I am exited for this. I know jack all about Black Panther as a comic character, but I really liked the performance given in Civil War, and I look forward to seeing more!
LordofHats wrote: I am exited for this. I know jack all about Black Panther as a comic character, but I really liked the performance given in Civil War, and I look forward to seeing more!
This is where I'm at too...
This movies look spectacular with intriguing storylines.
Wakanda has exclusive* access to the world's Vibranium supply, and this resource has allowed them to jump far ahead of the rest of the world technologically.
*If I'm remembering correctly, Vibranium comes from outer space and arrived on Earth via meteor. Some fragments landed elsewhere but the bulk of the rock hit where Wakanda is so they have a hell of a lot more of it than everyone else. Black Panther's entire suit is made of the stuff, and we've all seen what Captain America can do with just a shield.
There's a bunch of mystical stuff there too I think, but that's pretty much the end of my knowledge outside of t'Challa's sister being Black panther for awhile and that he hooks up with Storm.
It's comic books so there's various different versions, but yeah, 99% of the worlds supply of unobtanium. Sometimes via meteor, sometimes crashed spaceship. While they have the super high tech theyve tended to hide that fact though so the world doesn't know what they have. Modern comics have them generally outed and properly viewed as a major world power, but this looks to more use the old stuff where some people are just starting to get a glimpse of their hidden potential.
I got interested in Black Panther as a kid reading Doom 2099. There was a brief arc in that title about von Doom, finally restored as ruler of Latveria, agreeing to help Wakanda because of his respect for T'Challa. I really like characters, like von Doom, T'Challa, and Prince Namor, that are both adventurers and monarchs. It seems to create a certain amount of ambiguity in their characters.
Manchu wrote: I got interested in Black Panther as a kid reading Doom 2099. There was a brief arc in that title about von Doom, finally restored as ruler of Latveria, agreeing to help Wakanda because of his respect for T'Challa. I really like characters, like von Doom, T'Challa, and Prince Namor, that are both adventurers and monarchs. It seems to create a certain amount of ambiguity in their characters.
You know, I love those 3 characters too (especially John Byrne's run on Namor!), and I didn't put too much thought into 'why', but I think you've nailed it there!
This movie - so far - looks to be fantastic.
Who would've thought that Ulysses Klaw would be a featured villain in a big budget movie too!
You know. As a pretty decent comic book nerd and Marvel being my choice when it comes to super heroes, I know very little about Black Panther. I watched the trailer and I just wasn't excited. It looks decent enough but I always enjoy a good villain and the conflict that revolves around the protagonist and antagonist. Black Panther's villains never seem to have much cross over with the Marvel universe at large or he is working as part of a team to take on a big name villain.
By all means I will give this movie a chance but I just can't get excited about it. I feel like Black Panther is so loosely connected to the rest of the Marvel universe as he isn't really apart of any of the major teams and he only seems to be involved when Wakanda is involved...I don't know, maybe I just don't know enough about him as a character.
Still, if we can keep getting more and more heroes into movies and TV shows maybe one day I can see Moon Knight in the MCU.
Klaw was a B-list FF villain in addition to being T'Challa's nemesis. In fact, the Black Panther himself was a Namoresque B-list FF villain at one point.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: I feel like Black Panther is so loosely connected to the rest of the Marvel universe as he isn't really apart of any of the major teams and he only seems to be involved when Wakanda is involved...
That's what I like about this film (and Doctor Strange); it's about time someone other than five guys in New York started noticing all the weird stuff going on in the world.
Vintage comic book collecting can sometimes be considered as a sort of futures market for the success of a given character or property. This is most apparent when it comes to the run-up towards a new film. The higher the anticipation, the higher that prices go. If the film is then successful upon release, prices might hold steady or even continue to climb. If a film is panned upon release, the prices of related comics can drop substantially in the aftermath. We just saw collectors make their first big bet on the success of the Black Panther film. I doubt it’ll be the last. A Fantastic Four #52 CGC 9.4 sold for $12,422.00 at the Jon Berk Collection Auction Session 3 at Comic Connect last night. That’s a new record for this comic book in CGC 9.4. The July 1966 cover-dated comic (you can see this copy has an April 5, 1966 arrival date-stamp on the cover) contains the first appearance of the Black Panther by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and Joe Sinnott.
AegisGrimm wrote: Yeah, you would think Shield would have wondered about the mini-Asguard in the middle of Africa.
I'm pretty sure a big part of it is supposed to be a dig at the colonial mindset regarding Africa - stealth tech, sure, but also blinkered western powers who's preconceptions would never allow them to believe the most advanced nation on earth would be nestled deep in "darkest Africa". It's hard to find something if you're not looking for it in the first place.
As to the trailer - I find myself more excited to see this than I am by the whole Infinity War "event".
Yeah - INFINITY WAR has all sorts of ways to be messed up.
BUT...given how good (GoTG) and OK (Avengers) that most of the movies have been that are going to be involved there, I'm still optimistic that they'll be able to pull it off and deliver a fun movie.
One good thing here is that I was reminded of the gaps in my Fantastic Four reprint collection and went out and filled it, so now I can read an almost complete run on #1 to almost #300!
However, the question I still have is why no Black Widow stand-alone? I mean the genre is right there staring everyone in the face. Clearly they can just make it a genre film like they do with all the others. Antman was a Heist flick. Cap was a War movie. Etc.
Black Widow's stand alone should obviously be..... a Romantic Comedy!
Easy E wrote: I have a feeling this will do huge box office.
However, the question I still have is why no Black Widow stand-alone? I mean the genre is right there staring everyone in the face. Clearly they can just make it a genre film like they do with all the others. Antman was a Heist flick. Cap was a War movie. Etc.
Black Widow's stand alone should obviously be..... a Romantic Comedy!
Probably execs still worried about female lead - even after Wonder Woman or SJ is not available / too expensive - though I doubt that compared to RDJ?
Looks a little standard super hero story, but Marvel generally does a good job of surprising people. Mildly worried it will be similar to Dr. Strange though, where the movie is overall solid but doesn't really do anything to make it memorable in the increasingly crowded genre.
LunarSol wrote: Looks a little standard super hero story, but Marvel generally does a good job of surprising people. Mildly worried it will be similar to Dr. Strange though, where the movie is overall solid but doesn't really do anything to make it memorable in the increasingly crowded genre.
Strange fell flat for me on a number of levels, and suffered from being the 6th or 7th time that Marvel have made the exact same film (and without, say, the sheer brilliant script of Ant-Man to elevate it above that) but I think BP will do much, much better. Visually, it's got a totally new aesthetic which they look to be really taking in a cool direction, some of the hints of action scenes we've seen look highly inventive, and it's got a very charismatic lead in Boseman.
It's also not really an origin story, so they're not so constrained by the standard Marvel Formula of Get Powers>Train>Lose To Bad Guy> Learn New Thing>Beat Bad Guy (not necessarily anything wrong with that formula, but as I say Marvel have done it to death and their truly standout films are the ones that break away from it like TWS, Civil War and Guardians 2). I expect a lot of political intrigue, but with plenty of badass action sequences and what looks like a bit of globetrotting to break it up, and at the centre of it a very powerful story. T'Challa is a fascinating character dealing with a kind of responsibility and history that doesn't really compare to anything we've seen in the MCU so far.
I have high hopes, and that trailer does a lot to cement them.
Don't get me wrong; I'm almost certainly going opening night. My expectations are just currently a little tapered. I'll be interested to see how much of the style of the trailers translates to the final film at the very least.
Weird - Civil War and Guardians 2 are the ones that fell flat for me, while I really enjoyed Strange. I guess I'm still not at the stage where I need them to be anything more than a superhero movie.
Yodhrin wrote: Weird - Civil War and Guardians 2 are the ones that fell flat for me, while I really enjoyed Strange. I guess I'm still not at the stage where I need them to be anything more than a superhero movie.
