about any of this, we’ll repost this video until the
end of time. Big thanks to our patrons for all your support. Hit that subscribe
button like it’s your asshole future self, and as always, thanks for watching. Peace.