I would say that in general, I'm not a big fan of time-travel, which may be a product of the time travel stories I've read (more on that tomorrow). I think my problem exists in the fact that they begin to be continuity. Then the next time that a time-traveling character shows up, you have to reconcile how anything they did that might have altered things with the fact that they may be the same as before.
I'd say Kang is probably the prime example. As long as I just think of Kang as this guy who wants to conquer things, and has access to all sorts of vast resources which make him an immensely difficult foe, I'm OK. Once I start thinking about how he's from the future, and he's also been a Pharaoh (is that right?), and he's also Immortus(?!), and if he could go back in time and have a hand in the creation of early computer circuitry, which was later improved and adapted for use in Sentinels, which enables him to control those Sentinels (see the massive Kang War in Avengers), why wouldn't he just conquer the Earth at that more vulnerable juncture? Oh right, because he enjoys a challenge. Well, I can respect that.Ugh, my head hurts, though that may have nothing to do with thinking about Kang.
Your thoughts?
5 comments:
In general, I like time travel stories, but you're right that it plays havoc with continuity. I've also often wondered why time traveling characters appear at a time when they can be defeated. If Iron Man plays a role in Kang's defeat one day, why doesn't he go back in time to a point where he can kill Tony Stark as a child?
Sometimes the answer will be, "I could kill Tony Stark, but someone else will just become Iron Man because the future cannot be changed," which always raises the question of why time travel characters do anything at all if they can't alter the future.
Your description of Kang is accurate. He is from the future was briefly Kang, then the Crimson Avenger, then Rama-Tut, then Kang (and occasionally Rama-Tut), then was divided into two aspects. One was Kang, the other Immortus.
Man, that's a mess.
Weird. Just yesterday I read the old Roger Stern Avengers issues with Kang and Immortus. And there's several Kangs in it, although a couple are killing off their dumber alternate-reality counterparts. (That's why the timeline never really changes: every time a Kang does something, it creates another divergent timeline. So, kill Iron Man as a kid, and you have the regular timeline and the one you altered.)
Then, less than 40 issues later, someone brought in the Council of Crosstime Kangs, or some damn thing: a frickin' legion not only of Kangs, but also opportunists who had defeated their reality's Kang and then decided they'd look good in a blue mask and thigh boots. To be fair, they were equal opportunity: dinosaur, robot, alien; just wear the damn mask and you're in.
So, then, why time travel? In a lot of cases, you might create a universe where everything turned out right, but your reality still sucks. Hmm.
Trust me when I say that the whole time travel thing isn't simple. It's like the universe has some sort of "hero complex" that won't let you change history.
I can't tell you how many times I've travelled back in time and tried to smash in baby Hal Jordan's skull.
It just. Doesn't. Work.
The Council of Kangs are all dead (Kang killed them), and Kang was so upset about becoming the bleeding-heart wimpy Immortus that he tried to kill him too, only some cosmic guys turned up and separated them off so that Kang would not necessarily become Immortus in his future. In his past, however, Kang was Iron Lad.
See? Simple.
Post a Comment