AduroT wrote: Disappointed they didn’t recast T’Challa. He’s a pretty huge character to have suffer an early off screen death.
I'll wait and see how they handle it. The assumption of a mantle isn't unheard of for a lot of characters, so at least they're working with a precedent, and unlike the Steve/Sam story, this is a very different situation that needs handling in a different way.
That shot of T'Challa/CB memorialised on the wall the same way that Tony was in Spiderman:FFH was an excellent callback and a punch to the feels.
Not recasting was a bad call. A Black Panther movie without Black Panther in it feels like a long-running show where there is a huge main star, but then the show carries on without them... it just kinda feels bad.
Having said that, what we see in the trailer looks stunning.
It's a Black Panther movie without T'Challa, which isn't precisely the same thing. An off screen transition isn't going to be easy, but it's not like it's something anyone chose.
But there is a Black Panther? We see them right at the end. And given the first BP Movie very much shows it’s a mantle, I don’t agree for the need to recast T’Challa.
I mean we can arealy see the story right?
Shuri isnt ready to lead, she feels she cant take after her brother.
But she must to defeat the king of atlantis because only she has the power to.
Carrying the throughline of the last movie that those with power have to duty to stand up for what is right.
Recasting T'Challa would have been a terrible idea and I'm glad they didn't go down that road. The trailer looked great, really looking forward to this one.
Voss wrote: Recasting him like a replaceable extra would've kicked off a gakstorm that would have never stopped, both in terms of character and actor.
No actor is irreplaceable. Finding the successor could have been a big deal, and a lot of opportunities to a lot of people. It could have been something his family was involved in, alongside Coogler.
Voss wrote: Recasting him like a replaceable extra would've kicked off a gakstorm that would have never stopped, both in terms of character and actor.
No actor is irreplaceable.
Of course not, actors by definition are replaceable (entire generations have played Hamlet at this point). That wasn't even vaguely the point.
Finding the successor could have been a big deal, and a lot of opportunities to a lot of people. It could have been something his family was involved in, alongside Coogler.
It would be a single opportunity for a single person. And create a lot of ill-will, even assuming the family wanted to cooperate (and the media didn't spin the narrative as the family selling out, even if they did cooperate).
There's a lot going on with this role, and Disney put a lot into hyping it as big screen black superhero main character and treating the whole project (and the audience) seriously for... basically the first time.
Shrugging all that off with a replacement would have a major backlash. One I'm more than happy to not see play out in real time with real consequences.
Voss wrote: There's a lot going on with this role, and Disney put a lot into hyping it as big screen black superhero main character and treating the whole project (and the audience) seriously for... basically the first time.
Black Panther wasn't even the first big screen black MARVEL superhero main character...
First time Disney virtue signalled about the race of their big screen black superhero main character for marketing purposes, maybe.
A scene in the trailer I took note of was cutting the heart shape out of the metal sheet, and it turns out that yes my suspicions were correct and Ironheart is making her first appearance in this film. I’m curious how they introduce her with no Tony overlap.
Perhaps recasting T’Challa would have worked in the UK or Australia, but in the US it would have faced a major backlash. Whatever your personal feelings on the film, the role and actor we’re very important for a segment of the Us populace.
He's in it three times, he's the baby born underwater, the young lad entering the water and the enormous man in green swimming trunks with the trident coming out of it.
Can't give you time stamps, sorry, but he's not easy to miss!
You also see him standing on the beach while other atlanteans are charging forward, and a shot looking up at his face (I think he is on his throne) and he raises a hand up.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Perhaps recasting T’Challa would have worked in the UK or Australia, but in the US it would have faced a major backlash. Whatever your personal feelings on the film, the role and actor we’re very important for a segment of the Us populace.
And there’s just no need.
Black Panther is a mantle. And to recast T’Challa would be to put someone in the shoes of playing Chadwick Boseman playing T’Challa.
I’m aware Boseman’s family encouraged a recasting but I think Marvel made the right call.
It’s a bit like Dr Who. When Hartnell stepped down, they made a thing of it being a different actor playing kind of the same character, but putting his own spin on it. The same can be applied to Black Panther. Keep the core, but allow the next actor to put their own stamp on it.
Lord Damocles wrote: Black Panther wasn't even the first big screen black MARVEL superhero main character...
Blade was smaller budget film that was a surprise hit. Black Panther was a major tentpole film with hundreds of millions behind and a worldwide push. The argument isn't that Black Panther was the first black comic character on film but the first to be made for a global mainstream audience.
Lord Damocles wrote: Black Panther wasn't even the first big screen black MARVEL superhero main character...
Blade was smaller budget film that was a surprise hit. Black Panther was a major tentpole film with hundreds of millions behind and a worldwide push. The argument isn't that Black Panther was the first black comic character on film but the first to be made for a global mainstream audience.
It was also by a black director, with black writers, with a predominantly black cast. With literally two Tolkein White Guys.
As mentioned in other threads, I work in a multicultural office. I genuinely cannot explain just how beloved Black Panther is as a black movie. Nor would I try to, as I’d just sound pompous.
Yes Blade came first. But Black Panther was evidently something special to an audience traditionally underserved.
I appreciate I’m lucky to have access to that particular view point, so please don’t think I’m having a go at anyone here. Nobody else has to “get it”. Just need to appreciate it’s an important film to a lot of people, and that it’s really not for anyone else to challenge or, worse I suppose, analyse.
Though I would say always look to the kid’s cosplay. That can be a fun way to gauge a given films impact and/or importance.
I managed to miss him. What was the timestamp on his appearance?
0.43 - baby born underwater
0.52 - in a big headdress
1.15 - green shorts coming out the water from behind
1.35 - green shorts in a fight scene with other Atlanteans
1.47 - close up of his face
There’s a couple other shots too but very fleeting.
Lord Damocles wrote: I expect that whoever takes the suit will just naturally be superhuman, given that all of the magic flowers were destroyed in the first movie...
To the recasting debate.
Look at when, in universe, they replaced Cap twice.
the fandom went insane, insulting both actors, hating them, saying racist things towards one.
recasting was never going to go down well.
hotsauceman1 wrote: To the recasting debate.
Look at when, in universe, they replaced Cap twice.
the fandom went insane, insulting both actors, hating them, saying racist things towards one.
recasting was never going to go down well.
Whoa hold on now.
Were they fans, or just idiot trolls determined to cause a scene for reasons best known to their pea sized brains?
Fans understood that's what happens with Cap, that Chris Evans couldn't carry on forever, and that Anthony Mackie would likely be awesome. Anyone spewing hatred or losing their gak over the situation wasn't a fan, or at least not one any fandom would want.
On topic: The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced Michael B Jordan is the new Black Panther. Killmonger returning is already comic canon, he legitimately has a claim to the throne in-universe, and there's, I think, a clear narrative around how it could happen and a really interesting tension around not only his own ideas about what Wakanda should be/do and also around the introduction of Namor.
Yes, but he has come back from the dead in the comics before.
Since I found that out, everything else just sort of fits. He could be resurrected in Wakanda using some handwavium around the heart shaped her/vibranium/Wakandan tech by people who thought he had the right idea (somewhat similar to the comics) or, if T'Challa honoured his wish to be buried in the ocean with his ancestors, look who's popped up in this movie, perhaps already with an established desire to destabilise Wakanda.
It looked not too bad. I don't know if it will have the same power as the first film. That being said, although I hit my limit with comic book movies a long time ago, I do want to watch this.
Lord Damocles wrote: I expect that whoever takes the suit will just naturally be superhuman, given that all of the magic flowers were destroyed in the first movie...
They have an infinite supply of handwavium
I’d always assumed that burning the flowers just got rid of the current “ripe” ones, to stop anyone challenging Killmonger in the short term, rather than wiping them from existence.
Easy E wrote: Agreed, it will not be Killmonger. I am thinking Shuri.....
.... but my question is if she will have to go through the same "combat" ritual of the first BP movie?
That wasn't really a ritual to become BP. That was a ritual to become King. The mantel of BP is different from the Mantel of King. T'Challa was the current BP when his father was still alive and King in Civil War.
frankly I don't get the oppisition to re-casting Black Panther. I mean... are there no other competant black actors who can take on the role and do a wonderful job while honoring the legacy of the original?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Black Panther is a mantle. And to recast T’Challa would be to put someone in the shoes of playing Chadwick Boseman playing T’Challa.
And I don't see the problem with that. Actors have played the same role in the past.
The idea that we can never have T'Challa on screen again because one guy got the role and then sadly died is just silly.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Yes Blade came first. But Black Panther was evidently something special to an audience traditionally underserved.
And now that the actor died, then that's what they'll have to live with. They'll never get another T'Challa. That was their one chance, and it's over. Sorry.
BrianDavion wrote: frankly I don't get the oppisition to re-casting Black Panther. I mean... are there no other competant black actors who can take on the role and do a wonderful job while honoring the legacy of the original?
Yeah, sometimes I find it a bit cringey with all the "YAS, rest in peace KING" I see in a lot of comments online (thankfully not in this thread) and hero worship around Chadwick Boseman whenever Black Panther is brought up, similar to how Heath Ledger is seen as the peak of the role of Joker in some people's eyes. I get that his death makes them think that the role is somehow sacrosanct, but it seems somewhat petty to deny other actors to do the role some justice. It's not like they're passing over the role to a clearly bad fit like Jack Black or something.
Also, the treatment of Black Panther as some landbreaking super hero film with the only black main character always irked me when people ignore Spawn and Blade. It reminds me of how some of the marketing for Shang Chi had some of the same elements of like "whoa, first major asian super hero in the west" as if all of the Hong Kong martial arts movies didn't exist or that Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, or Jet Li hadn't paved the way for him already. Weird revisionist perspective to keep saying first (minority race) of some type of media. It gets old, fast.
It isn't that BP will never be recast but the timing and nature of it. Boseman is incredibly tied to the character in many people's minds and doing a film that acknowledges him is probably a better move than instantly replacing him. I don't generally watch reaction videos but I've seen a few of people watching the new trailer and they are crying. It isn't even that he was a popular char he was a bona fide cultural phenomenon. When Christopher Reeves was injured they didn't immediately recast Superman and even after decades before another film people still decried whoever it was as not being as good as Christopher Reeves.
I have no doubt T'challa will be recast, and it won't be nearly as long, but this would have been to soon. Even if you just want to look at it from a profit perspective they probably get a bigger audience by not immediately recasting him than if they had, as the backlash would have been significant.
I managed to miss him. What was the timestamp on his appearance?
0.43 - baby born underwater
0.52 - in a big headdress
1.15 - green shorts coming out the water from behind
1.35 - green shorts in a fight scene with other Atlanteans
1.47 - close up of his face
There’s a couple other shots too but very fleeting.
