Avengers >> View Thread

Author
John Pyka




I posted this at Avengers Forever, and created a great thread. I thought some of you might get a kick out of it also.

I am convinced more than ever before that Tony Stark will become Kang.

It all started back at the end of Volume 1, during the Time Slip/Crossing arc. In that arc it was revealed that Stark was the villian, being influenced by Kang. It was further revealed that Kand had been influencing Stark from the very founding of the Avengers. Then he was killed and replaced by a teen age Stark pulled from time before Kang had an opportunity to corrupt him. THEN during the Onslaught/Heroes Reborn arc, Franklin Richards "reset" the Marvel U to a time just before Time Slip. SO, that means Stark is still being influenced by Kang.

BUT, how could Kang push his buttons and mentally control him unless he knew exactly how to do it. How to bypass security measures, armor systems, etc. And who better to know that information than the man himself - Tony Stark. And Kang, later to become Immortus looks like Tony Stark's twin!

It is true that Iron Lad was a young kang, and not Tony, but gosh he looked alot like the young Tony Stark from Time Slip! If a young Tony could be pulled from time to become a new Iron Man, then surely a young Tony could be pulled from time to be groomed to be Kang. Apparently, this young Kang was actually being trained to become Kang by Kang... Does your head hurt yet?

NOW, it seems that Stark founded the Illuminati as a source of secret power, and The Civil War was all a ploy to implement his Initiative. AND he is now the director of SHEILD. Without question, Stark is now the most powerful person in the Marvel U. And you expect his power grab to be over any time soon?

Think about this for a moment - Kang has conquered every world and every timeline he has ever desired, except the present Marvel U. Why? Why has he held back from decimating this timeline and becomeing supreme ruler? Could it be his feelings for friends and family? Could his attacks on this timeline be efforts to hone his past self? He has been on the edge of total victory so many times, but holds back and allows his failure. And what would motivate a super conqueror to become Immortus later? That has never been explained to my satisfaction. It could be a former hero's remorse over what he had ultimately become...

Stark's transformation into Kang began a long time ago. I just can't wait to see how it all plays out.



Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
BlakGard




> I posted this at Avengers Forever, and created a great thread. I
> thought some of you might get a kick out of it also.
>
> I am convinced more than ever before that Tony Stark will become Kang.
>
> It all started back at the end of Volume 1, during the Time
> Slip/Crossing arc. In that arc it was revealed that Stark was the
> villian, being influenced by Kang. It was further revealed that Kand
> had been influencing Stark from the very founding of the Avengers.
> Then he was killed and replaced by a teen age Stark pulled from time
> before Kang had an opportunity to corrupt him. THEN during the
> Onslaught/Heroes Reborn arc, Franklin Richards "reset" the Marvel U
> to a time just before Time Slip. SO, that means Stark is still being
> influenced by Kang.
>
> BUT, how could Kang push his buttons and mentally control him unless
> he knew exactly how to do it. How to bypass security measures, armor
> systems, etc. And who better to know that information than the man
> himself - Tony Stark. And Kang, later to become Immortus looks like
> Tony Stark's twin!
>
> It is true that Iron Lad was a young kang, and not Tony, but gosh he
> looked alot like the young Tony Stark from Time Slip! If a young Tony
> could be pulled from time to become a new Iron Man, then surely a
> young Tony could be pulled from time to be groomed to be Kang.
> Apparently, this young Kang was actually being trained to become Kang
> by Kang... Does your head hurt yet?
>
> NOW, it seems that Stark founded the Illuminati as a source of secret
> power, and The Civil War was all a ploy to implement his Initiative.
> AND he is now the director of SHEILD. Without question, Stark is now
> the most powerful person in the Marvel U. And you expect his power
> grab to be over any time soon?
>
> Think about this for a moment - Kang has conquered every world and
> every timeline he has ever desired, except the present Marvel U. Why?
> Why has he held back from decimating this timeline and becomeing
> supreme ruler? Could it be his feelings for friends and family? Could
> his attacks on this timeline be efforts to hone his past self? He has
> been on the edge of total victory so many times, but holds back and
> allows his failure. And what would motivate a super conqueror to
> become Immortus later? That has never been explained to my
> satisfaction. It could be a former hero's remorse over what he had
> ultimately become...
>
> Stark's transformation into Kang began a long time ago. I just can't
> wait to see how it all plays out.