Ha!
Same here - and I usually find myself enjoying them quite a bit too!
Yodhrin wrote: Weird - Civil War and Guardians 2 are the ones that fell flat for me, while I really enjoyed Strange. I guess I'm still not at the stage where I need them to be anything more than a superhero movie.
Ha!
Same here - and I usually find myself enjoying them quite a bit too!
Aye. I mean, don't get me wrong, I like the ones where they "shake up the formula" as well - Ant Man is one of my favourite MCU films - but when I go to see an MCU superhero movie I expect to see, well, an MCU superhero movie. I enjoyed the "formula" when I first saw it in Iron Man, and I still like it well enough now; it's not "high art" or cerebral sci-fi, but there are other IPs and genres for that, and it remains good entertainment, for my money.
Fair enough. I just find that some of Marvel's output has become a bit predictable and bland. Take Strange for example, if you've seen Iron Man/Thor 1/Ant-Man then it's clear from the start exactly where the plot it going, exactly which character archetypes various people are going to fall into, and ultimately how it's all going to play out in the end. This doesn't automatically make it boring, but I find I need something to elevate it a bit beyond that 'paint by numbers' storyline. A charismatic lead like Rudd in Ant-Man or a stunning script like GotG1, and for me, Strange lacked anything like that. Its USP was, I guess, the visual style, but that did nothing for me at all, I really would have liked it to go less Inception, more Harry Potter when it came to magic. All the folding planes and angles and distorted dimensions just didn't work for me as a set of visual motifs.
To move forward, I think Marvel just need to start making more films that are actually about something. Doesn't have to be grandiose, but my favourites are the ones that have a central theme and work that into the narrative. TWS is about trust and responsibility versus abuse of power, GOTG2 is about family, and to go outside the MCU, the best X-men films are the ones that really deal with the concepts of otherness and prejudice, like First Class and X2. Logan is one of the best comic book movies ever because you could take away the claws and the robot hands and the psychic and that story would still be one that is unique, moving and powerful.
Fortunately, BP looks to be more in this vein, inventive visually and hopefully quite original narratively.
I understand your point, it's just not a view I share. My feelings on this are similar to my feelings on 40K and on Star Trek - I like those things for what they are and because they are that, I neither need nor want them to be anything else because if I want something different, I watch/play something different. I'd rather 40K remain 40K, Star Trek remain Star Trek, and MCU films remain MCU films so that when my interest swings back around in their direction in the future they still exist in the form I enjoyed them.
Yodhrin wrote: I understand your point, it's just not a view I share. My feelings on this are similar to my feelings on 40K and on Star Trek - I like those things for what they are and because they are that, I neither need nor want them to be anything else because if I want something different, I watch/play something different. I'd rather 40K remain 40K, Star Trek remain Star Trek, and MCU films remain MCU films so that when my interest swings back around in their direction in the future they still exist in the form I enjoyed them.
Agreed - and I feel that all of the marvel films have had themes - they may not have jumped down your throat but they are better films for that.
@ Paradigm - I thought Ant Man was just ok and the script nothing special, the main lead was quite good but not in the same league as the say the cast of Avengers (in my eye THE superhero team movie) or Iron Man. E Lily was not great and there was simply little chemistry between them - unlike say Pepper and Tony in IM.
Strange was a bit of a throwaway movie that was only tied into the rest by the Infinity Stone, the Inception scenes (itself I feel is a massively overrated dog of a movie) were ok but just pretty to look at. I don't get the excitement for Guardians - it was always a second tier Marvel movie for me - behind Iron Man, Avengers, Cap A 2 and the Thor films - it was really enjoyable but nothing special but again subjective views. Logan is not bad, some great character work but the end is very weak and the whole "oh look nice black family that will die but don't matter" is poor.
IMO Marvel excels at making seemingly simple action movies that actually have a lot of humanity and heart, comedy and drama - they make films about people who do extraordinary things, not just superheroes. Its something DC have only just understood and IMO finally got it right with Wonder Woman.
Any discussion about whether the movies are good/bad is also highly subjective and dependant on what you actually enjoy/expect from a film.
Still excited about Black Panther! He was perhaps the best thing in Civil War which I did not think was as good as Avengers 1 or 2 or Winter Soldier.
Of all the MCU heroes yet, Black Panther has a very unique take on what it means to be a "hero". Partially because he is also a King, partially because of his Wakandian culture, and partially because of his outsider status as a not-actually an Avenger super-hero.
I am interested in how they portray this in the movie.
Very much agree with Paradigm about Doctor Strange.
At this point, the Marvel and DC movies are very much like the comics for me inasmuch as I will only check out one that features a character I care about. That's why I went to see Doctor Strange. I also figured Doctor Strange would be a good opportunity for Marvel Studios to break out of the ubiquitous "Avengers look" (similar to the "Snyder look" of DC movies). The kaleidoscopic effects seemed very promising in theory. In practice, however, they were largely pointless fluff. For better or worse, Doctor Strange is another rank-and-file entry to the MCU.
I also like Black Panther so I will probably go see this film. Given the Wakandan setting, I am pretty excited about the possibility of a high science fiction aesthetic - something similar to the fantastical Kryptonian scenes in MoS. But, yes, Black Panther needs to be about something rather than just being another origin story/character introduction that will eventually support the main event, i.e., Infinity War.
Manchu wrote: Very much agree with Paradigm about Doctor Strange.
At this point, the Marvel and DC movies are very much like the comics for me inasmuch as I will only check out one that features a character I care about. That's why I went to see Doctor Strange. I also figured Doctor Strange would be a good opportunity for Marvel Studios to break out of the ubiquitous "Avengers look" (similar to the "Snyder look" of DC movies). The kaleidoscopic effects seemed very promising in theory. In practice, however, they were largely pointless fluff. For better or worse, Doctor Strange is another rank-and-file entry to the MCU.
I also like Black Panther so I will probably go see this film. Given the Wakandan setting, I am pretty excited about the possibility of a high science fiction aesthetic - something similar to the fantastical Kryptonian scenes in MoS. But, yes, Black Panther needs to be about something rather than just being another origin story/character introduction that will eventually support the main event, i.e., Infinity War.
I don't know if they can go with a straight origin story because Civil War did that. However, I don't expect it to step too far away from those origin story beats. I for one am getting sick of origin stories.
I wonder if Cap or Winter Soldier will make a cameo? Cap makes a delightful cameo in the old MTV Black Panther anime. Anyone see that thing?
I never followed Black Panther back when I was into comics, I always thought he was a Spiderman villian(Was a DC/Image/Dark Horse guy) . I know a bit more about him now, but I’m curious:
Why is Wakanda so reclusive and how are they so advanced?
Are they guarding something? Is that something what gives them the technical know-whats?
nels1031 wrote: Why is Wakanda so reclusive and how are they so advanced?
As I understand it;
Wakanda has near sole access to the world's Vibranium supply (what Vibranium exists outside their borders is usually smuggled out of the country) via a meteor that landed within the country in the ancient past. They remain reclusive because while powerful and technologically advanced they are a very small country and cannot take on the world eager to seize control of their vibranium supply.
Vibranium meteor/crashed alien spaceship is generally the source of their super tech, and their desire not to lose out on it causes their reclusiveness.
I don't know if it was game changingly awesome, but it was certainly a well consrructed Marvel film that managed to touch on much bigger and broader themes. It was a good origin movie with an interesting moral premise. I would have liked some more character development for some characters and the big clash at the end just wasn't keeping me as entertained (whether that's superhero fatigue setting in or a change in my taste for visually choreography I'm unsure) but it was still an enjoyable ride and up there with some of my favourite origin movies such as Thor 1 and Spider-Man: Homecoming.
I'll be interested to see where they take the character post Infinity War.
Well, if the rest of the film is on par with Spider-Man Homecoming or Wonder Woman, bad CGI is forgivable. I really hope BP lives up to the hype.