Yep, that was Namor all right. Can't believe I missed him the first time around.
I'm almost there as well. There isn't an MCU movie I didn't enjoy. But leaving aside a bit of a mix up in viewing order, Black Panther wasn't something I was looking for at the time I first watched it. One of the things I most appreciate about the MCU is the sense of a cohesive(ish) world, guest appearances by established characters, and so on. Black Panther was new characters in new locations with problems of their own to solve and nothing to tie them to the previous however many movies.
Might have been too serious about everything as well. Black Widow is pretty removed in the same way, but at least it has the family dynamics and wacky Russian version of Captain America. That's the kind of fun Black Panther is missing. And the trailer for the second one goes pretty heavy on gravity.
Geifer wrote: I am... going to wait until it's on Disney+. Wasn't big on the first one.
The MCU is something I’ll always go to the cinema to see. Pretty much the only thing these days. Until we get a new Star Wars movie.
That’s pretty much how we feel. We will see MCU movies at the theater with our son, and it’s always a positive experience. (Dr Strange 2) It’s usually a positive experience.
However, I try to make it to movies for lower budget or original films. I’m sad I missed out on Marcel the Shell, but I’ve seen Barbarian in theaters and plan to see Pearl and the Woman King this week if possible.
All of you who are sick of MCU movies, I urge you to see something smaller and genuinely new. Support real movies.
AduroT wrote: I’d forgotten it was a thing he had. Doesn’t really feature in the comics of late.
It's how he flies, but they're easy to ignore in still comic artwork. They're a lot more noticeable in motion.
I don’t read much Namor specific stuff, just his appearances in Avengers of late, but I can’t really recall him flying at all. I’d have to go and look, but I’m not entirely sure his current iteration even has them.
They’re in almost everything I can find searching, including the Atlantis Attacks Wakanda stuff. I’m only seeing them because I’m specifically looking for them though. It’s not where your eyes are drawn and some artists definitely go to Liefield lengths to cover them up.
Dug back to a couple of his recent Avengers appearances and he does indeed still have them, they’re just extra tiny and easy to overlook them unless you’re looking.
With the almost three hour runtimeI worry they aren't going to tell one solid story but try to shove four or five different stories together in an unsatisfying way.
I was at the store earlier and they had the Iron Heart action figure out so now I know what that looks like.
Another mini trailer, but more new footage in this one. Also early reports are that Coogler has done it again and WF is a return to form for the MCU. Guess time will tell.
The story and acting are great, and then the Super-heroics really let it all down. The final "battle" is especially boring and lame.
They treat the death of Boseman really, really, like really well. His death is woven into the fabric and DNA of this movie, and acts as the inciting incident and baseline emotional motif of the entire film. It also forms the character arcs of several characters. Really strong stuff there.
Unlike most MCU films, I can not easily point to the genre they are trying to ape. This feels like a genuinely "unique" movie experience. They are not doing a genre with a super thrown into it. This is a film that was born naturally from the story and character developments of the first film. That is pretty strong vision from Coogler.
Then, we get to all the tie-in to the rest of the MCU, and I feel like Marvel is starting to drag their toes into DCEU territory. Too much tie-in that is cluttering up an otherwise amazing film. I am looking at you "Armor Wars" stuff!
Like I said, the biggest let down is the actual super-heroics of the film. They are kind of flat, despite a great build up of emotional stakes. The final battle between Wakandans and Tlaxocans is especially weak, even if the battle between Black Panther and Namor is pretty strong because the emotional stakes are high.
Finally, always good to see M'baku and he is the "heart" of the movie in some ways.
Sadly whilst she’s not bad as such, Letitia Wright just isn’t quite there for Leading Lady.
Everyone else is really really good though. Especially Angela Bassett who oozes charisma, strength and dignity. The scene at the UN is a particular favourite of mine.
Overall I enjoyed with a few nitpicks that generally don't detract from the overall film. I thought the adaptation of Namor was interesting and the parallels they created between Wakanda and Talokan were well thought out. The big difference being Wakanda isolating pre-colonialialism and Talokan being be post colonial to explain their hate/distrust of the surface world. I was worried they wouldn't have a narrative focus but it really did all revolve around dealing with the passing of T'challa/Boseman. I imagine this is one of the most expensive therapy sessions ever but it was a good meditation on the loss of a friend/family.
A few nitpicks:
- The ship was a really boring design.
- Iron Heart having no connection to Iron Man in any way. For average audience goer not an issue and not really important but to a comic person it is a bit annoying. Even if it was something like showing some of the schematics were Stark Industries or hinting that he left an endowment or trust to explain a 19 year old student with a private garage full of computers and vehicles.
And the big one:
Spoiler:
The mid-credits scene with the kid was fine until the very end.
"This is your aunt"
"He didn't want him at the funeral"
"Your mother knew"
NOW WE THINK YOU'RE STUPID SO WE'LL NOW LITERALLY SAY "I AMHIS SON" BECAUSE YOU'RE AN IDIOT.
I don't mind the changes to Riri because it empowers her character more.
Spoiler:
SHE is smart enough to figure things out and reverse engineer it. She doesn't need stark to hand her anything. She made 1k fixing the equations in that one kids homework. And she has been doing stuff like that for long enough that she is building up her own funding and scrounging for what she can get.
I also really liked that Shuri wouldn't let her keep her vibranium suit. It means Riri, having now had access to better resources, knows what to do when she gets back home and is ready for her own show building a suit that will be made of more conventional materials and thus not invulnerable to everything.
Over all really looking forward to her next appearances.
Lance845 wrote: I don't mind the changes to Riri because it empowers her character more. [spoiler]SHE is smart enough to figure things out and reverse engineer it. She doesn't need stark to hand her anything. She made 1k fixing the equations in that one kids homework. And she has been doing stuff like that for long enough that she is building up her own funding and scrounging for what she can get.
Nothing in my statement said she needed to rely on Stark to exist; being able to read and understand such advanced schematics would still be on her. Of course, for her to reverse engineer something she would have had to have something to reverse engineer. The number of equations she would have to fix to afford that set up would have been astronomical. As I said it is a nitpick and doesn't take away from the movie but it would have been nice to have some hint of it. Having influences and inspirations isn't "being handed something".
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m pretty sure she had Stark Blueprints though. The ones she burned.
I'm guessing that it may be explored a bit in the upcoming Disney+ series. To be fair I also didn't like Venom being completely removed from Spider-man but, again, I know that it is just a minor personal annoyance and not a really big issue.
To be honest it is a pretty blink and miss it shot. She was definitely working from Blueprints, showing a mostly triangular ARC reactor. I saw enough to be able to tell you that. Whether it had Stark in the corner, I’d have to watch it again.
But I’m skint until next Wednesday (stupid cost of living crisis. Stupid bills. Stupid stupid five week pay month!) so I can’t
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m pretty sure she had Stark Blueprints though. The ones she burned.
I don't think those were Stark blue prints. I think those were her blue prints mimicking Stark designs.
She goes... okay, it's a rig that can fly. Then it needs to be able to do these things. So here is how I am figuring that out. And it needs a power supply. That arc reactor is like 80 years old now. I can figure something out.
She spent years "on and off" working on solving the individual problems that make up a functional iron man suit. And the suit she builds is a much more ram shackle thing that is none the less capable of a lot of the basic actions of tonys suits. She has a energy gun on arm rigs with controls for thrusters. But her flight stabilizers are not on her hands. They are over her shoulders. So on and so forth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: I just assume she got the blueprints from the SHIELD infodump in Winter Soldier.
THAT is a really interesting point. She is definitely intelligent enough to decrypt some of those files and understand what she is looking at. Their technical assessments of not just Tony, but War Machine would give her a strong starting point from which to build her own designs.
Ahtman wrote: I forgot to mention that M'baku was great.
Agreed. I feel like he’s the touchstone of the movie. Whilst he’s never disrespectful, he’s quite blunt, almost forcing the others to put aside their grief for T’Challa, without denying or belittling their grief. He gives straight forward, if not necessarily good, advice without fear or favour.
During the big fight on the ship, the look of the Jaberi Warriors is so…..uniform, there were two lobbed overboard, both of whom I took for M’Baku. But no, not him!
Saw it last night. Really impressed. The main disappointments I had were just that you can see, particularly at the end, where this film was salvaged from a slightly better version of itself starring Boseman. There are definitely scenes written for Shuri and scenes where she's forced to fill in but the movie makes that so much a part of what it's all about that you'd only know because it's impossible not to. In some ways it also enhances the film. Every person is bringing their real grief to the screen as is the audience and the movie deals with it all.
Riri is so much better here than she's ever been in the comics. Her relationship with Shuri works a lot better than trying to build her character off of Tony's hologram and if anything, I feel like we would have gotten more if Shuri didn't so often have to be out of the lab. There's a couple of scenes trying to ape Iron Man 1 that don't quite land because we're not given enough of the character to make them the right kind of charming. I wish we'd gotten a bit more of the Amadeus Cho style calculating too as that's the one bit where she brought something new to the suit and I'd have loved to see more of it.
The Namor rewrite was top tier stuff. The mixture of Atlantis and El Dorado is really inspired and Namor is such an incredibly presence throughout the film, being both terrifying and sympathetic. I so wish we could have seen Huerta and Boseman speak as kings but they did a great job adapting without pulling any punches in the finale. In a lot of ways it's the inverse of the first. The ship battle was an annoying distraction from the fantastic duel we get with the leads.
I'm not sure where this sits in my overall MCU rankings, but I feel it's pretty cleanly the best film of Phase 4. It doesn't QUITE live up to the original, but it's definitely well above the MCU average.
EDIT: Forgot No Way Home in the Phase 4 list. That one is probably better. Still put this one up there. Probably not top third of the MCU but easy top half.
LunarSol wrote: trying to build her character off of Tony's hologram
Yeah I can't imagine that would work well in the MCU. I just wanted a hint of a connection, such as being somewhat inspired by his work like how people are inspired by Tesla (the man not the car company) but the Stark AI would be far to much.
Oh, something we’ve not celebrated, if that’s the right word?
We have a decent villain!!
They’ve traditionally been the MCU’s weak spot, as they’ve served as ciphers to show what a Butthole could do with the hero’s powers.
Here, Namor serves as an interesting mix of T’Challa and Killmonger.
Like T’Challa, he and his are perfectly happy just being left the hell alone. Don’t bother them, they don’t bother you. A tragedy of isolation for sure, but understandable.
But, like Killmonger? If you do come knocking they are not going to be nice about it, and will burn the world to ensure they go from isolation to supremacy, the other way to ensure your left alone,
Overall the plot works because T’Challa isn’t around. Shuri was left in her lab, doing what made her happy. It’s not that she wasn’t groomed for power, so much as she never cared for that possibility.
