Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
They couldn’t recast. The domestic backlash would have damaged the brand far worse than a weak lead and third act.

I don't believe that for a second.

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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
They couldn’t recast. The domestic backlash would have damaged the brand far worse than a weak lead and third act.

I don't believe that for a second.

If I remember correctly, even Chadwick Boseman's family had already given their blessing to have him recast.

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.

[Nope]

Some deleted scenes

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 Daughter of the Border clip was the most interesting.

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.

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?

Phase 4 is mostly the Fallout of Thanos.

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?

The lack of a tentpole Avengers film has meant this was always going to meander.

 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.

The phases have connective thematic arks.

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.

etc...

Deleted.

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".

Deleted.

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.

Deleted.

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:

 Easy E wrote:


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.

Deleted.

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.

Queen Ramonda’s speech is a highlight.

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"