I also find that it depends what they do with the bad cgi. Babylon 5 and The Last Starfighter had the most dated CGI around, but the space battles were usually well-paced and dramatic. Even stop motion is fun to watch when it is well used.
From what I hear this is a good movie precisely because they allowed themselves to indulge in grand narrative and mythology instead of being unnecessarily "post" these things. Considering that those are big reasons people like superheroes that seems like a smart decision.
Why do things need to be game changing etc - especially when the really popular compuer games are all the same be they FPS, football or racing games - graphics really the only thing thats changed in decades.
Trailer looks good and looking forward to seeing it next week.
Mr Morden wrote: Why do things need to be game changing etc - especially when the really popular compuer games are all the same be they FPS, football or racing games - graphics really the only thing thats changed in decades.
Trailer looks good and looking forward to seeing it next week.
They don't. The Ancient Greeks had all the major plot conflicts figured out 2.5K+ years ago, and we still use them all today. If this does indulge in "myth" then the basics are even older. It is how you do it that matters.
"Game changing" in the context of being a blockbuster from a major studio with an almost-all black cast, set in Africa and with nearly all the characters being African.
The last two films that spring to mind are The Lion King (African characters and setting, mostly-white cast) and District 9 and Chappie (D9, IIRC, managed an all-African cast, but a significant proportion were white South Africans))
AndrewGPaul wrote: "Game changing" in the context of being a blockbuster from a major studio with an almost-all black cast, set in Africa and with nearly all the characters being African.
The last two films that spring to mind are The Lion King (African characters and setting, mostly-white cast) and District 9 and Chappie (D9, IIRC, managed an all-African cast, but a significant proportion were white South Africans))
And more importantly, showing that all black cast as Africans of a prosperous nation rather than a third world, war torn back-water hole in the ground.
To make it simple, I'll put everything in spoilers as it's easier that way.
Spoiler:
Ok, so, saw it. I'll try to avoid dipping too far into spoilers but suffice to say I quite enjoyed this film. Certainly worth the wait.
I was afraid this movie would be accused of what one of my fav MCU films, Iron Man 2, is always accused of - just a stepping stone to the Avengers with too much time setting up other characters/stories/movies without leaving time to deal with its own. Of course I knew such thinking was foolish - no way the critics of the Western world were ever going to genuinely criticise this film lest they be labelled white supremacist Alt-Right Trumppers, but they didn't go the "It's Wakanda, here's a few people from the comics and they have some lines, but we're setting up the Soul Stone instead!" route, so that's good.
One thing this movie is not is the second coming of Black Jesus. This isn't the greatest Marvel movie since Avengers/Winter Soldier. It is competent, slickly made, well directed (with a few exceptions), gorgeous to look at, filled with fantastic performances (Shuri and M'Baku are standouts). It is not some iconic cultural touchstone which will bring new meaning to the lives of black people everywhere.
Boseman follows up on his excellent debut in Civil War with an understated performance that sells the conflict of being a king, but lost without his father. I don't quite buy the "You killed our uncle... my whole world is crumbling!" thing as that didn't ring true, but the rest of it did. He was perhaps too understated at points. I'm not expecting Stark levels of swagger, nor Rogers level of rigid-jaw speechifying, but there were times where it felt like he let the world around him move too passively, and often without saying anything.
Shrui was awesome. More of her, as soon as possible please.
M'Baku. Talk about a scenestealer! Good ol' Dominic from Person of Interest came across as an incredibly intimidating fighter, a true leader with real issues with how his nation is run, and most of all an honourable leader. He hates the Panther tribe, wants nothing to do with the more advanced tribes of Wakanda, isn't involved in the collaborative running of Wakanda, and probably hates T'Challa personally... but he knows when it's time to do the right thing. Hope he gets to do some cool gak in Infinity War.
The two main girls, Lupita's character and whatsherface from TWD. They were very good. The love story was, much like a lot of this film, understated and brewed quietly underneath. It was more subtext in a lot of ways, which made its resolution (of sorts) more natural. Makes Natalie Portman look like an amateur obviously reading cue-cards from just off-camera. The Dora Milaje themselves were great, and seeing them kick ass was so cool.
Speaking of the fight scenes, they were a mixed bag. The first one in the jungle was incomprehensible. Nearly pitch black, with the main character wearing full black, fighting a bunch of darkly dressed black guys. You couldn't follow a fething thing. I feel sorry for the poor saps who saw this movie in 3D where that scene would'a been even darker. The final fight between Panther and Killmonger suffered in a similar fashion, heightened ever so much by obvious CGI. I always wanted to go back to Ross or the big fight between the armies...
... hmm... two people square off, whilst another flies a ship to stop something, whilst another group fight on land. This movie had a Star Wars ending. This was Return of the Jedi/Phantom Menace (minus Amidala's palace assault). Weird.
Car chase, the stuff in the underground casino, all the outdoors fight stuff, Ross in the ship - all excellent.
As far as movie comparisons, yeah, I was going to say Hamlet, but Lion King fits just as well as they're the same (in a manner of speaking). That's a good comparison to make. The Lion King comparison also fits with the music as well, which was richly different and had some great drum lines. The "It's black people, therefore hip-hop!" from the trailer is noticeably absent in the film. If it had broken into this during a fight it would have ripped you right out of the film.
So what about the villains, well here we have to enter into real spoiler territory.
Feth me! They killed Klaue! Such a waste of a character and an even more criminal waste of a terrific actor. He was having a blast in this, and was such a stylish villain. Very different to other MCU villains, and most of all clever! But no, killed in service to the MCU Human Torch Rehabilitation Program.
And Killmonger... well... greatest villain since Loki? I think not. I get what he's doing (but his whole POV has a serious problem which I'll get to in a second), and his not ideological motivations make sense, but that's about it. Better than Malekith, perhaps better than Ronan (only because they messed up Ronan IMO), but certainly no where near Loki or Vulture levels.
T'Challa's best friend was an interesting villain. I thought he'd remain loyal throughout and the final battle would be T'Challa v Killmonger with Friend v Klaue as a second fight. Nope. He did get to ride Rhino cavalry, so there's that.
So I mentioned in the spoiler bit that Killmonger's POV has a serious problem because it's a serious problem with the message this movie attempts to sell. It's not a message movie and it's certainly not a "White people = pure evil/Black people = paragons of endless unlimited virtue" film either. But this film lacks any form of introspection. There are 2 billion of my "brothers" out there, and all of them are struggling. So let's arm them with high tech weapons and take over the world. Everything that is wrong with Killmonger's "brothers" is the fault of the other. Nothing they have done is their own fault, everything that has ever happened to them is always the fault of the "colonisers". There isn't a moment where this film allows itself to even contemplate "Y'know, maybe we do a lot of this gak to ourselves!" or even "Yeah, but there's probably more dirt poor Asians out there than us blackfellas". Killmonger's view is "Black people = victims" and "All non-black people = oppressors that must be forcibly killed/enslaved". And that's dumb!
Enjoyed it. Very pretty and loved all the characters and Michael B. Jordan was excellent. I thought it was easy to be sympathetic to the villain's outlook. I think an interesting comparison could be made to Thor Ragnarok on some overlying themes (Royalty, responsibility to your people, and the sins of the past).
I saw it a little bit ago. Still mulling it over for final thoughts.
Initially, really good. They managed to stay true to the characters/comics traditional themes.
This actually made me kind of excited for a marvel x men movie. What if marvel manages to produce an x men movie that isnt about blue lights in the sky or whirling metal but instead carries over the traditional themes of the segregated and oppressed? All the best xmen stories carry those themes and the xman movies so far fail to pay more than lip service to it.
This didnt feel like a phase one marvel movie and im excited to see captain marvel and phase 4 and where marvel decides to go next.