Had things gone as they had with T’Challa still King? I think we’d have had a fairly different movie, as he and Namor do absolutely have common ground to come from.
Indeed, it’s T’challa’s passing that caused raids on the Wakandan outposts, hoping to get their hands on Vibranium (which of course leads to one of the best scenes in any movie ever. And some of the best lines!) which proves Other Countries aren’t above nefarious dealings.
I guess that having half of their population turn to dust and dissolve didn't concern the not-Atlanteans as much as the vibranium hunting boat getting a bit close to them (which isn't a problem which has gone away by the end of the film)...
Them turning to dust would have been investigated carefully, seen it was a world wide problem, and the. Stayed hidden. Why draw attention to themselves when they just lost half their population?
The vibranium is about them being discovered. Which is their concern.
Lance845 wrote: Them turning to dust would have been investigated carefully, seen it was a world wide problem, and the. Stayed hidden. Why draw attention to themselves when they just lost half their population?
The vibranium is about them being discovered. Which is their concern.
The Atlanteans also seem to know something of the world above. Exactly how isn’t really covered. But…I guess even if they’re just investigating shipwrecks you’re gonna find some useful info?
Lance845 wrote: Them turning to dust would have been investigated carefully, seen it was a world wide problem, and the. Stayed hidden. Why draw attention to themselves when they just lost half their population?
The vibranium is about them being discovered. Which is their concern.
The Atlanteans also seem to know something of the world above. Exactly how isn’t really covered. But…I guess even if they’re just investigating shipwrecks you’re gonna find some useful info?
Well they mention that Namor has been spotted on that one beach. It stands to reason that he is coming to the surface and looking around. Keeping tabs on the world to some extent so that he is ready to protect his people. His soldiers know to eliminate witnesses and plenry of people go missing near rivers lakes and beaches every year.
Namor seemed just another genocidal maniac with some murderous henchmen.
I didn’t like the fact that the Talokanians could just waltz into Wakanda at will.
Ironheart was just a blatant add-on for setting up a future character and her red suit looked rubbish, very plastic looking.
The USA stuff looked like it was from a different movie. The rescue near the end felt like the original end credit scene.
Shiri was utterly unappealing as a central character.
The action scenes seemed somehow un-impressive.
One thing I saw outside the movie that wasn't in the movie was that Namor, and possibly all Takolans, could travel around to any sufficient body of water. A river would be to small but a lake would work just fine, which is how Namor just pops up in the lake in Wakanda. Seems like something that should have been mentioned in the film.
Ahtman wrote: One thing I saw outside the movie that wasn't in the movie was that Namor, and possibly all Takolans, could travel around to any sufficient body of water. A river would be to small but a lake would work just fine, which is how Namor just pops up in the lake in Wakanda. Seems like something that should have been mentioned in the film.
Well, the river tribe guy mentions that Namor must have swam 100 km entirely under water to show up where he did the first time he showed up. That body of water was connected in some way to the ocean.
At any point was it explained why the fish people were blue out of the water and not blue under the water?
The whole underwater civilization thing didn't work for me. How do they handle sanitation? How do they refine vibranium underwater with no technology? If they are of Aztec origin why don't they practice human sacrifice?
Ironheart didn't work for me. Her first suit was fine for what she did with it, but going to war with a 19 year old with no combat training felt really stupid.
Overall it was okay at best. Better than Strange and Thor.
They are more Mayan than Aztec, although there was a bit of “Mayincatec” going on with them, just as the Wakandans used words and designs from different African cultures.
And we never got to see any of their religious rites. Maybe they do sacrifice people to keep the sun going—a lot of people went missing around their watery domain. Who knows?
I don’t know why they’re blue, but I was more curious why they seemed to die to stab wounds and then resurrect in the first half of the movie, and then not do that in the second.
As for Ironheart, the child soldier….yeah, I guess maybe everyone was just angry and leaderless at that point?
As much as the underwater civilization didn't work for me, I am happy that Namor stays alive and stays a threat. A potential team up with Dr. Doom could yet happen.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They are more Mayan than Aztec, although there was a bit of “Mayincatec” going on with them, just as the Wakandans used words and designs from different African cultures.
And we never got to see any of their religious rites. Maybe they do sacrifice people to keep the sun going—a lot of people went missing around their watery domain. Who knows?
I don’t know why they’re blue, but I was more curious why they seemed to die to stab wounds and then resurrect in the first half of the movie, and then not do that in the second.
As for Ironheart, the child soldier….yeah, I guess maybe everyone was just angry and leaderless at that point?
The blue I take as deoxygenating whilst out of water. Like they’re not firing on all cylinders?
Sure, but they didn't address it at all. I kept waiting and wondering if I'd totally missed something. Why blue out of water and not blue in water? They had almost 3 hours to fit it in somewhere.
bbb wrote: Sure, but they didn't address it at all. I kept waiting and wondering if I'd totally missed something. Why blue out of water and not blue in water? They had almost 3 hours to fit it in somewhere.
I mean... sure. Personally, I tend to not want movies to have exposition about things that the characters have no reason to explain. Like... I don't need to know what fuel the Nostromo uses in Alien. And it doesn't actually matter why the Talokans change skin color in and out of water. It's enough that they are a race of people modified black pather style, but different, and they do.
I know it's nitpicky, but I wasn't entertained enough by the movie to not be bothered by it.
Shuri and Riri are two of the smartest people in the world (as wells as the only two non-Talokan characters who may have noticed it besides the audience... actually, I guess Shuri was the only one who could have noticed it since she took the tour or the city) and at no point did either of them mention it or ask the Talokans about it or anything. The Talokans aren't even a scientifically advanced civilization, so they probably didn't have an answer beyond, "We turn blue in the air."
Not getting enough oxygen while out of the water makes sufficient sense, it would have been nice to address it since "they're blue" was how they were described in the movie, but then the audience sees they're not blue all the time.
bbb wrote: I know it's nitpicky, but I wasn't entertained enough by the movie to not be bothered by it.
Shuri and Riri are two of the smartest people in the world (as wells as the only two non-Talokan characters who may have noticed it besides the audience... actually, I guess Shuri was the only one who could have noticed it since she took the tour or the city) and at no point did either of them mention it or ask the Talokans about it or anything. The Talokans aren't even a scientifically advanced civilization, so they probably didn't have an answer beyond, "We turn blue in the air."
Not getting enough oxygen while out of the water makes sufficient sense, it would have been nice to address it since "they're blue" was how they were described in the movie, but then the audience sees they're not blue all the time.
I wouldn't say Talokan is not advanced. They are just not advanced in the same way the surface is. Their tech developed along non parallel lines. It's tech when they make gestures in what looks like a rock to create funnels of underwater current for quick transportation around the worlds oceans. It's tech when a temple opens up and reveals a globe of vibranium used as a sun for an under water people. Their compressed water grenades are tech. They have technology we do not and could not replicate right now.
bbb wrote: I know it's nitpicky, but I wasn't entertained enough by the movie to not be bothered by it.
Shuri and Riri are two of the smartest people in the world (as wells as the only two non-Talokan characters who may have noticed it besides the audience... actually, I guess Shuri was the only one who could have noticed it since she took the tour or the city) and at no point did either of them mention it or ask the Talokans about it or anything. The Talokans aren't even a scientifically advanced civilization, so they probably didn't have an answer beyond, "We turn blue in the air."
Not getting enough oxygen while out of the water makes sufficient sense, it would have been nice to address it since "they're blue" was how they were described in the movie, but then the audience sees they're not blue all the time.
I wouldn't say Talokan is not advanced. They are just not advanced in the same way the surface is. Their tech developed along non parallel lines. It's tech when they make gestures in what looks like a rock to create funnels of underwater current for quick transportation around the worlds oceans. It's tech when a temple opens up and reveals a globe of vibranium used as a sun for an under water people. Their compressed water grenades are tech. They have technology we do not and could not replicate right now.
Fair points. MCU "scientifically advanced" tech has looked a certain way up till now, so the Talokan tech-aesthetic comes across, at least to me, as "not advanced." Wakandans have spaceships, Talokans ride whales and have underwater "pneumatic tubes". Wakandans have shields and guns and supersuits, Talokans are tough and have water balloon... uh... grenades. Wakanda feels like an advanced civilization. Talokan feels like a force of nature.
It looked to me like the Tlaxocans were actually infused with Vibranium themselves. The shaman ground up a plant, that had grown and absorbed it. They then ingested the concoction.
This would explain (in a hand-wave way) their resilience to damage, as the Vibranium is literally holding them together on the inside as well as the outside. It also is how they can survive the crushing depths of the ocean.
Not sure why that means they can no longer breathe air and have to go underwater though? I guess a bad side-effect of Vibranium "poisoning".
Easy E wrote: Not sure why that means they can no longer breathe air and have to go underwater though? I guess a bad side-effect of Vibranium "poisoning".
Could be vibranium diluted in the water that has slowly changed their bodies over time. Also remember that in the MCU, the rain god Tlāloc is a real being and could have had a hand in changing them as well.
bbb wrote: I know it's nitpicky, but I wasn't entertained enough by the movie to not be bothered by it.
Shuri and Riri are two of the smartest people in the world (as wells as the only two non-Talokan characters who may have noticed it besides the audience... actually, I guess Shuri was the only one who could have noticed it since she took the tour or the city) and at no point did either of them mention it or ask the Talokans about it or anything. The Talokans aren't even a scientifically advanced civilization, so they probably didn't have an answer beyond, "We turn blue in the air."
Not getting enough oxygen while out of the water makes sufficient sense, it would have been nice to address it since "they're blue" was how they were described in the movie, but then the audience sees they're not blue all the time.
I wouldn't say Talokan is not advanced. They are just not advanced in the same way the surface is. Their tech developed along non parallel lines. It's tech when they make gestures in what looks like a rock to create funnels of underwater current for quick transportation around the worlds oceans. It's tech when a temple opens up and reveals a globe of vibranium used as a sun for an under water people. Their compressed water grenades are tech. They have technology we do not and could not replicate right now.
Fair points. MCU "scientifically advanced" tech has looked a certain way up till now, so the Talokan tech-aesthetic comes across, at least to me, as "not advanced." Wakandans have spaceships, Talokans ride whales and have underwater "pneumatic tubes". Wakandans have shields and guns and supersuits, Talokans are tough and have water balloon... uh... grenades. Wakanda feels like an advanced civilization. Talokan feels like a force of nature.
Talokan tech developed under a few premises that I can see.
1) Stay hidden. Nothing they make can be too overt because the point was to stay away from any ability for anyone to detect them.
2) Maintain their heritage. They have a strong ties to their ancestral past and their society honors it so much that they shape any advancement around maintaining that past.
3) Prepare for War. They develop weapons they can deploy quickly so long as they meet the first requirement. No massive nukes here. They don't need them.
