Not likely, everything I’ve heard points to Sentry being a huge part of the film, and they’ve been talking to Yeun for so long that the part was kind of being tailored for him specifically...

“live-action D+ shows” - for a second I thought you were giving the Marvel TV shows a bad grade. The only Disney+ series that has earned a D+ so far was “Secret Invasion” (It gets the + for the cast, who are wonderful actors who couldn’t change the writing or directing.)

Well, “something completely different that would work for the MCU” suits me fine as opposed to a strictly faithful adaptation.  Again, not a character I’m all that keen on, but I’m willing to be open minded with whatever they choose to do, with or without Yeun.

Deadpool isn’t the only one in development, it’s just the only one coming out in 2024.

“Aang’s parentage” please, no.

I remain stunned how people keep getting into fights with the people who created the loved things and then make an unloved thing in its shape. Like the list of people who went their own way with someone elses story and had it work is SHORT

I can think of $everal rea$on$ he might be intere$ted

I say they lean into it: recast him with several different actors

Oh, I love Stanfield. He’d be great.

I like Denzel, though, BECAUSE of his age. I don’t see Kang moving on after Avengers 5, so he may have to appear in maybe, one, two films? He might commit to that.

They almost certainly waited for the convictions because they had to.  He could have raked them over the coals contractually if he was acquitted.

Disney needs to give John Boyega a call. They owe him that much

Not surprising. Although I did enjoy Majors playing Kang for the most part, it’s not shocking that Disney/Marvel would drop him. In fact, it’s usually typical from a business point of view. I have enjoyed him in other films and shows, but after reading everything that was presented in the trial, I wouldn’t want to…

Eh, they still waited for the convictions before pulling this trigger. I suspect it also makes it easier because there aren’t any of the upcoming features he’s filmed yet. So they have the ability to recast (especially given how Loki established that different variants can have different appearances) without it…

No. Being an abusive scumbag ended his career. He doesn’t need an apologist; he needs to take responsibility for himself. Your response seems like a bit of a red flag though...

I’ve been in some relationships that were obviously not working out and probably should have ended sooner. I was never violent, nor was my partner. 

I think, probably, being aggresive and violent towards a weaker person is what ended his career - no matter whether the relationship was toxic or not. There should be no place for bullies in the world, or those who diminish their actions.

Because the actor can be what sells the character in movies. Recasting certain characters just won’t work, or at least wouldn’t go over well with audiences. With Kang I think they could, but you couldn’t recast Tony or Steve. It’s trickier ground when it comes to live action. It depends how big the character is and…

This right here.  If there’s one genre of movies that you can easily slot actors in and out of roles with, it’s Marvel comics.

Not surprising and considering the multiverse angle, it’s even easier a recast than Rhodey.

The question is why are KotFM and Napoleon considered successes versus the Marvels. Similar budgets et al.