What of the fact that Kang is Immortus is a descendant of Nathaniel Richards?
____________________



Posted with Netscape Navigator 8.1.3 on Windows XP
Todd




> > I posted this at Avengers Forever, and created a great thread. I
> > thought some of you might get a kick out of it also....

> >...wait to see how it all plays out.
>
> What of the fact that Kang is Immortus is a descendant of Nathaniel Richards?
> ____________________

Kang and Immortus are no longer the same person. It's unclear if either of them are a part of Nathaniel Richards's bloodline anymore, as well.

Read Avengers Forever, if you haven't already. It's a really well-done (if very continuity-heavy) "cosmic" style Avengers tale.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
BlakGard




> > > I posted this at Avengers Forever, and created a great thread. I
> > > thought some of you might get a kick out of it also....
> > >
> > > ...wait to see how it all plays out.
> >
> > What of the fact that Kang is Immortus is a descendant of Nathaniel
> > Richards?
>
> Kang and Immortus are no longer the same person. It's unclear if
> either of them are a part of Nathaniel Richards's bloodline anymore,
> as well.
>
> Read Avengers Forever, if you haven't already. It's a really
> well-done (if very continuity-heavy) "cosmic" style Avengers tale.

I've read Avengers Forever. Seemed quite clear they were still the same person, just separate beings.
____________________



Posted with Netscape Navigator 8.1.3 on Windows XP
Hank




> > > > I posted this at Avengers Forever, and created a great thread. I
> > > > thought some of you might get a kick out of it also....
> > > >
> > > > ...wait to see how it all plays out.
> > >
> > > What of the fact that Kang is Immortus is a descendant of Nathaniel
> > > Richards?
> >
> > Kang and Immortus are no longer the same person. It's unclear if
> > either of them are a part of Nathaniel Richards's bloodline anymore,
> > as well.
> >
> > Read Avengers Forever, if you haven't already. It's a really
> > well-done (if very continuity-heavy) "cosmic" style Avengers tale.

> I've read Avengers Forever. Seemed quite clear they were still the same person, just separate beings.

I got the same conclusion also. Plus the Forever Crystal, which was used to split Kang and Immortus was used to split Human Torch and Vision as well, making them both originate from the same android. I remember also from the What If Timequake arc that Kang may be related to Reed Richards. But it still may be possible that Tony is being controlled by Kang or Immortus (he was even given technology from them during the Force Works series) . Since the objective of the Avengers Forever was to keep the Avengers from going and taking over space, they used Tony to sabotage the Avengers. Now with the team split it would be a great way for the team to stay on earth. While I like the idea I think I dont think Tony will become Kang. But may be Kang like, like one of the impostors in the Kang Council.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3 on Windows XP
emerick man




> > > > > I posted this at Avengers Forever, and created a great thread. I
> > > > > thought some of you might get a kick out of it also....
> > > > >
> > > > > ...wait to see how it all plays out.
> > > >
> > > > What of the fact that Kang is Immortus is a descendant of Nathaniel
> > > > Richards?
> > >
> > > Kang and Immortus are no longer the same person. It's unclear if
> > > either of them are a part of Nathaniel Richards's bloodline anymore,
> > > as well.
> > >
> > > Read Avengers Forever, if you haven't already. It's a really
> > > well-done (if very continuity-heavy) "cosmic" style Avengers tale.
>
> > I've read Avengers Forever. Seemed quite clear they were still the same person, just separate beings.
>
> I got the same conclusion also. Plus the Forever Crystal, which was used to split Kang and Immortus was used to split Human Torch and Vision as well, making them both originate from the same android. I remember also from the What If Timequake arc that Kang may be related to Reed Richards. But it still may be possible that Tony is being controlled by Kang or Immortus (he was even given technology from them during the Force Works series) . Since the objective of the Avengers Forever was to keep the Avengers from going and taking over space, they used Tony to sabotage the Avengers. Now with the team split it would be a great way for the team to stay on earth. While I like the idea I think I dont think Tony will become Kang. But may be Kang like, like one of the impostors in the Kang Council.