So yeah, they ride whales and whatever. But doing so keeps them hidden. And when they strike we are blind sided by it. Whatever they are doing to control the water.... it would be devastating to coastal communities (roughly 70% of humanity could be destroyed by them flooding things like they did to that one Wakandan city if they showed up in actual force. Why use a gun when they can do that?
Talakon does feel like a force of nature. But it's a force of nature they cultivated and developed over centuries of preparation.
Easy E wrote: Not sure why that means they can no longer breathe air and have to go underwater though? I guess a bad side-effect of Vibranium "poisoning".
Could be vibranium diluted in the water that has slowly changed their bodies over time. Also remember that in the MCU, the rain god Tlāloc is a real being and could have had a hand in changing them as well.
Or it's just a different plant. The Heart Shaped Herb has some of it's mystical effects maybe from Bast but also because of the vibranium rich soil.
The plant they harvested from the "blue rock" was a different plant grown in vibranium rich soil with a different god offering a different blessing. The effects appear similar but not the same.
Ahtman wrote: One thing I saw outside the movie that wasn't in the movie was that Namor, and possibly all Takolans, could travel around to any sufficient body of water. A river would be to small but a lake would work just fine, which is how Namor just pops up in the lake in Wakanda. Seems like something that should have been mentioned in the film.
Well, the river tribe guy mentions that Namor must have swam 100 km entirely under water to show up where he did the first time he showed up. That body of water was connected in some way to the ocean.
Come to think of it I'm not sure if it was an interview or speculation on someone else's part so that may have been complete nonsense.
Seemed pretty clear when they woke up from the ritual they start turning blue and gasping, Namor says they'd been changed to get oxygen from the water and they run to the sea and are immediately relieved.
What's less clear is what their limitations are out of the water in terms of being deprived oxygen from the water. They've got masks initially, but they don't seem to be crippled without them. It's also mentioned that Namor at least gets the oxygen through his skin so it can probably be assumed that they're not turning blue because the oxygen receptors on their skin react to the lack of water to pull from.
LunarSol wrote: Seemed pretty clear when they woke up from the ritual they start turning blue and gasping, Namor says they'd been changed to get oxygen from the water and they run to the sea and are immediately relieved.
What's less clear is what their limitations are out of the water in terms of being deprived oxygen from the water. They've got masks initially, but they don't seem to be crippled without them. It's also mentioned that Namor at least gets the oxygen through his skin so it can probably be assumed that they're not turning blue because the oxygen receptors on their skin react to the lack of water to pull from.
They don't just have masks. They have little shoulder neck covers too that are filled with water over their gills. Thats why Attuma can take off his mask to give it to Shuri and not be negatively impacted.
Apparently completely lacking in fanfare (I certainly haven't seen the usual cavalcade of tabloid entertainment sites bleating about it) Disney have quietly put the premier date of the film up as 1st Feb on the landing page on D+.
Is amongst, and might be the most, amount of time between theatres and streaming of any MCU film since Covid.
Azreal13 wrote: Apparently completely lacking in fanfare (I certainly haven't seen the usual cavalcade of tabloid entertainment sites bleating about it) Disney have quietly put the premier date of the film up as 1st Feb on the landing page on D+.
Is amongst, and might be the most, amount of time between theatres and streaming of any MCU film since Covid.
It’s still in the top five movie grosses every weekend. I can see why they want to give it more time in theaters.
Would have liked a connection from Riri to Stark. Even just a passing comment she was attending the collage on a Stark Grant/Scholarship would have sufficed.
I didn’t like the ambush on the bridge. It immediately sets up that Namor’s word can’t be trusted but it’s never mentioned again or called out on it.
I dislike characters whose first act is always violence and murder getting mad when any of their own are killed. How dare you defend yourself!
God Danged Nano Masks! It wasn’t utilized as frequently as the first one, but in the big fight at the end where she popped her mask off to deliver her one Ancestors line then immediately popped it back on I just shouted Oh F*** You at my screen and was instantly pulled out of it. I just hate that so much.
That could be being saved for the Ironheart movie - which either is becoming a series now, or was a series that’s now going to be a movie. One of the two.
Pretty sure we did see Stark Industries on the blueprints, however snatched that scene was.
Up on D+ tomorrow, so dust off your pause buttons.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: That could be being saved for the Ironheart movie - which either is becoming a series now, or was a series that’s now going to be a movie. One of the two.
Ironheart was always planned as and still is a series. It's Armor Wars, starring James Rhodes/War Machine, which was planned as a series and got bumped up to a full film last September.
One of the MCU TV series strengths is they’ve used the episodic, streaming nature well. Rather than fixed episode count and episode length, it seems more determined by the needs of the story. If a given episode and it’s part of the story is 25 minutes? 25 minutes it is. If the next needs 40? It gets 40.
Armour Wars may have been switched to a movie as they felt spinning it out to episodic would involve extraneous padding, or elements they want to use elsewhere.
But as I said, proof will be in the pudding for this one.
Sources say the studio was committed to telling the story the right way and realized that a feature was better suited for the project. Like all Marvel movies, Armor Wars is intended for a theatrical release.
Since it's the Marvel Cinematic Universe and not the Marvel Television Universe, it is a bit of a bump up. Added to that, if its box office is even just average for an MCU film then it's worth it for the studio.
I tried watching this, because watching bad s-f movies is my guilty pleasure. But this was beyond bad, I just turned it off after ~30minutes and still cringe at the memories.
No idea how a franchise with access to incredible budgets for sets, actors and sfx employs 10yos as scriptwriters.
Cyel wrote: I tried watching this, because watching bad s-f movies is my guilty pleasure. But this was beyond bad, I just turned it off after ~30minutes and still cringe at the memories.
No idea how a franchise with access to incredible budgets for sets, actors and sfx employs 10yos as scriptwriters.
Well that is a pretty intense hot take.
Like what you like. Like it to whatever extent you like it. But that opinion is crazy.
I watched this last night, and it was alright, nothing particularly special, but decent enough MCU fun.
I don't think it was as good as the first one and the villain wasn't nearly as compelling, but the way they handled Chadwick Boseman's passing was tasteful.
Was this filmed for 3D? because a lot of shots seemed to be framed that way, with a very shallow depth of field with a lot of the shot fuzzy and out of focus that became pretty obnoxious quite quickly.
There were a few instances where I struggled to suspend my disbelief,
Spoiler:
the Wakandans seemed surprisingly inept and they seemed to lack the advanced technology they had in previous appearances (like energy shields etc) and I didn't feel that the water people should have posed as much of a threat as they did. Also making them blue was a poor choice, they just look like knock-off Avatar Navi.
Overall, it was... fine I suppose. Damned with faint praise really.
Aash wrote: Also making them blue was a poor choice, they just look like knock-off Avatar Navi.
Spoiler:
Atlanteans in the Marvel Universe were blue long before the Navi were even a twinkle in James Cameron's eye, first appearing in the comics in 1939, 15 years before James Cameron was born.
Aash wrote: Also making them blue was a poor choice, they just look like knock-off Avatar Navi.
Spoiler:
Atlanteans in the Marvel Universe were blue long before the Navi were even a twinkle in James Cameron's eye, first appearing in the comics in 1939, 15 years before James Cameron was born.
I didn't know that, but characters have been re-designed before and I think it would have been better here if they weren't blue. Partly because they weren't blue all the time with no reason given and also for the Avatar resemblance. To the casual viewer who isn't familiar with the source material, which I imagine is most of the audience, they look like Avatar-lite and I think it detracts from the film.
And Do you know what kind of grief the ‘true believers’ (as Stan Lee calls them) would give Disney if they changed the color of the Atlanteans just because someone might think they’re Navi, despite all of the other differences? They would have never heard the end of it. It’s best that they leave them in their comics-accurate skin color, just like they have done with the Kree.
It was rather impressive how little defense Wakanda has vs infiltration by water. The Talokanil aren’t really shown to employ the tech Wakanda does, they just ride a whale up the river and Wakanda apparently has no means of detecting or preventing that. Plus being super strong ninjas able to move large machinery around with absolute silence.
Cyel wrote: I tried watching this, because watching bad s-f movies is my guilty pleasure. But this was beyond bad, I just turned it off after ~30minutes and still cringe at the memories.
No idea how a franchise with access to incredible budgets for sets, actors and sfx employs 10yos as scriptwriters.
Well that is a pretty intense hot take.
Like what you like. Like it to whatever extent you like it. But that opinion is crazy.
I don't know, I like sf and I don't dislike superhero movies, even though most are dumb blockbusters. I don't expect every film in the sub-genre to be Dark Knight or the Watchmen, but the last few films I have watched are so subpar. Like Flash Gordon but not tongue in cheek level of embarassment.
Generic plots and one-dimensional characters with the quality of an old Captain Planet cartoon episode (not the ecology line but quality of story and characters), bad dialogue (some scenes in this one were so stilted and wooden it felt as if the actors were just rehearsing the dialogue for the first time - it was some dialogue between two lead female characters in the laboratory ~30min. mark and another one in a dorm room a few minutes later ...after which I decided enough is enough and turned it off).
It's just the equivalent of old Troma productions but with much more budget on special effects - and even then they are 1/10th as awesome as, say, Fury Road from~10 years ago.
On a positive note, costumes were cool. Can't come up with another one, sadly.
I enjoyed it well enough I guess (except that the CIA sideshow didn't mesh and had no relevance to the actual movie, could have saved on runtime there). It's pretty much as I expected from the trailer, way too serious for my taste just like the first one.
Storywise I don't know. Invulnerable ninja blue people against whom there is no defense even for super high tech people who did a reasonable job fighting off an alien invasion, sending their warriors on a boat cruise while leaving the country undefended because the enemy army is totally going to take the bait, tying the discovery of underwater city solely to the engineer who built the vibranium detector because the CIA is super chill about stuff like that and wouldn't keep backups of the plans. It's straining my suspension of disbelief. Maybe other Marvel movies aren't much better in that regard, but at least they're fun and distracting enough that these things don't stand out.
Ghaz wrote: And Do you know what kind of grief the ‘true believers’ (as Stan Lee calls them) would give Disney if they changed the color of the Atlanteans just because someone might think they’re Navi, despite all of the other differences? They would have never heard the end of it. It’s best that they leave them in their comics-accurate skin color, just like they have done with the Kree.
They did go for the happy compromise where the blue people are blue only half the time.
Flinty wrote: Watched this last night with my wife. It was pretty good, but could have done with being a bit shorter. The final fight was a bit lame though.
However, more importantly I would like to acknowledge MDG’s reference to Tolkien white guys for Messrs Freeman and Serkis in the first one Glorious!
To be fair, I entirely stole that from off the Interwebs!