Hadn't thought of that actually. Ant-Man, as good as it was, felt like a Phase 1 film. You can make comparisons between it and Iron Man all you like, but putting those aside it still felt like a film that was only just within a developed cinematic world.
BP felt like it was part of something bigger from the word go.
Black Panther offers no mystical alternative to racism’s threat, or the helplessness engendered by the tragedy of slavery (the original sin of removing Africans from their real and imagined roots). Instead, the movie offers a panacea, a comic-book fantasy of black empowerment that exchanges the actual history of the ’60s Black Panthers for a superficial commercial remedy. Rather than any account of that hopeful, aggrieved, inspiring, yet violent and always controversial social-activist group, we get the story of a monarchy.
I know Armond White is considered a terrible reviewer, but that bit I quoted is on point.
I'm going to spoil some of my issues.
Spoiler:
1. The mass media celebration of Black Panther. He's literally a blaxpoitation character created during the 60's...there were several exploitative characters created at the time to draw in minority audiences. They were mostly stereotypes. Bad stereotypes. He's far from the worst of them, but it seems an odd thing to celebrate. Especially the whole "it's so important to have a black superhero film." Why? Superhero films are disposable popcorn flicks IMO. It seems disingenuous to celebrate both Wonder Woman and Black Panther as somehow being significant firsts. Seriously, black men have been leads of very successful films for decades now and there have been many "strong" women in films as well...even as the primary draw. It's getting praised as stunning and brave and I don't see it. I can see it for Moonlight, but not Black Panther.
2. The constant reduction of African culture to a single, generic entity. Africa is a vast continent with many different cultures, but I swear every time it is portrayed in a film it's treated as if sub Saharan Africa is some monolithic culture. Also, why is it that Wakandans are portrayed as still wearing traditional clothing at all times? Not so much a complaint as it's just strange to me that literally not a single nation I know of still wears traditional clothing except for ceremonial purposes.
3. The kill/subjugate all non blacks (mainly whites) goals of Killmonger are a bit sick. I know he's the "villain" but this is an uncomfortable reoccurring theme and for many, an actual fantasy. Especially if it's not treated in an entirely negative light.
4. Wakandans just chilling while not helping their neighbors. Well, not giving them a lot of help. Oh, and then there is the monarchy bit. Star Wars is routinely blasted for being elitist and focused on bloodlines of "nobility" and power. So is Game of Thrones. Again seems like an odd thing to celebrate.
5. IMO, Star Trek did more for black role models in Hollywood than the MCU and did it years ago. Geordi La Forge was the first black man depicted as a technical expert ASFAIK. Guinan wasn't showed frequently, but she was always wise to the point that Picard looked to her for advice. Worf, while a Klingon, was played by the wonderful Michael Dorn and was somehow able to have relationships on the show over and over with white women and ASFAIK no one complained or even noticed. It was okay to do so. Sisko was by the best character on any Star Trek, if only because he was the most fully realized as an actual human being. He was also unquestionably, the hero and the lead of a successful show that ran for seven seasons and is heralded by many as the best character on ST to this day. Let's not forget DS9 tackled racial issues as well with several episodes and did a great job with it. Jake Sisko didn't always receive the best character development, but ASFAIK he was one of the first black males depicted on TV as an artist (specifically a writer) and a talented one at that. The father-son dynamic was a key element in the show. Cassidy (Sisko's love interest) provided a good female civilian aspect to the show that had been rarely seen and their relationship was well written. I didn't care for Benjamin Sisko's dad (he was a bit xenophobic and emotional), but he always supported his son as Benjamin did Jake. And all of these characters somehow fit organically into the world setting.
Black Panther offers no mystical alternative to racism’s threat, or the helplessness engendered by the tragedy of slavery (the original sin of removing Africans from their real and imagined roots). Instead, the movie offers a panacea, a comic-book fantasy of black empowerment that exchanges the actual history of the ’60s Black Panthers for a superficial commercial remedy. Rather than any account of that hopeful, aggrieved, inspiring, yet violent and always controversial social-activist group, we get the story of a monarchy.
I know Armond White is considered a terrible reviewer, but that bit I quoted is on point.
No, its not. Given that he was somehow expecting the film to be about the political group that formed after and independently of the comic, he's entirely off point. It's exactly like expecting a Spider man movie to actually be about that French guy that climbs buildings, rather than the super hero.
There are no exchanges taking place, and not offering some 'mystic alternative' to racism is a good thing- there isn't any way to do that which isn't patronizing and trivializing to actual problems.
As for your own issues, there's more to representation than just Star Trek, and having a literal handful doesn't mean 'stop.' It's also been a generation since DS9 was on the air (a generation when the usual role was still 'criminal' or 'first to die')- giving kids an opening when someone important is like them is a huge formative moment, 'disposable popcorn' in your view or not.
It felt like a great film buried in a good enough film. They played it it way too safe. Well, except for in the one area where comic book movies used to play it safe. Anyway, it was a decent Marvel film with some great characters and themes that were underutilized.
Warning: some SPOILERS always trying to ice skate uphill.
...
....
.....
Kill monger was the most interesting and the most important character in the film. Imagine if they had shown him growing up in Oakland intercut with T'Challa growing up in Wakanda. Imagine if they had explored the oppressed escaping by becoming the tool of the colonizer, the oppressor. I wish we could have seen more of T'Challa as king and Killmonger as king. There was so much to mine in his character and his contrast with T'Challa and the film left it all in the ground. All for the sake of some extended go-hum action scenes.
Revenge motivated many of the characters, but somehow kept dancing out of the spotlight. BP and KM are both defined by how they avenge the deaths of their fathers and try to live up to them. However, this contrast does not feature in how the characters face each other--the fight scenes are decided merely by physical prowess rather than by the character of the characters.
The film also established two great villains and then murdered them both. What the hell, Marvel? Don't kill your next Loki and Magneto! What were you thinking? Why didn't you play it safe?
There was no "No Man's Land" in this film to really drive home the feels. The closest we get to that comes from the villain.
Anyway, the characters were interesting, the humor funny, and the story engrossing. It was a good film, but not a great film.
PS: Loved all the white kids in the audience with NWA shirts.
PPS: the after-credits sequence was bloodless and boring.
Black Panther offers no mystical alternative to racism’s threat, or the helplessness engendered by the tragedy of slavery (the original sin of removing Africans from their real and imagined roots). Instead, the movie offers a panacea, a comic-book fantasy of black empowerment that exchanges the actual history of the ’60s Black Panthers for a superficial commercial remedy. Rather than any account of that hopeful, aggrieved, inspiring, yet violent and always controversial social-activist group, we get the story of a monarchy.
I know Armond White is considered a terrible reviewer, but that bit I quoted is on point.
No, its not. Given that he was somehow expecting the film to be about the political group that formed after and independently of the comic, he's entirely off point. It's exactly like expecting a Spider man movie to actually be about that French guy that climbs buildings, rather than the super hero.
Calling it entirely off point seems a bit forgiving to me. Someone is borderline idiotic if they walked into the theater expecting something related to the BPP. The Trailers alone, not to mention the last movie the character was in, should be a pretty clear indication these things are not related.
Armond White is the patron saint of 4chan movie reviewers. That should tell you all you really need to know about how far up his own ass he is when it comes to his film reviews.
I always wonder what Armond White is thinking when he reviews movies. He constantly seems disappointed that the movies were not telling the story he thought they should tell.
Well, it looks like there is a good chance that Black Panther will break a few records. I wonder if it will be able to sustain that momentum.
I am looking forward to to seeing it again on IMAX.
I didn't even tought about that as any form of racist. I was just in awe with the "Wakanda" theme of the soundtrack. After Guardians of the Galaxy I think this is the only Marvel movie with an actual good Soundtrack.
If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about.
I can take a good joke of any sort, trust me. But even I found this to be kind of disgusting and distasteful.