Revealed evidence shows that this is currently not likely buuuut there's always the dreaded Retcon. Or maybe Kang just replaced Tony at some point in history? Fans would love that.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Leonard




1) We know quite a lot about Kang´s actual life - like that he was born in the 30th century, and details about his childhood and youth.

2) We know similar details about Tony Stark. That he is Howard Stark´s son was never in question.

3) As has been shown in Avengers Forever, Kang never manipulated Stark -it was always Immortus. And not since the beginning of his career, but only from Galactic Storm on.

4) Sure, they look alike - a little bit. So do Captain American and Hawkeye. But haircolor and -style isn´t everything.

5) Psychologically, they are very different. Stark hates warfare, and made it clear during his brief tenure as Secretary of Defense that if he could in any way make it possible, "Nobody need die in war ever again". His entire motivation during Civil War was AVOIDING all-out war at all costs. That could not be more different from Kang´s philosophy - he loves battle above all other things.

6) There has never been an intimate link between Stark and Kang, like there was between Kang and Doom.

I do not think Tony Stark and Kang, the Conqueror, are in any way, shape or form related, never mind the suggestiin that they are the same guy.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Hmm





>
> 5) Psychologically, they are very different. Stark hates warfare, and made it clear during his brief tenure as Secretary of Defense that if he could in any way make it possible, "Nobody need die in war ever again". His entire motivation during Civil War was AVOIDING all-out war at all costs. That could not be more different from Kang´s philosophy - he loves battle above all other things.

Yeah, that's the key thing. Stark tries to control everything. While he does do violent things, it is always with the motive of preventing even greater violence. Even at his worst, his violence is surgical. Meanwhile Kang will deliberate limit himself to make things even more competative so he can enjoy the chaos and combat.

Stark invented anti-She-Hulk nanotech so he could beat her as quietly and safely as possible. Kang refused to go back to the future and come back instantly with an army built up over years in the future, because it would have been an I-WIN button and ended the bloody battles he enjoys.

In many ways they are the opposite. Stark will go overboard on friends in the name of control and peace. Kang will self-limit himself in the name of chaos.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.4 on MacOS X
Hmm




Same kind of manipulative son of a B, yet ultimately heroic.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.4 on MacOS X
John Pyka




All of those are valid points, assuming that Kang's history is accurate, and that he and/or Immortus are telling the truth. It seems to me that this theory could tie into the formation of The Illuminati, and the Initiative. I never said they were identical or even the same person right now. But the evolution is the story.

Wouldn't it be cool? That one of Marvel's mainstay heroes is actually THE mastermind villian behind everything?

>
> >
> > 5) Psychologically, they are very different. Stark hates warfare, and made it clear during his brief tenure as Secretary of Defense that if he could in any way make it possible, "Nobody need die in war ever again". His entire motivation during Civil War was AVOIDING all-out war at all costs. That could not be more different from Kang´s philosophy - he loves battle above all other things.
>
> Yeah, that's the key thing. Stark tries to control everything. While he does do violent things, it is always with the motive of preventing even greater violence. Even at his worst, his violence is surgical. Meanwhile Kang will deliberate limit himself to make things even more competative so he can enjoy the chaos and combat.
>
> Stark invented anti-She-Hulk nanotech so he could beat her as quietly and safely as possible. Kang refused to go back to the future and come back instantly with an army built up over years in the future, because it would have been an I-WIN button and ended the bloody battles he enjoys.
>
> In many ways they are the opposite. Stark will go overboard on friends in the name of control and peace. Kang will self-limit himself in the name of chaos.


Posted with Apple Safari on MacOS X
BlakGard




> All of those are valid points, assuming that Kang's history is
> accurate, and that he and/or Immortus are telling the truth. It seems
> to me that this theory could tie into the formation of The Illuminati,
> and the Initiative. I never said they were identical or even the same
> person right now. But the evolution is the story.

We have more than Kang's/Immortus' word for his history.

> Wouldn't it be cool? That one of Marvel's mainstay heroes is actually
> THE mastermind villian behind everything?

I dunno. At this point, that's kind of cliche, and I'm already not pleased with how dark Tony's been portrayed lately. I'd rather he not get any darker.
____________________



Posted with Netscape Navigator 8.1.3 on Windows XP

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software