Cyel wrote: I tried watching this, because watching bad s-f movies is my guilty pleasure. But this was beyond bad, I just turned it off after ~30minutes and still cringe at the memories.
No idea how a franchise with access to incredible budgets for sets, actors and sfx employs 10yos as scriptwriters.
Well that is a pretty intense hot take.
Like what you like. Like it to whatever extent you like it. But that opinion is crazy.
I don't know, I like sf and I don't dislike superhero movies, even though most are dumb blockbusters. I don't expect every film in the sub-genre to be Dark Knight or the Watchmen, but the last few films I have watched are so subpar. Like Flash Gordon but not tongue in cheek level of embarassment.
If your frame of reference for good superhero movies is Watchmen and Dark Knight, both of which are deconstructions of super heroes, then I would argue that you probably don't actually like super heroes. Watchmen is specifically a take on the genre that deconstructs everything they are about and turns every person who is supposed to be the heroes into insane broken lunatics whose personal issues cause in fighting, murder, and violence to no particular end. To the extent that the ending of the story is the "villain" is the "hero" and saves the world through mass murder on a global scale.
Dark Knight trilogy, similarly, is made by a guy who thought super heroes were dumb and wanted to do a "realistic" take on Batman and cast an actor whose opinion of Batman was "He is ridiculous".
Generic plots and one-dimensional characters with the quality of an old Captain Planet cartoon episode (not the ecology line but quality of story and characters), bad dialogue (some scenes in this one were so stilted and wooden it felt as if the actors were just rehearsing the dialogue for the first time - it was some dialogue between two lead female characters in the laboratory ~30min. mark and another one in a dorm room a few minutes later ...after which I decided enough is enough and turned it off).
I disagree with every single thing said here on every level. Characters are far from one dimension and the dialogue is anything but bad. Actors in this are up for awards for their acting. Nobody is "wooden". If a couple women having dialog in a room is an issue... I mean... what do you want anyone to say about that?
It's just the equivalent of old Troma productions but with much more budget on special effects - and even then they are 1/10th as awesome as, say, Fury Road from~10 years ago.
On a positive note, costumes were cool. Can't come up with another one, sadly.
Angela Bassett was fantastic as Queen Ramonda. She owned every single scene she had, with a convincing performance. She’s a cracking actor to begin with, but this was something different. Her bearing, tone and dignity in the UN Chamber is just absolutely superb. In this one film she shows a greater range of acting than some manage in their entire career.
Indeed the only stinker for me is Martin “oh look. He’s looking exasperated. Just for a change” Freeman - but as you might be able to tell I’ve never really seen what all the fuss is about with him. His accent isn’t great, and to be honest he just felt largely superfluous as a role.
In terms of scenes I do agree the big fight on the sub just…doesn’t really work for me. But, it was all filmed during the pandemic, which would’ve put different limitations on cast and crew. Also Okoye in her guise as Midnight Angel constantly flipping her helmet on and off was a bit distracting.
But as ever with the helmet on/off thing? I still strongly suspect there’s some kind of Acting Union Rule behind that.
The movie was ultimately let down by a not great third act climactic fight that was rather..... boring, and lacked anything innovative or interesting.
It was also let down by the forced tie-ins with Armor Wars. Like DCEU levels of bad, and that is something I really noticed in the other Marvel Phase Whatever We Are On films. When they have to lay the ground work or crossover for other properties in this Phase, it has let down the rest of the film.
They made a Black Panther movie without T'Challa. It'd be like making Iron Man without Tony Stark. Or the Hulk without Bruce Banner. Or Thor without Thor.
They made a Black Panther movie without T'Challa. It'd be like making Iron Man without Tony Stark. Or the Hulk without Bruce Banner. Or Thor without Thor.
And the movie suffered because of it.
They should'a recast.
They made a Captain America series without Steve Rogers.
They made a Black Panther movie without T'Challa. It'd be like making Iron Man without Tony Stark. Or the Hulk without Bruce Banner. Or Thor without Thor.
And the movie suffered because of it.
They should'a recast.
They couldn’t recast. The domestic backlash would have damaged the brand far worse than a weak lead and third act.
It was an okay movie but the quality of the filming was off in places. I read that it was partly put together during Lockdown. I watched it on D+ so I don't know if the fact that streaming quality has become so good that the realism of it sometimes looks 'cheap'? A friend was trying to explain film stocks to me and how they make stuff look wrong because it's actually closer to real but our film going brains don't expect that. But some scenes really looked more like 'cheap' TV-budget
The boat at the end certainly felt cheap.
Overall the tone was an good tribute to Chadwick Boseman. I wondered about the actors who knew him filming the scenes of loss and grief. But I really felt his presence and charm were missing from the film.
I felt Angela Bassett's Queenly portrayal vs the anger and raw pain of Letitia Wright as Shuri was done well.
While I like Shuri as a character, I didn't feel that Letitia has the physical build to be Black Panther. I know in the comics she is, but from my film-based view of the character, and Letitia's very slight frame it just seemed odd. Film Shuri does some ranged fighting in previous moves. Any of the other female leads would have been more fitting. Angela Bassett looks like she could hold her own in a fist fight.
Maybe less of Martin Freeman's awful attempt at an American accent and more 'Shuri Training Montage'?
(They'd also need to explain why now that they can apparently 3-D print the stuff they aren't giving it to all of their warriors.)
The helmet-flipping for one line in really annoying. One slight advantage DC has is their character design having fewer of those full-face masks.
As to the Talokan technology - I assume they don't have fire. Namor's spear is noted as being 'raw vibranium' which I take to mean not forged in the same way as the technologically superior Wakandan version (and also perhaps why Shuri is able to slice through the spear with her own claws). But then Namor created the 'sun' so...
I loved Black Panther. Watching this with Mrs Souleater left me feeling quite sad and empty. Not because it was a terrible film (don't worry Eternals, your crown is safe) but the hole left by Boseman.
They're clearly recasting by the back door though, or at least leaving an open door for it.
All T'Challa Jr needs is some sort of in universe time jump or Quantum based timey wimey shenanigans and we've got a new Black Panther called T'Challa again, and Marvel Studios can take their pick of any promising young actor that'll pass for mid to late teens.
I thought it was the best Phase 4 movie with the possible exception of No Way Home. Which isn't the strongest competition on their slate, but recently heard about an interview with Feige acknowledging some of Phase 4's shortcomings and reassuring that things are set to pick up again, so hopefully they follow through on that promise.
Trouble is, you recast T’Challa, and you don’t get an actor portraying T’Challa. You get an actor playing Chadwick Boseman portraying T’Challa. And that’s not the same thing.
Plus Black Panther has always been a mantle, not a specific person or persona, so the need to recast is greatly lessened.
I do wonder if there was a feeling among the cast that such a recasting would’ve been difficult for them, and possibly unfair on whomever stepped into the shoes.
And on a selfish note? T’Challa’s death brings us some of the best scenes in the movie. Not just the funeral, not just the (perhaps mildly exploitative) genuine mourning we feel in the cast. But Angela Bassett’s Star turns, especially her monologue in the UN Chamber.
I get why others would’ve preferred a recasting, but I’m glad they didn’t.
Looking to the future, I’m particularly keen to see Wakanda under M’Baku’s leadership. He’s an impressively straight talking individual, so want to see how the UN deal with him.
2-4 are obvious, but I’m rather curious on the context of that first one and where it might have originally been intended to fit in. Heck, they even still blurred the laptop.
The boat fight is easily the weakest part of the film and really only saved because N'amor and Shuri's fight is fantastic. It really should have occurred anywhere else, like the fields of Wakanada we've seen twice before and the whole thing would have worked out better.
The most interesting thing about the film is that it clearly wasn't really changed much after Boseman's passing and you can kind of see where someone else filled in. Shuri still would have gone to Atlantis, N'amor would have killed Bassat, etc. It's a story written to challenge T'Challa's path as king and while Wright puts in a good performance, she's definitely pulling double duty and the story isn't quite as suited to her conflict as it would be if it wasn't tailored for someone else.
I was actually kind of shocked at how well Ironheart fit in. It's a pretty organic fit for both the source of the conflict and the character herself and most of the issues I have comes down to that final fight and its empty emotional beats outside the top billed fight. Including Freeman and then Vanessa overextends the lack of focus on the main conflict and creates some unnatural setup scenes in a movie that's got a few too many moving parts.
It's definitely one of the best Phase 4 films but probably in the nearly 30 film franchise the top of the bottom half? It's a solid film, but definitely showing the lack of focus that's made Phase 4 a rocky transition.
In a way, I think it may be the Age of Ultron Phase, where greater appreciation is gained when we see what it’s actually set up.
Me? I’ve enjoyed it. Sure few of the movies are stone cold classics, but it’s still been a welcome “price of victory, cost of grief” type study. And as with the general MCU rule, even it’s lesser films are still Pretty Decent Movies all the same.
Jadenim wrote: We’re how many films into phase 4 and I still don’t really know what phase 4 is?!
Other than a vague, maybe multiverse timey-wimey thing with Kang as the villain and possibly the young Avengers?
I mean, I couldn't tell you much about any of the phases.
Obviously Phase 1 was the 'introducing...X' films and phase 3 wrapped up Thanos & Infinity War, but I couldn't tell you what Phase 2 was 'about'
I suspect the phases were mostly internal, just for what projects they're working on, and the terminology slipped from the execs to the audience, and turned into something people really want to attach deep meaning to.
Based on the movies so far (haven't seen this one, admittedly, I've got a huge 'to watch' backlog in general, including Andor and all the way back to the second half of season 2 of Owl House), this phase is about 'filler' and setting up an actually interesting villain (which would be novel for the MCU).
The prior phases were just grouped by their leadup to the next Avengers film. Phase 1 wasn't even really a thing until after the fact and its really the success of Avengers that lead to the announcement of a roadmap to Avengers 2.
Notably, the idea of the Phase got hazier after the initial Phase 3 announcement saw a few course corrections. Spidey in, Inhumans out. Timeline had to shift around. They've been less firm in their commitments since.
Phase 1 is a call to action. Heroes facing their personal challenges and overcoming them to stand for something greater than themselves.
Phase 2 is a heroic age. Heros being heroes and the public adoring them.
Phase 3 is consequences. Peoples pasts coming back to bite them. (Dr Strange. The Consequences of the Ancient Ones actions. The Consequences of Stranges past pride.
Black Panther, the consequences of his fathers choices. The monsters of their own making.
Thanos. What did it cost you? "Everything..."
Thor Ragnarok: The consequences of Odins past, Lokis trickery, Hulks suppression of the Hulk instead of working with him.
And Phase 4 is grief and loss and the way people deal with that.
Thor: Love and Thurder. The whole Jane thing. Gorr is a man who is broken by grief and loss who takes it out on the world around him in a way Thor doesn't.