Ape noises, actually, and each group had a animal, like the primary being a Panther, and the mountain people have an ape. Automatically associating the animal with racism seems just as problematic.
Ahtman wrote: Ape noises, actually, and each group had a animal, like the primary being a Panther, and the mountain people have an ape. Automatically associating the animal with racism seems just as problematic.
Funny how that crops up when someone made an Obama sock monkey.
I thought the movie was mediocre, and people are simply terrified to say it was anything other than OMG THE GREATEST EVER. They're removing negative reviews of it. It wasn't a terrible movie, but IMHO it wasn't the master epic movie that people are making it out to be.
The Bigotry of Lowered Expectations, now that's just problematic.
Or maybe people with a financial stake in entertainment have found a way to scream 'racist!' when the critics start saying less than pleasant things, hopefully trying to avoid more dropoffs.
I think the movie was one of the best Marvel ones. At the same time, the bests marvels movies are at best "good enough". They are blockbusters for a reason. Fast food to see in the big screen with your friends/family. Nothing that will change how you perceive your world. The kind of movie that like Pacific Rim if you watch in your computer screen or TV, it lost half of his appeal.
For me the biggest acomplishement of Marvel with his movies are not the movies themselves but the organic universe they have created. One where a character like Hulk can appear in Thor:Ragnarok and fit totally natural, like as if you where watching a TV-series.
I saw it again and I think I want to revise my opinion downward. It's an average movie. I don't hate it but neither do I love it and it sort of exists for me with all the average Marvel movies such as Iron Man 2 and 3.
I think there's a great story that got lost in the need to tick the checkboxes that make up a superhero blockbuster.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I can take a good joke of any sort, trust me. But even I found this to be kind of disgusting and distasteful.
It wasn't a joke. It wasn't disgusting. It wasn't distasteful. It was done to show the differences between the Panther tribe and the White Gorilla cult.
But don't believe me, believe Winston Duke, the excellent actor behind M'Baku:
"The panther is sleek, the panther is sneaky, the panther is covert—meanwhile, the gorilla will show up and bang on his chest and make noises to warn you about what is about to happen if you continue to cross the line,” Duke says. “We don’t hide, we don’t sneak. We come through the front door.”
H.B.M.C. wrote: It wasn't a joke. It wasn't disgusting. It wasn't distasteful. It was done to show the differences between the Panther tribe and the White Gorilla cult.
I'm sorry, I just kind of think there's a dozen other ways to do what they were trying to do there, without it turning into the Alt-Right's next favorite gif. It was cringy, if nothing else.
To each their own, man. You've got your opinion and I've got mine.
The sounds were fine and appropriate. It was an inside joke for anyone who knows Black Fraternities, specifically Omega Psi Phi. "Ques", as they are called, bark. It was the first thing I thought of during the scene and it was definitely an intentional "wink."
"Duke [The Actor who plays M'Baku] cracks up at the suggestion that once the film finally hits theaters, the Jabari tribe might also be claimed by Omega Psi Phi, the black fraternity whose members are usually referred to as “Que Dogs”—and are known for barking and a general rebelliousness. "
You were a hair away from screaming 'racist', don't get cocky.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdeptSister wrote: The sounds were fine and appropriate. It was an inside joke for anyone who knows Black Fraternities, specifically Omega Psi Phi. "Ques", as they are called, bark. It was the first thing I thought of during the scene and it was definitely an intentional "wink."
"Duke [The Actor who plays M'Baku] cracks up at the suggestion that once the film finally hits theaters, the Jabari tribe might also be claimed by Omega Psi Phi, the black fraternity whose members are usually referred to as “Que Dogs”—and are known for barking and a general rebelliousness. "
That's an interesting context to put it into. I hadn't heard this.
Just came from seeing it. I think it's on a very short list for best Marvel movie so far; right up there with Iron Man in terms of accessibility to non-comic-book people.
The costumes and settings were terrific, and the action good. The acting was solid. It's kind of interesting that Angela Bassett hasn't seemed to age since the mid-90s. The Rhinos were terrific. Michael B. Jordan was awesome as always, I thought. I would definitely have liked to have seen more of him even if they had to chop some other stuff to get there.
Some of the stuff I didn't like:
Spoiler:
Real shame they killed off Klaw; great character.
The fight where Killmonger and T'Challa were falling and fighting in midair seemed a little too long and a little too ridiculous. Yeah, it was only a few seconds but that maybe should have stayed on the cutting room floor.
W'Kabi's face-heel turn seemed really abrupt. He had his differences with T'Challa but turning on him the way he did seemed very... sudden.
It was very weakly linked to the rest of the MCU, which is neither good not bad. It would be a cool setting for future movies depending on what happens after IW.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I'm sorry, I just kind of think there's a dozen other ways to do what they were trying to do there, without it turning into the Alt-Right's next favorite gif. It was cringy, if nothing else.
To each their own, man. You've got your opinion and I've got mine.
What's the Alt-Right got to do with any of this? And it's not my opinion anyway. It's a direct quote from the guy who played M'Baku. He spells out exactly why his tribe makes the gorilla noises. To them the gorilla god that they worship (as opposed to the Gorilla Grodd... heh!) is very strong and extremely forceful and open, so they channel him in battle. They announce themselves in the same way an angry gorilla does, loud noises and whatnot, because they work to embody their god.
So, again, what has any of those got to do with the Alt-Right? This is something straight from the film.
Adeptus Doritos wrote: I'm sorry, I just kind of think there's a dozen other ways to do what they were trying to do there, without it turning into the Alt-Right's next favorite gif. It was cringy, if nothing else.
To each their own, man. You've got your opinion and I've got mine.
What's the Alt-Right got to do with any of this? And it's not my opinion anyway. It's a direct quote from the guy who played M'Baku. He spells out exactly why his tribe makes the gorilla noises. To them the gorilla god that they worship (as opposed to the Gorilla Grodd... heh!) is very strong and extremely forceful and open, so they channel him in battle. They announce themselves in the same way an angry gorilla does, loud noises and whatnot, because they work to embody their god.
So, again, what has any of those got to do with the Alt-Right? This is something straight from the film.
No one bit on the "bad CGI" hook, so switched bait.
Calling it entirely off point seems a bit forgiving to me. Someone is borderline idiotic if they walked into the theater expecting something related to the BPP. The Trailers alone, not to mention the last movie the character was in, should be a pretty clear indication these things are not related.
Also there was that time when T'Challa called himself the the Black Leopard because he didn't want to be associated with the Black Panthers.
Ouze wrote: No one bit on the "bad CGI" hook, so switched bait.
I've long since lost the ability to determine whether you're having a go at me Ouze or trying to make a point...
I thought the movie was fun. Shuri and M'Baku were the two best things about it. Can't wait to seem 'em again (and Wakanda) in Infinity War. What more else can I really say?
He's agreeing with you. Everyone ignored Dorito's first attempt at trolling, so he's throwing out the insulted card to try and get a rise. Despite the fact you've shown him evidence that the actor explained exactly why it's portrayed that way in the film.
Galas wrote: I think the movie was one of the best Marvel ones. At the same time, the bests marvels movies are at best "good enough". They are blockbusters for a reason. Fast food to see in the big screen with your friends/family. Nothing that will change how you perceive your world. The kind of movie that like Pacific Rim if you watch in your computer screen or TV, it lost half of his appeal.
For me the biggest acomplishement of Marvel with his movies are not the movies themselves but the organic universe they have created. One where a character like Hulk can appear in Thor:Ragnarok and fit totally natural, like as if you where watching a TV-series.
The 'professional' review earlier, where he seems disappointed it's not about something it's never been about?
Reminds me of some about Dredd.
'Eeeeh, it's awful violent'
'Crikey! Why are Dredd shoot first, ask later'
You'd think if you're gonna review a comic book movie, you'd do at least a cursory Google on the character?
As for Marvel's individual movies....
