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.

 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.

 Scrabb wrote:

 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.

Deleted.

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.

Deleted.

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.

 nels1031 wrote:

 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.

Deleted.

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.

Deleted.

 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?

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:


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?

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

 Gert wrote:

 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.

Deleted.

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.

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:

 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.

I'm off to ring DC Comics.

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.

Deleted.

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Grumpy Gnome wrote:

 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.

Edit: Found it. https://apnews.com/article/crime-trending-news-government-and-politics-6f30f575dc739415af1e5b47b1be50f0

Some kids as young as 8, over 2000 kids.

@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.

Deleted.

 Lance845 wrote:

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.