Wandavision. Yup.
Moonknight. Yup.
Loki: The grief and loss of the lives stolen from them (Loki and sylvie)
Black Panther... 3 funerals in this movie and the way these leaders of nations act on the pain of those losses.
Dr Strange 2. More wanda grief but also Stranges grief of the life he wishes he had and missed out on. "Are you happy Stephen?"
Shang Chi: A movie whos plot is driven by the grief over the loss of his mother. Wen Wus wife.
Eternals: A movie driven by the grief of Ajax's death. Of a family coming to terms with the truth of their legacy and the death that comes with it one way or the other.
Spiderman No Way home is technically phase 3 but sits as a bridge to both. The consequences of spidermans actions and trying to avoid those consequences with magic. Coupled with the grief of all the villains knowing they were going to die. Trying to find another way. Of the spider men, literally sitting in a circle telling each other about the losses that shaped them.
Now, as for the American Government in Media being the bad guys.... that has been a thing since Watergate at least. Especially, when you consider that the movie is from a post-colonial perspective where Wakanda was the only country not to be a victim of it. America, Russia, Europe, and China's activities has never been great in Africa or other "third-world countries".
I don't know about the filmmakers' intentions and any subtext that goes with it, but leaving that aside I don't think in the context of the setting US actions are a moral or political matter. With aliens and space gods around and after Wakanda showed the world what vibranium can do (absolutely everything. A vibranium spoon probably even makes your soup tastier), the acquisition of vibranium and development of technology around it is the next nuclear race. That's not something a superpower like the US can lose, no matter how much claim to being good it has. It's nothing less than an existential matter.
I think it’s a general reflection of historical and indeed modern Western attitudes toward Africa.
Basically “Africa has stuff, we feel we have an inalienable right to that stuff, and will simply take that stuff if we want to”.
Whilst I’ll more or less leave it here due to Rules? One doesn’t have to dig far to find examples of Blind Eyes being turned to methods of production when it’s something we want.
Now, as for the American Government in Media being the bad guys.... that has been a thing since Watergate at least. Especially, when you consider that the movie is from a post-colonial perspective where Wakanda was the only country not to be a victim of it. America, Russia, Europe, and China's activities has never been great in Africa or other "third-world countries".
First, Lance845 I want you to know I read your post before you deleted it.
I appreciate that. I didn't delete it. Apparently the mods think posting historical facts is "politics" and they deleted it for me. They also edited Easy Es post to remove references to it.
I think your argument was largely broad sweeping hyperbole and fundamentally flawed. Singular examples do not define the whole. Your example would tar me as an American veteran the same as those corrupt individuals you highlighted.
I do not hesitate to criticize the US government, military, law enforcement and intelligence services based on my experiences but I also acknowledge the great Good they do. Protecting the weak, feeding the hungry, saving lost children, preventing suicides, building schools/bridges/hospitals, providing education, advancing the bounds of our scientific knowledge and well just so much more.
The tar isn't hyperbole. It's singular examples of a pattern. You can go back pretty much every couple years and find more examples of the bad gak the USA gets up to. While there is good that gets done, there is also all the ways they fail in that good. Education? Look at Florida RIGHT NOW. Or the past year and a half of book bans. Or the crippling life long student debts because of the ballooning costs of education because we treat it as a money making scheme instead of an investment in our population. The years of fighting to keep evolution in the class room and creationism out of science classes. The USA has a massive and growing homeless population. And they get shelter and food not from the government but from charities who are woefully under resourced.
Our hospitals are understaffed and over worked. Our suicide numbers are huge due to all these other systemic issues that make the suicide prevention necessary.
Every single good that gets done is 1 step forward for 3 steps back.
Would I like to see the corruption cleaned up? Certainly. Do I accept the US has made mistakes, continues to make mistakes and will make mistakes in the future… definitely. I want movies to acknowledge that but I also want them to acknowledge the good things as well. It would have been easy enough to write a few changes to Freeman‘s character to reflect that.
Sure, but Freeman has been in both movies a character who is trying to do the right thing under orders to have the wrong interests. If there are good people in the US government/military structure (and there are) they are in that position. To try to do good within a corrupt uncaring system whos sole interest is perpetuating itself.
EasyE, I suspect the US government being portrayed as the bad guys goes back to the days of the Founding Fathers. That in and of itself is not new. But for a Marvel movie to essentially imply the entire US government as the bad guys is something else. To me that is a shift. Lance845‘s reaction illustrated my point.
Yes, Africa has had a hard time of it and continues to do so unfortunately. But Africa, and the fictional nation of Wakanda, have played a part in that. Africans have preyed on Africans. Wakanda turned its back on the rest of Africa, looking out out for itself.
I understand anger and resentment of people against colonialism and historical wars of expansion. However, I prefer when movies illustrate the advantages of moving forward with regret, apologies and forgiveness rather than continuing a pattern of hatred and revenge. There were tasteless “colonizer jokes” in the movie that I did not think were helpful in moving forward.
That was the whole point of the first BP. Not... forgiveness. But moving forward. And ditching hatred and revenge. I just don't see how you could realistically portray any modern world power seeing that Wakanda has tech and resources they don't and not trying to get them by any means necessary. France, America, Russia, etc... they would all be in that game.
It's just who got caught this time. Usually its Russia and China because that's who we're comfortable seeing as the kind of countries doing these things. Pointing the fingers at ourselves is uncomfortable, which is precisely why they did it.
Grumpy Gnome wrote: Hmm. I suppose I need to walk a fine line here to avoid getting mod edited then.
If it really is one step forward and three back, when exactly were things better? Seriously. More like two steps forward and one step back. And I think the Marvel movies should reflect that. I thought the MCU did that well with the transfer of the Captain America mantle. I felt they did not do it as well with the first Black Panther movie and that they did even worse in Wakanda Forever.
It IS better today then it was before. But we are still fighting fights today that should have been resolved, 50, 70, 100 years ago. And those fights are being fought by the people demanding action from the governmental systems who refuse to respond. Like... it took the great depression to form unions. More or less as a compromise to stop people from just killing their bosses in full blown revolts. So the rail workers went on strike recently right? We want more safety things. more safe guards. better work conditions. Did the government force the rail owners to the table and support us, the people? No. They decided the strike would be illegal.
Now a train derailed in Ohio causing acid rain (and not mildly acidic rain, actual full blown acidic rain) and the chemicals have gotten into the water supply effecting 25 million people and literally incalculable damage to hundreds or thousands of miles of the environment. We chernobled ourselves because the government backed a business saving a few bucks instead of it's citizens.
Is that 1 step back? I don't feel like that covers how much damage is being done. Never mind the media being arrested for trying to be there to report on it (thanks shady government). I think the American PEOPLE take 2 steps forward for every one step back. The US institutions (government, military, etc...) do their damnedest to burn any gains at every turn and refuse to pick up any progress the people make. I think the single best piece of the way Captain America was handled was the call to action at the very end. Falcon-Cap saying Be Better. Stop calling them that. You are being the villains. What choices are you giving them. Be Better. Calling them out for all their bs. But it wasn't watered down telling them how they also did some good. It was just calling them out for all the ways in which they failed and telling them to fix it.
And yes, of course Freeman represents a good person in a bad position but I have already given examples of writing that could better reflect the position of real people trying to do good within the framework of a problematic system. I expect a CIA to make decisions based on their understanding of the Constitution and the best interests of the American people not act out of a sense of indebtedness to agents of a foreign power. And I say that with a rather rare view point of having been an American who was in service to the British Crown. And I now live in Germany. I consider myself as best I can under the current global situation a citizen of the world but I also understand the need to juggle the demands of sometimes conflicting loyalties. It is possible to break policy in order to do what is morally correct. The examples films show can influence people.
As for nations being portrayed as competing for power in the film, yes exactly… all of them. Not just France and the USA. Not just Europe, North America or Asia but also Wakanda and Talokan. Nations compete, economically, politically, athletically, militarily. All nations. None are above it. Some do more for other nations, some do less but all nations are inherently self serving. It is the nature of sovereign nation states.
That is why I did not like the movie pointing a finger at just France and the USA.
So... I understand what you are saying, but I think you should rewatch Queen Romonda in the UN scene. She doesn't call out France and the US. She calls out the entire UN. France did the inciting incident (it was going to be someone) and she used it as a warning for all of them. America confiscated the device from Riri and put it to work. Had it been a Russian made device they would have been in Russia. America was the only ones with the tool that incited the incident. It triggers Talokan, who then threatened Wakanda. "Help us or you will be attacked first. Keep us a secret." Like you said, America was defending it's interests. And it employed it's normal shadowy shady agencies to do it. And it roped in local law enforcement under pretenses to mobilize quickly with man power.
Wakanda is an African nation. But not the sort of African nation the UN is used to dealing with.
She presents her evidence effectively. And she issues a stark warning which amounts to “right. This is a freebie. Little harm done - this time. But try it again? See what happens”.
It’s an African Nation negotiating from a position of strength. You want their toys. You seem willing to actively steal their toys. Except….they already have the toys, and if you’re that keen to see them up close, by all means. And they are by no means obliged to share those toys.
Yes it is a critique of historical and current attitudes to African Nations. Yes it can be uncomfortable for some viewers. But it’s still fundamentally accurate. And it’s something better suited to a political forum, where franker conversations can be had.
GG- would you level the same criticism at Captain America: Winter Soldier or other Marvel properties? I mean, the Incredible Hulk and Wandavision do not paint US agencies in a good light either.
I am not sure Wakanda Forever is the first one where the US has been the enemy.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think it’s a general reflection of historical and indeed modern Western attitudes toward Africa.
Basically “Africa has stuff, we feel we have an inalienable right to that stuff, and will simply take that stuff if we want to”.
Whilst I’ll more or less leave it here due to Rules? One doesn’t have to dig far to find examples of Blind Eyes being turned to methods of production when it’s something we want.
Most human cultures have a stong belief in "other humans have stuff we want - lets take it if they are weak, buy it if they are strong"
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s an African Nation negotiating from a position of strength. You want their toys. You seem willing to actively steal their toys. Except….they already have the toys, and if you’re that keen to see them up close, by all means. And they are by no means obliged to share those toys.
At the same time, Wakanda is a nation that's one ritual combat duel to the death away from being set on a path of war and conquest, per the 2018 film. Its kind of an imperative for a nation, benevolent or otherwise, to at least try to steal some tech and reverse engineer it so as to defend themselves should the Wakandan's break bad.
In a world where people can build near limitless nano-tech suits, bio-engineer super soldiers, build advanced AI, reverse engineer alien tech and all the "quantum" stuff without Wakanda, I struggle to see why Wakanda's tech/resource is even needed, other then just plain old weak writing.