As impressive as the narrative weaving has been, what I think it even more remarkable is that each movie still ultimately works as a stand-alone. Yes, you'll get more out of Civil War if you've seen Cap and Winter Soldier, but you don't have to have seen them to make sense of that specific movie. That's terribly impressive if you ask me!
Ouze wrote: No one bit on the "bad CGI" hook, so switched bait.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: He's agreeing with you. Everyone ignored Dorito's first attempt at trolling, so he's throwing out the insulted card to try and get a rise. Despite the fact you've shown him evidence that the actor explained exactly why it's portrayed that way in the film.
One of the things that makes Dakkadakka's forums so blatantly toxic is that you can't critique something or even make a joke without it being considered 'trolling'. If people are this fanatical over entertainment media, there are actual religions out there that would love this kind of fanaticism.
I thought my post was pretty clear, and when someone gave me more information, I took that into consideration.
Sorry if you're offended by someone not liking a movie as much as you do.
I wouldn't go so far as to call Dakka's forums toxic...
Edit:
Touching on this comment:
giving kids an opening when someone important is like them is a huge formative moment, 'disposable popcorn' in your view or not.
Spoiler - since this not in regards to film quality, but hype.
Spoiler:
If you're looking for role models in a comic book film, you have much bigger problems to deal with. If you need a character to look like you in order to relate or enjoy the media you're literally admitting to being racist (to a degree). The same problem exists in the NBA where a subset of white fans desperately latch onto any halfway decent white player because they're "relatable." Or Eminem having thousands (or more) white fans who don't "like other rap" but will listen to Em, because he's "relatable." In those cases, it's clearly a problem, so why is the reverse not? The importance that we as humans place on physical appearance, particularly skin color, is divisive and self destructive.
IMO, the problem in general with Hollywood is that it has been historically controlled by racist, sexist individuals who severely limit opportunities for minorities and women. So countering that and having more opportunities for historically oppressed groups is clearly a good thing because the endgame to me should be achieving essentially a color/gender blind workplace that is based on talent and work ethic. In that regard BP and WW succeeded.
But the whole "relatable" thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. America needs to get over its cult of celebrity and worship of mass media.
trexmeyer wrote: I wouldn't go so far as to call Dakka's forums toxic..
Meh.
At least a little... 'hostile' toward negative critique of certain things. Star Wars and Black Panther this week seem to be more precious than the Virgin Mother.
I haven't even said Black Panther was a bad movie. It's got its flaws, it's not perfect- I just really (personally) don't think it's worth paying ~$15.00 to see in the theaters.
Does anyone know where they filmed the Oakland scenes? We were trying to figure out where in Oakland those took place, or even if they were in Oakland at all.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Does anyone know where they filmed the Oakland scenes? We were trying to figure out where in Oakland those took place, or even if they were in Oakland at all.
I DO with they didn't flat out kill Klaw. I wish he became comic Klaw as some kind of sonic monster. Then Andy Serkis could perform MoCap for a CGI Andy Serkis. So meta.
I liked it, though I felt they had this nice theme going on with a bit of a "sins of the father" bit and "reconciling the violence of the past with the present" that might build into something. Should have known I'd be disappointed cause it was a super hero film, and they were never going to give those issues any deep thought. Set myself up for disappointment a bit there cause all that just went away at the start of the third act.
I thought the last third of the film was actually really weak.
Spoiler:
Totally agree that the one guys betrayal of T'Challa was forced and unconvincing, but I think even worse than that is how all these leaders seem to turn their back on him and support Kill Monger for really flimsy and unclear reasons. They're all presented earlier in the films as staunch traditionalists who support the new king and then they all decided feth him because he failed at a single task? And why the feth didn't T'Challa bring up that Killmonger was the only reason he failed? He basically said absolutely nothing to anyone which baffled me a bit.
Everything from the third act just felt like the plot driving the characters rather than the characters driving the plot. There was a certain novelty to Wakanda, T'Challa, and Kill Monger for the first 2/3s of the film, and all that novelty just got tossed out the window to make way for a generic action ending. EDIT: Honestly the more I think about it the more the last third feels like it was part of a different script. Whatever happened to that one woman we see in the beginning of the movie, and later with Killmonger? Whatever happened to all these other leaders of Wakanda who basically do their bits then vanish? And why did M'Baku seemingly pull so many 180s?
Fantastic film. One of Marvel's best, easily, but its still, at its core, a sci-fi fantasy epic and not what traditionally passes as an Oscar worthy film. I'm not one who subscribes to the distinction, but its a distinction to be made. It's a remarkably well constructed film that says more than it has time to say by being a film that's in many ways about itself. How good it is is really subjective and not really the point. It's good enough to be worth seeing.
I'm not sure why the conversation has died down so quickly. Between BP and Thor 3, Marvel seems to have added a political edge to their MCU. I wonder whether that will cause a backlash or result in far more well-reviewed critical successes.
Also, asking as a gamer, does any company out there make Afrofuturistic minis besides MERCS' Sefadu line?
Saw it, really loved it! I thought the movie tackled some complex issues really well, without being sappy. It was just a really enjoyable film, found myself smiling for much of it . Best Marvel film since the first Guardians of the Galaxy, imo!
I watched it yesterday, IMHO marvel movies are always on the same level (quite enjoyable but nothing special) and this one makes no exception.
I'm quite glad Marvel put some politics into one of their movies though, I think it's probably the best quality about Black Panther. The only critique that I can make is about the main villain as Marvel couldn't write him completely wicked: political correctness kicked in since portraying a black villain as a pure evil character is still a taboo for major blockbusters. They still made him quite racist, which is better than nothing, even though they basically justified him by showing his difficult childhood.
The casting was amazing, indeed.
Thor Ragnarok was a bit better IMHO, but mostly because setting and plot reflect my tastes more.
He's about as legitimately evil as they come. I think you're confusing charismatic and sympathetic for good. I can't think of a single "good" thing he does in the film now that I'm looking for one.
LunarSol wrote: He's about as legitimately evil as they come. I think you're confusing charismatic and sympathetic for good. I can't think of a single "good" thing he does in the film now that I'm looking for one.
He dosen't do any good actions, but in the end he's basically portrayed as a broken kid that became evil because of his childhood. When he's about to die it seems like he was sorry for his behavior, I didn't appreciated that part.
Killmonger was complex. He is was superficially like Magneto: radicalized by a hard childhood and became a weapon of war. Michael B. Jordan did a good job of making him sympathetic, but he still was the villain who wanted thousands of people to die.
Thor 3 and Black Panther spoilers:
Spoiler:
Did anyone else like the similarities between the Black Panther film and Thor 3? Both are about royal princes whose ascension to the throne is challenged by a family member whose embodies the hidden sins of the father/nation. Both villains want their new nation to become conquerors and an Empire: Hel wants the return of the past glories; Killmonger wants the vengeance he believes Wakanda owes the African descendants. I thought that parallel was intriguing.
LunarSol wrote: He's about as legitimately evil as they come. I think you're confusing charismatic and sympathetic for good. I can't think of a single "good" thing he does in the film now that I'm looking for one.
I don't even think he was that Charismatic in the end. He came off as interesting early in the film, but then just became a mustache villain for the sake of a generic plot conclusion.
Overall, I'd say, for me, it is the best Non-Guardians Marvel film since "The Winter Soldier."
I'd also probably add it kind of feels like the first time in ages that it feels like Marvel focused on doing a classic Superhero story. Rather than a 'coming-of-age' tale, or a buddy comedy, or so on...
I particularly like the James Bond inspired parts of it. The film kinda felt like a mix of Batman, James Bond and Game of Thrones which I liked.
I'm *very* thankful that they managed to avoid the whole awkward forced marvel humour thing in the film. There was only really 1 quip that felt out of place throughout the whole film, and I kind of forgot what it was. So big kudos to them on that.
However, I wouldn't say it is a flawless or perfect film, which some sections of the internet would have you believe.
Killmonger felt a bit like there were 2 completely different personalities depending on the scene and they didn't really mesh together. Other villains, I agree with the spoilered comments.
It kind of felt like they smooshed 2 and a half films into a single movie. I could very well have imagined the film if given time to breathe having been expanded out into something reminiscent of the original Star Wars trilogy. - In fact, there's kind of obvious parallels at various points to Episode 4-6.
The film did suffer a bit from Jason Bourne shaky camera. - I thought people who weren't named Michael Bay had learned to stop doing that.
I found the rhinos kinda silly, particularly since everything else was kind of played very straightly. The rhinos reminded me of the Dwarf Goat Cavalry from The Hobbit.
I only noticed 1 instance of questionable CGI that might have been intentional anyway....
Voss wrote: As for your own issues, there's more to representation than just Star Trek, and having a literal handful doesn't mean 'stop.' It's also been a generation since DS9 was on the air (a generation when the usual role was still 'criminal' or 'first to die')- giving kids an opening when someone important is like them is a huge formative moment, 'disposable popcorn' in your view or not.
Indeed. Increasing diversity in media may be "political", but choosing to maintain the status quo is an equally "political" decision.
LunarSol wrote: He's about as legitimately evil as they come. I think you're confusing charismatic and sympathetic for good. I can't think of a single "good" thing he does in the film now that I'm looking for one.
That was what I liked, he was the embodiment of "You're not wrong, you're just an a-hole about it." He had good points about Wakanda's isolationism, but was far too poisoned by rage to see the country as anything other than a weapon he could use to hurt the world that had hurt him.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. Highly recommended.
Well watched it with wife. It was... forgettable. Liked the females actresses and their roles. Liked Serkis and the usurper prince guy, but they needed far more air time. Main character was just utterly forgettable though.
The first two thirds would have been more interesting as a serious drama. Shakespeare could have run with the questions posed.
Last third was just crap marvel action. Bloodless, boring. Was hoping the bad guy cut off the supposed good guy's head and stuck it on a Pike. Alas no.
Dear lord, I agree with Frazzled on something. The world must be ending.
It was forgettable. The CGI was, if not bad, at the least jarring. It didn't mesh with the live action around it. It was as bad as any Bay film. The rhinos were terrible.
The first big action sequence I had a feeling of dejavu - haven't I seen this before? Oh yeah, it's a rinse and repeat of Civil War's car chase. Which ended with one of my least favourite cinema tropes - hero surfs on something that isn't a surf board (this groan inducer was only saved by the very funny visual gag that ran alongside it).
Just getting to that action sequence was a labour. The first hour is set up, very style heavy (and it is very petty style at that). There's little snippets of the bad guys doing ... stuff ... but for an hour I'm wondering "When does the bloody story start?"
The introduction to the tech lab felt like the writers had discovered and recycled a bad scene from the last cheesy Bond film that they scrapped before the Casino Royale reboot.
The first hour was too slow, the last 20 minutes a rushed mish mash of chaotic nonsense.
There was good stuff too. The gorilla king stole every scene he was in. Killmonger's reasonings could have been fleshed out more, but over all he was a believable and horrifyingly understandable bad guy, which is something Marvel struggle with. The visual styles, the juxtaposition between tribal and futuristic, were done excellently. Serkis was obviously having a blast in his role.
But yeah, forgettable and certainly not worth the hype. It's not a bad film and sits in the middle of the Marvel pack.
Henry wrote: The introduction to the tech lab felt like the writers had discovered and recycled a bad scene from the last cheesy Bond film that they scrapped before the Casino Royale reboot.
Going by the interview with Ryan Coogler and the executive producer on this week's Empire Spoiler Special podcast, that's deliberate. There's a T'Challa as Bond, Shuri as Q thing going on.
Have you guys seen the Kilmonger/Vegeta comparison photos? I can't seem to get any of them to copy and paste on the iPad, but the costume resemblance is uncanny.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Have you guys seen the Kilmonger/Vegeta comparison photos? I can't seem to get any of them to copy and paste on the iPad, but the costume resemblance is uncanny.
It’s not so much uncanny as it is intentional. Dude loves his anime and specifically requested it.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Have you guys seen the Kilmonger/Vegeta comparison photos? I can't seem to get any of them to copy and paste on the iPad, but the costume resemblance is uncanny.
It’s not so much uncanny as it is intentional. Dude loves his anime and specifically requested it.
Okay, now I need someone to dub in lines from the Abridged series.
1 - They put a lot of work into making Erik a complex villain but... his name is KILLMONGER (yes I know that's his name in the comics) and his 2 acts as king are to burn down the sacred herb garden and launch a plan to blow up New York, London and Hong Kong (?? what did they do??).
2 - We're supposed to like and admire Wakanda as an enlightened advanced society but... you become king by winning a spear fight.
Now imagine if instead of plotting 9-11 x 100 Erik has instead announced plans to overthrow the neighboring dictator and drive out the evil corporation that was polluting the land (note you'd have to establish both). Now we in the audience might be nodding and saying "that Killmonger fellow has a point". Make it clear there's no easy answer.
And if, instead of winning the throne by a spear fight, instead make Erik the rightful heir (ie his father was the older brother so he should have gotten the crown) and he gets the throne by persuading the council of elders that he's right. Then you can have a big fight as T'Chala loses patience, but it makes Wakanda a lot more likable than a country where you settle rulership by spear fight.
Saw it last night. I enjoyed it a lot. My biggest problem with it is that they killed Andy Serkis. Give the poor guy a break, he's becoming worse than Sean Bean as a walking spoiler. I loved every minute he was onscreen.
I was thinking that the challenge for kingship would ordinarily be a purely symbolic thing that only served as a rubber stamp for whoever had already been decided upon (presumably all those tribal leaders had already agreed T'Challa would be king in the previous days' council meetings). I'm not sure how that squares with the fight against the champion of the mountain tribe, though. Do they always put up a fighter so the TV coverage of the ceremony is more entertaining, or were they seriously challenging for the throne, in which case I agree with Kid_Kyoto.
If they'd combined both scenes at that location into one - had Killmonger appear there unannounced and amush T'Challa, then I think it would have worked better - Killmonger becomes ruler because he's descended from the royal family and because he's kicked the only other candidate off a cliff, rather than having T'Challa agree to get kicked off the cliff.
Although it's basically a symptom of the "default authoritarian" thing that a lot of films go in for; Someone is "destined" to lead by virtue of heredity. Star Wars does it, Lord of the Rings does it (although it was at least written when that wasn't such a discredited idea), and even other Marvel films do it (the Thor films and Iron Man, for example).
I did certainly watch the spear fight wondering why it hadn't resulted in tyranny far earlier. The mountain people challenge was definitely for real; otherwise he wouldn't have saved T'Challa for sparing him.
I suppose that since it is an isolated society, there's not really the social support to issue a challenge. It's highly unlikely that any of the 4 main tribes would issue a challenge, and the mountain tribe seems pretty happy in isolation and primarily act because T'Chanka sought to break that isolation and got killed in the process. They've probably not had the opportunity before.
Erik being both an outsider with any ties to the people and customs that also is of royal decent and can legally make a challenge is certainly why the system fails when it does. It's certainly a flawed system of determining leadership, but I can understand it being allowed to exist on purely symbolic terms without issue in an isolated society.
Erik being both an outsider with any ties to the people and customs that also is of royal decent and can legally make a challenge is certainly why the system fails when it does. It's certainly a flawed system of determining leadership, but I can understand it being allowed to exist on purely symbolic terms without issue in an isolated society.
Maybe the challenge was legal, maybe not. However, he challenged with the backing of one of the Houses and T'Challa accepted, thereby making it "legal" or at least accepted.