Easy E wrote: GG- would you level the same criticism at Captain America: Winter Soldier or other Marvel properties? I mean, the Incredible Hulk and Wandavision do not paint US agencies in a good light either.
I am not sure Wakanda Forever is the first one where the US has been the enemy.
No, he wouldn't, because his criticism as I've understood it from his quite forthright posting here has been the distinction between parts of the whole (Hydra infiltrating/ One bad apple high on the chain) and the Nation as a whole.
It's like asking a guy if he doesn't like any fruits at all after he complains about how pears are too soft and mushy compared to apples.
Easy E wrote: GG- would you level the same criticism at Captain America: Winter Soldier or other Marvel properties? I mean, the Incredible Hulk and Wandavision do not paint US agencies in a good light either.
I am not sure Wakanda Forever is the first one where the US has been the enemy.
No, he wouldn't, because his criticism as I've understood it from his quite forthright posting here has been the distinction between parts of the whole (Hydra infiltrating/ One bad apple high on the chain) and the Nation as a whole.
It's like asking a guy if he doesn't like any fruits at all after he complains about how pears are too soft and mushy compared to apples.
Just curious if he got this vibe before, and this one was one step too far, or something else. Just trying to understand, as I do not think he is "wrong" per se.
This thread perfectly illustrates my concern. Have people become so accustomed to the idea of the USA and/or the US government as malicious that they do not question the subtle but important difference of problematic parts rather than a problematic whole?
I'd say people are accustomed to 'problematic parts' being an excuse for not fixing anything. Its an excuse that wears thin after a lifetime of hearing it.
Why did the writers feel the need for the CIA to take the information for the Vibranium detector without Riri‘s knowledge? Why would the US government do that? Why not speak to her and her professor about the sensitive nature of such a device and have it become classified information? Why would the US government just take the info and “leave her be”? Which agency took the information? Were they covertly monitoring her? Then why the FBI surprise at her “Ironman suit”? Why have Riri clearly trying to keep things secret? Why was she upset about the arrival of the FBI? How did she get what looked like Stark Industry plans? Did she have them legally?
Are these real questions? (other than 'why leave her be? and 'How'd she get those?', which are actually legit questions, assuming those aren't answered by the film)
Of course the CIA took the information about a magical metal detector. Its not conceivable that they wouldn't. It detects magical metals- its in the strategic interest of the government to have, and not college students.
Which agency: it falls under the provenance of quite a few, or at least they'd argue it did.
Covert monitoring of someone who can make devices to find magical metal Or make things out of said metal? Obviously, yes.
FBI surprise: they probably thought the iron man suit wasn't reproducible, since it was established that a pile of government contractors tried and failed in Iron Man 2.
Why is she keeping things secret? She's supposedly not a moron and can make magic-tech. That's a very large target on a teenager/twenty-something.
Upset about the FBI arriving: Um. The FBI showed up. I'd be upset, and I don't have super science in my back pocket. If the FBI shows up, you're either being accused of something or framed for something, or something real bad happened to someone you know. Its a lot to be upset about.
Granted, I may have missed something as I have not read any of the comics but so much confuses me about how the US government and its agencies are portrayed in the film
Keep in mind that things are also much worse for the world governments in the MCU. Multiple invasions from space, nigh-unstoppable super powered juggernauts, people taking over entire towns, new strategic resources, individuals 'privatizing world peace,' global terrorist organizations (including inside the major (international?) intelligence agency, etc, etc.
Add in a mass refugee crisis of temporally displaced, legally dead people (and a lot of actually dead people given the simultaneous world wide hit to transportation networks and emergency services and food production and distribution). Governments are going to be more paranoid and feel more powerless, so they're going to react more desperately and harshly.
But, its a movie about myth-building a strong African nation.
A narrative about overreach by western nations is a natural fit for this. A narrative about a white man upholding the constitution of America is... not.
Take the challenge (not insult) to your core identities as the film maker wanting to make the otherwise uninvolved part of the audience actually think about the themes presented. Its not... personal.
And obviously its going to tie into current cultural concerns about systemic abuses of power. It'd be a hollow shell of nothing if it just focused on nameless and fleeting 'bad individuals'
I’m trying to remember what the US did in the movie that was all that evil. They were just in open waters looking for alternate sources of the metal. Technically the CIA taking the plans from Riku is indeed illegal, if for no other reason than to my understanding the CIA isn’t allowed to work on US soil/against US citizens, that’s the NSA’s jurisdiction. Wakanda isn’t much better given they infiltrated the US to kidnap and execute a US citizen.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s an African Nation negotiating from a position of strength. You want their toys. You seem willing to actively steal their toys. Except….they already have the toys, and if you’re that keen to see them up close, by all means. And they are by no means obliged to share those toys.
At the same time, Wakanda is a nation that's one ritual combat duel to the death away from being set on a path of war and conquest, per the 2018 film. Its kind of an imperative for a nation, benevolent or otherwise, to at least try to steal some tech and reverse engineer it so as to defend themselves should the Wakandan's break bad.
In a world where people can build near limitless nano-tech suits, bio-engineer super soldiers, build advanced AI, reverse engineer alien tech and all the "quantum" stuff without Wakanda, I struggle to see why Wakanda's tech/resource is even needed, other then just plain old weak writing.
Apologies in advance if this comes across overly strong.
We could say the same thing about personal transport. We knew how to ride horses and make horses and carts. Why did we need cars and trucks or railways? Sail was perfectly for centuries. Why did we adopt propeller driven ships?
Steel is fine, why use Titanium?
Vibranium is a near peerless MacGuffin. We’re told it’s super useful and the key to Wakanda’s success. But we’re entirely deliberately told precious little about its actual properties. And that’s the appeal to other Nations. What can we make with it? What new innovations might this unlock? And yes, Wot If I R Put In Bomb How Big Bang Be?
Wakanda remains a sovereign nation, beholden to no-one. There’s no reason for them to trade the ace up their sleeve. There’s no advantage to Wakanda there - but there is considerable risk to their ongoing security.
Yes you’re one ritual combat away from a potential lunatic running that show. But well, looking at the modern world? Glass Houses and Stones come to mind.
Thanks GG. I am not having a go at you, but seeking to understand. Thanks for continuing to engage.
I had controversial feelings about The Dark Knight Rises where the "hero" of the story uses unrestricted surveillance (and if IRC enhanced interrogation techniques) during the War on Terror to capture the villain. That did not sit well with me at the time, and still doesn't considering what was going on at the time. Especially as everyone and their uncle was raving about the movie.
Personally, I am not seeing it the way you are. I see Elaine as another "rogue" element that just happens to currently have the ear of people in power. The thing about institutions is that they are not monolithic and various groups and branches have their own "viewpoints" on things. We see this in "real life" all the time.
Uh, Batman using the super spy machine is specifically called out in the movie as a really bad thing. Lucius Fox very specifically says it's unethical, dangerous, and wrong.
Batman only gives it to Fox because he knows Fox will destroy it when the mission ends. The film doesn't hide that the machine is bad.
Gert wrote: Uh, Batman using the super spy machine is specifically called out in the movie as a really bad thing. Lucius Fox very specifically says it's unethical, dangerous, and wrong.
Batman only gives it to Fox because he knows Fox will destroy it when the mission ends. The film doesn't hide that the machine is bad.
Is it reallly called out as a bad thing? Is that reallly the impression the average moviegoer gets from the events of the movie? Do you reallly believe batman wouldn't pull it out again for the same situation? If he wouldn't do it a second time what is the justification for the first time?
Voss, I disagree with you. A strong African nation can be built without tearing another nation down. By all means point out the errors of the past. But I think it is wrong to create fictional incidents that appear to perpetuate morally unacceptable behavior, such as what is implied with France. It is unnecessary mudslinging that is inflammatory. We have a fictional Wakanda, why not create a fictional nation to raid the Mali outpost?
Because it holds no weight or depth. A fictional Wakanda is sadly necessary (to the plot and themes of the film, if nothing else in the broader cultural sense), because there aren't any strong African nations . A fictional aggressor is just white-washing history, and undercuts all the messaging about the international community and power structures.
As for the colonizer jokes… make makes them ok? What makes a person a colonizer? Skin color? Nationality? If someone was to call me a colonizer I would say it was a bigoted remark.
I'd say participation in ongoing exploitation of 'third world' countries makes someone a colonizer. It isn't like its rare.
As for not taking the messages in a movie personal… when something feels aimed at me or someone I identify with it is difficult not to take it personally. I care, perhaps too much. I think, perhaps too much, and I wear my heart on my sleeve… because I was professionally silenced for decades but now have the ability to exercise my freedom of speech…within the limits of forum guidelines that is of course.
Can't say I understand. Movies always get my profession wrong, but I can't imagine it feeling 'aimed at me.' I could perhaps get feeling upset at criticism of an institution if I liked it and felt like the institution was somehow 'innocent' (which is unlikely, as being part of an organization makes me more aware of its flaws), but can you really not understand why the film criticizes the institutions it does?
Scrabb wrote: Is it reallly called out as a bad thing? Is that reallly the impression the average moviegoer gets from the events of the movie? Do you reallly believe batman wouldn't pull it out again for the same situation? If he wouldn't do it a second time what is the justification for the first time?
Spoiler:
Literally says it's unethical, dangerous, and wrong.
Dark Knight is about Batman pushing his boundaries to counter the greatest evil he's ever fought and then realising those boundaries need to exist in order for him to be a hero.
Dent and Batman both do good for the city but Dent crosses the line after Rachel dies and while he technically helps rid Gotham of bad people (corrupt cops and mobsters) he does it by becoming a criminal himself.
Grumpy Gnome wrote: But torture is not specifically called out. The Joker is portrayed as being correct that the police throw away their morality, their code of lawful, honorable behavior when pushed, when things become difficult. I know the temptation but it must be resisted. That is why I enjoy watching how Captain America is portrayed in the MCU.
Do you mean when Batman beats Joker and Gordon tries to stop him? That bit where it's made pretty clear that Batman crosses the line because Joker pushes his buttons?
For Gotham PD, it's a massively corrupt organisation at the highest levels alongside judges and many high-profile politicians in the pocket of the organised criminal elements of the city. Gordon's story is his struggle to be a good man in the bad system and actively work to make the system better.
I have seen too many people in my life time try to justify to me how the Law of Land Warfare, the Geneva Comvention, the Uniform Code of Military Justice is out of date given the War on Terror. They look to heroes like Jack Bauer, The Punisher, Batman and say they have it right. I have disagreed with all of them. And I hate how seductively appealing many movies/tv shows/books and games make that way of thinking.
You need to rewatch Dark Knight if you think the movie portrays Batman working outside of the law as a good thing.
The Joker has tortured, crippled and killed hundreds if not thousands of people because he is still alive - If Batman killed him and then turned himself in for manslaughter - the world would be a better place
Scrabb wrote: Is it reallly called out as a bad thing? Is that reallly the impression the average moviegoer gets from the events of the movie? Do you reallly believe batman wouldn't pull it out again for the same situation? If he wouldn't do it a second time what is the justification for the first time?
Spoiler:
Literally says it's unethical, dangerous, and wrong.
Dark Knight is about Batman pushing his boundaries to counter the greatest evil he's ever fought and then realising those boundaries need to exist in order for him to be a hero.
Dent and Batman both do good for the city but Dent crosses the line after Rachel dies and while he technically helps rid Gotham of bad people (corrupt cops and mobsters) he does it by becoming a criminal himself.
Sorry if I wasn't clear about knowing the characters tell us the surveillance is wrong. Both the person who invents and uses it and the guy on the killswitch agree it's unethical and necessary otherwise they wouldn't be using it.
This conversation happens before they use the unethical, dangerous, and wrong technology. The practical application of the movie is, given a big and scary enough baddie it is okay to use unethical, dangerous, and wrong methods to stop them.
There's a bigger conversation around the use of unethical technology in the film and that's one of trust. Batman only feels safe in its creation because its exclusively for the use of someone he trusts will not abuse it. At the same time, its creation costs him the trust of that very person, who to this point has created all sorts of also questionable technology for the use of someone that he also trusts, but now sees is capable of going too far. The central hub self destructing exists as a way to regain that trust, but its clear that damage has been done.
To a degree, that's the greater conversation being had here. People have lost a lot of trust in the US over the last couple of decades, both within and outside of the country. The US is hardly alone in this, but ultimately there's a need for changes to regain the respect once held in the rule of law, not by force, but through justice. We're powerless to help you, not punish you is a strong sentiment these days and that's something that's being reflected more and more through entertainment because it resonates.
Scrabb wrote: Sorry if I wasn't clear about knowing the characters tell us the surveillance is wrong. Both the person who invents and uses it and the guy on the killswitch agree it's unethical and necessary otherwise they wouldn't be using it.
This conversation happens before they use the unethical, dangerous, and wrong technology. The practical application of the movie is, given a big and scary enough baddie it is okay to use unethical, dangerous, and wrong methods to stop them.
And they do get the Joker but at what cost? That's the point.
The whole movie is about analysing morals and ethics when faced with evil. Dent represents hope that turns to ash when personal tragedy strikes, Batman represents someone willing to do anything before failing at the last hurdle (i.e. saving Dent), and the most important part is the ferry scene between the prisoners and people of Gotham where they collectively decide not to bow to hatred and fear. That's Jokers loss in the film, not getting caught but not having the collective stoop to his level.
Mr Morden wrote: The Joker has tortured, crippled and killed hundreds if not thousands of people because he is still alive - If Batman killed him and then turned himself in for manslaughter - the world would be a better place
Perfectly illustrating my point. Which does not make me feel good at all. We have an entire legal justice system based on hundreds of years of experience designed to stop vigilante “justice” for a reason.
.
The problem is within the DCU what exactly do you do about the Joker - he kills, tortures, maims with impunity and apparently no prison or asylum can hold him - how do you stop the killing?
Mr Morden wrote: The problem is within the DCU what exactly do you do about the Joker - he kills, tortures, maims with impunity and apparently no prison or asylum can hold him - how do you stop the killing?
Warren Ellis wrote in 2002:
It occurs to me that an awful lot of trouble in Gotham City could have been averted a long time ago if Batman had just ripped the Joker's nipples off.
I mean, treatment doesn't work, does it? They stick the Joker in the nuthatch, he comes out again and does the same things.
A man with the nipples ripped off him does not make the same mistakes twice.
Criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot, and need the nipples ripped off them.
I mean, who's going to argue?
"Batman, I've heard disturbing reports that you ripped the Joker's nipples off."
"Choke on my feth, Commissioner Gordon."
"…okay."
I mean, crime in Gotham City doesn't exactly seem to be affected by a man dressed as a bat flapping around the place. But no-one disobeys a man wearing a necklace of human nipples.
"I'm Batman" isn't cutting it in the striking-fear-into-their-hearts stakes. But "I'm Batman — and I'm here for your nipples" is an entirely different proposition.
Criminals would see the error of their ways after a man in a black leather pervert suit had their nipples off with the edge of a Batarang, you mark my words. Or a Bat-Denipplizer.
Pretty sure Snyder played that card in BvS. Also, its been demonstrated that the Joker would actively pursue nipple removal if were made an option. He's done worse to himself.
Mr Morden wrote: The Joker has tortured, crippled and killed hundreds if not thousands of people because he is still alive - If Batman killed him and then turned himself in for manslaughter - the world would be a better place
Perfectly illustrating my point. Which does not make me feel good at all. We have an entire legal justice system based on hundreds of years of experience designed to stop vigilante “justice” for a reason.
.
The problem is within the DCU what exactly do you do about the Joker - he kills, tortures, maims with impunity and apparently no prison or asylum can hold him - how do you stop the killing?
That is part of my point. When writers create extreme situations where it appears the ends justify the “clearly only effective despite being extreme and immoral” means. Of course Batman‘s actions appear to make more sense when someone acts like the Joker, clearly malicious, unrepentant and immune to traditional criminal justice measures such as prison. The problem comes when people start equating themselves with Batman (or the Punisher as a number of police officers and military personnel have done) and their adversaries as bad as the Joker. Fear is often used to justify a lot of injustice. That is how a society ends up with the death penalty.
Well, just to be fair, the death penalty is not itself a problem when applied appropriately.
In the US there were 2 judges (I think in PA?) who were found to have been taking payment from a privately owned, for profit, juvenile detention center. For years they took years off of kids lives at a time in their life where this literally screwed them for the rest of their lives.
The only way for justice to be served would be to strip these judges (And every single other person who was even aware this was going on and didn't report it) of all that they own, auction it off, and divide all the accumulated wealth amongst the victims. There is no way to do that to those 2 judges (and their accomplices) without killing them anyway. So death penalty.
What they did was treason. Treason to the people they were supposed to be serving by holding the jobs they did. Treason like this comes with a death penalty. And the dividing of all their assets amongst their victims.
@LunarSol, great post. Definitely a deeper take than mine.
@Gert, same to you as for LunarSol. I was always rather dismissive of the rhetoric coming out of the heroes mouths and didn't personally find much of a distinction between batman hacking and sleuthing and shadowing verses batman cell phone hacking.
The guy does not respect anyone's privacy at all.
But again, you guys have articulated the movie's probable message in a compelling manner to me, someone who just thought it hypocritical and nonsensical.
Well, just to be fair, the death penalty is not itself a problem when applied appropriately.
Nothing is when applied correctly. Indeed the only problem with many systems of justice, political theories and market explanations are the humans that subsequently inhabit and operate them.
Circling back to superheroes, the most magical power they have is incredible certainty and accuracy. They are so rarely wrong when getting the baddy. That then allows extreme treatment (torture, death, etc.) as the guilt is certain. In reality what would their error rate be? How unacceptable would it be? I remember working with the Bangladeshi RAB a long while back as part of a government team. Ultimately they were used as an extrajudicial death squad that executed known criminals. Whilst they occasionally killed the wrong person, in general they got the 'right' one, so had broad public support as they were seen as better than the regular police. However the backlash against the governments involvement resulted in new procedures, regulations, systems and I think maybe a law or two (or at least parts of those laws) bur certain now means an 'OSJA' assessment has to be completed. I think Marvel touched upon it with the whole accords thing, but that was a pretty rare departure?
Was an issue of Batman a bit back where Bruce Wayne got chosen for Jury Duty on a case where Batman apprehended the criminal. He didn’t just take anything presented at face value and worked to ensure all the facts of the case lined up and that the guy was actually guilty. I think that was then a story where it turned out Batman grabbed the wrong guy.
AduroT wrote: Was an issue of Batman a bit back where Bruce Wayne got chosen for Jury Duty on a case where Batman apprehended the criminal. He didn’t just take anything presented at face value and worked to ensure all the facts of the case lined up and that the guy was actually guilty. I think that was then a story where it turned out Batman grabbed the wrong guy.
Probably not the best example. Batman's in a bad headspace after being left at the alter and Nightwing getting shot in the head and losing his memory (like you do). He jumps to a conclusion and assaults and apprehends Mr. Freeze. When he realizes his mistake he has Bruce Wayne put on the jury so he can 12 angry men the jury into finding him innocent.
Superheroes usually have the luxury of some chap in dayglo Spandex with guns for ears expounding their plan for a new world government in the middle of the street during peak shopping hours though, to be fair, which helps tremendously with identifying the guilty party.
AduroT wrote: Was an issue of Batman a bit back where Bruce Wayne got chosen for Jury Duty on a case where Batman apprehended the criminal. He didn’t just take anything presented at face value and worked to ensure all the facts of the case lined up and that the guy was actually guilty. I think that was then a story where it turned out Batman grabbed the wrong guy.
Batman got away with GBH/ABH for his actions during the apprehension?
I get the watchman protests if the number of wrongful high profile arrests steadily increased in total over time. Saying you are above the security system then making mistakes will rarely look good.
AduroT wrote: Was an issue of Batman a bit back where Bruce Wayne got chosen for Jury Duty on a case where Batman apprehended the criminal. He didn’t just take anything presented at face value and worked to ensure all the facts of the case lined up and that the guy was actually guilty. I think that was then a story where it turned out Batman grabbed the wrong guy.
Batman got away with GBH/ABH for his actions during the apprehension?
I get the watchman protests if the number of wrongful high profile arrests steadily increased in total over time. Saying you are above the security system then making mistakes will rarely look good.
AduroT wrote: Was an issue of Batman a bit back where Bruce Wayne got chosen for Jury Duty on a case where Batman apprehended the criminal. He didn’t just take anything presented at face value and worked to ensure all the facts of the case lined up and that the guy was actually guilty. I think that was then a story where it turned out Batman grabbed the wrong guy.
Batman got away with GBH/ABH for his actions during the apprehension?
I get the watchman protests if the number of wrongful high profile arrests steadily increased in total over time. Saying you are above the security system then making mistakes will rarely look good.
I have no idea what those acronyms mean.
ABH is Actual Bodily Harm
GBH is Grevious Bodily Harm
In the UK and some other jurisdictions assault can be categorised as “common assault”, assault causing ABH, and assault causing GBH. Usually referred to as ABH and GBH where common assault is the least severe and GBH the most severe. (This is an over-simplification as there are degrees of severity in these categories).
I think from watching American tv and films the closest equivalence might be misdemeanour assault compared with felony assault.
Yep, that was Namor all right. Can't believe I missed him the first time around. 
modern namor.
Glorious!