Erik being both an outsider with any ties to the people and customs that also is of royal decent and can legally make a challenge is certainly why the system fails when it does. It's certainly a flawed system of determining leadership, but I can understand it being allowed to exist on purely symbolic terms without issue in an isolated society.
Maybe the challenge was legal, maybe not. However, he challenged with the backing of one of the Houses and T'Challa accepted, thereby making it "legal" or at least accepted.
had T'Challa not accepted, what then?
IN a proper banana republic (or Great Britain before Cromwell) they would have just disappeared Killmonger into a prison Richard II style and then progromed whatever clan that was.
Thats why I like this one better as a Shakespeare Conscience of the King type play, and when it goes comic book I'm meh.
Yeah, I think the idea is, that it was complete BS for Killmonger to do that.... Up until T'Challa accepted the challenge. He essentially had no legal backing and, if he did, he was a week or two late.
But, there was enough wibbliness to cast doubt. That plus what is essentially T'Challa's arrogance (or is it hubris? I don't really know the difference between the two myself), in accepting the challenge that paved the way.
As for M'Baku, different situation I think.
Broadly speaking, the council had chosen T'Challa already, everything else was essentially a formality and tradition. - Like the equivalent of the "if anyone has any lawful reason...." during a wedding.
Nobody expects your estranged childhood ex-lover quoting some obscure medieval era bylaw that still has legal precedence to rock up and wreck the wedding.
My reading of it was that T'Challa felt bad about how Erik's situation had worked out, so he accepted the challenge out of a sense of responsibility/honor.
Alternately, he picked up the idiot ball because the plot needed to move forward so there could be an epic fight finale.
kronk wrote: had T'Challa not accepted, what then?
Aside from the three women closest to him, everybody else seemed quite happy to go along with traditional protocol after the challenge, even going so far as to torch their magic purple plants whilst throwing around heavy weapons to anyone that fancied one.
Since, up until he accepted, it wasn't a legal challenge then presumably everyone would have also been cool that traditional protocol meant he wouldn't have to accept the challenge.
But in the end, the moral is still the same. We shouldn't look to our heroes for wisdom, guidance, patience and humanity. Our heroes should be the guy who can hit the other guy harder with a big stick.
Lance845 wrote: I dont see it as hubris or arrogance. Tchalla knew who he was. He knew he had a claim. He wouldnt deny him his right.
Sure, there's a bit of that I think. But the reading I got was. "I can take him and we can solve this whole mess easily."
Well even durring the fight he was all "just end this. We can fix this another way." He didnt WANT to fight him. It wasnt his goal to beat him down or humiliate him. But he also wouldnt back down from his responsibility to accept a challenge from someone who had claim. Tchalla pulled a ned stark. He followed his duty to his detriment.
First, I enjoyed the movie a lot. Part of the reason was that is was very different from other settings we have seen before. Another reason, is because the movie had a lot of subtext to it, and I love that in a film. There were elements of the 'Sins of the Father", a "History of Violence", the "Cost of Appeasement", "Isolationism has Costs", and that is even beyond the obvious Black Power and Girl Power themes.
All that being said, most of these themes or ideas were only breifly touched on and nodded to as the film roared by it. It was up to the audience to put it together as much or as little as they wanted.
However, most of that subtlety was blown in the first post-credit sequence when T'challa speaks at the U.N. and put the themes of the movie front and center. So much for "subtext", now it is actual dialogue!
Like The Last Jedi this is a very 20(late Teens) film. It actually makes me want to go back and re-watch Wonder Woman and compare them a bit closer as they have some similar ideas in them beyond just the "Super Heroics" part.
Finally got around to seeing it, and after the varying disappointments I had with Homecoming, Ragnarok and Justice League, this is just what I needed. Quality and unique aesthetic and visuals, a very strong lead and equally excellent supporting cast, one of the better Marvel villains (actually, with Ego, Vulture, Hela and now Kilmonger, they've really been on a roll there recently) and a script that certainly has something to say... easily the best comic book movie since Wonder Woman.
My only slight issues (that will probably go away with a rewatch) are the somewhat slow opening, and the fact that T'Challa himself was in the background rather than front and centre for significant periods of time. That said, the cast as a whole go a long way to making both those issues very bearable, Shuri, Klaue and Kilmonger especially.
Top notch stuff, and a very promising lead-in to Infinity War, where I'm very glad Wakanda seems to be playing a major part in.
The tennis star raved about the arrival of “Black Panther, and now other black athletes across the sports landscape have taken the film to heart by adopting the characters’ “Wakanda Forever” gesture, usually after a victory.
Yeah, it is a pretty cool salute. I want to do it, and I am white and nerdy!
Favourite character is Shuri. She’s just a laugh, and you can tell the actress is having a great time in the role.
Only real criticism was the big fight at the end. Whilst the focus pieces work nicely, I didn’t get an ‘oomph’ from the background scraps. Pretty minor complaint though.
Erik being both an outsider with any ties to the people and customs that also is of royal decent and can legally make a challenge is certainly why the system fails when it does. It's certainly a flawed system of determining leadership, but I can understand it being allowed to exist on purely symbolic terms without issue in an isolated society.
As I understood it, from the coronation ceremony "Are there members of royal blood who want to challenge...", in coronation ceremony, tribes can challenge. Those of royal blood can always challenge.
However, most of that subtlety was blown in the first post-credit sequence when T'challa speaks at the U.N. and put the themes of the movie front and center. So much for "subtext", now it is actual dialogue!
Wakanda, heavily autocrat state with hereditary monarchy and apparently very little democracy...not really a dream partner for UN...
Just finally saw it with the wife, and we both loved it. Man, it had some beautiful women in it, too. Ever since Alien/Aliens, I've had a special place in my heart for the tough ladies, lol.
Although I felt really dumb that I didn't recognize the actress that plays Michonne.
Wakanda is a great angle, in that they are practically Asguardians in their tech, although a horribly adult part of me wondered how the heck all that tech got manufactured without exposing their secret. It's not like they do it all in-country.
I would love to have a scene in Infinity War where Tony just stares in stunned silence upon seeing Wakanda for the first time, and just kinda goes "Well....damn."
Well, I gotta say...that was disappointing. My brother rented the film the other day and handed it off to me. I'd heard almost nothing but good about it.
That was a supremely mediocre film. Andy Serkis' character was the only memorable one for me in the whole film (and way more entertaining than his debut in, what, one of the Avengers films?). The constant boo-hoo political messages ruined what could have been a decent story. Overall, I'm not seeing the "great" people are espousing about this film. (full disclosure: I find most of the MCU films rather milque-toast, my favourite being perhaps Ant Man).
I finally watched it. Killing Serkis' and Jordan's characters was a mistake.
The fixation on African-American struggles instead of African problems was a bit hokey. America is not the center of the world nor African struggles.
Aside from that, I like that Black Panther isn't a sarcastic smart mouth like nearly every other MCU hero, the set design was good, the action was fine, the costumes were stunning, and overall it was a solid solo debut for BP.
trexmeyer wrote: America is not the center of the world nor African struggles.
I mean, that kinda seemed to be one of the main points that the film was making, along with the more general "you win by being better than those who would abuse you, but don't take any gak"/"actual-MLK(as opposed to the sanitised version used to browbeat black people who engage in direct action) had the right idea" sentiment.
I think the film is at its strongest when it's being an incredible afro-futurist sci-fi movie and the political aspects remain subtext, but given how the film is a "cultural moment" affair I can see why the filmmakers would want it to be explicit text every so often and I don't think it detracts from the film.
I do wish they hadn't snuffed Klau though, even if he did have to be moved out of the way for the film's actual and more nuanced adversary to take centre stage.
Easy E wrote: I agree, they should not have killed Klau. They needed him to become so much more later on!
Killing Klau allows him to come back in his energy/vibranium/sound form from a strange reaction caused by a toxic strain of vibranium he wasn’t aware he had. Easy to bring him around again.
