Black Panther Spoiler Topic -- because someone had to do it

[Darth Richard II]

Usually the films happen in the order they're relased, with the respect time in between, so, say if Movie A was released 6 months before Movie B, then A takes place 6 months before B, but they seemed to have really fucked this up in phase 3(or abandoned it?).

[RumHam]

2 hours ago, Rhom said:

Also, I’ve only seen Civil War the one time in the theater.  Can someone help me with the timeline in this one?

They mention that Bucky (bomber that killed T’Chaka) has been captured early in the movie.  Then we see T’Challa in the jungle.  So does the entirety of this movie happen between the chase sequence in CW and the end when he gives Cap and Bucky asylum in Wakanda?

I don't think so cause why would he go back to the old suit. 

[fionwe1987]

5 hours ago, Fall Bass said:

Wakanda is a super-advanced society that is also an . . . elective absolute monarchy where succession passes father to son unless they get challenged in a ritual one-on-one fight?

Well, why not? Asgard is an absolute monarchy which doesn't even have this much going into choosing its next leader. And is clearly at least as advanced.

Wrt. Bucky, I thought Shuri's joke wrt Martin Freeman, about having to fix yet another white boy, clearly meant that she'd already met Bucky. Meaning this was all after T'Challa ended the battle between Captain America and Ironman.

[red snow]

Good - a spoiler thread.

I think it's probably the most polished Marvel film we've had in a long time and definitely the most impressive debut. The cast and characters were flawless - they all felt like living breathing people with their own motivations and not just pieces of a plot. The general guy siding with Killmonger made sense because we knew how he felt about standing by and his frustration regarding Klaw.

The villains were easily the best since Loki (who's probably the only strong villain the MCU has) and the fact they had several villains who shone was almost like a boast. Michael B Jordan had me lamenting the fact he was utterly wasted in Fant4stic and his impact on the film was great - he arguably "won" in the sense T'Challa did bring Wakanda out into the world to make a change. I think Killmonger had to die and the fact it was on his terms made him all the stronger. Klaw is different - I feel Serkis brought so much insane delight to that role that they really should have kept him around as a mid-level pest. I can see why they killed him for the plot but I was sort of hoping he'd pop up and cause michief (as we never saw him shot). Given the rarity of strong Marvel villains it seemed a shame to kill two thirds of them off. It also reminded me of how poor Age of Ultron was as Klaw/Serkis was not that good there.

As I mentioned in the general marvel thread I was releived that the film directly addressed the elephant in the room of "why would an african super-power standby and watch all these things happen to their continent and the treatment of african-americans". That they made this the central driving point of the film's villain was all the better.

I still feel like T'Challa only beating Killmonger once he had the drugs and battle-armour a mis-step and weird "message". Someone did make the good argument of how Killmonger wanted the throne more at that point but it just didn't sit well with me as the easy interpreation was "T'challa needs the drugs and tech to win".

Agree with those commenting on how Wakanda is still a monarchy so despite it being all wonderful it appears that the only people who have a say on the next King (I'm assuming Queens are possible too?) are tribal leaders whos key attribute is being able to fight. The film didn't have time to waste on such details but I'd have preferred the "king" role being a role specifically for being the Black Panter whose job was to physically protect the kingdom and have a large say in international decisions. But it seems in SF there's an abundance of benevolent dictators who always have the little man at heart.

I don't know where I'd put it in my Marvel ranking but it gets a lot of points for having its own identity and being self-contained. It's easily their best franchise debut since GOTG. While there wasn't enough to make it an excellent film for me there was so much solid world-building that the sequels are spoiled for options. As others mentioned, there's enough there to support a multi season TV show. How will Wakanda entering the world stage change things? Will the mountain tribe ever cause trouble (their tribal leader was excellent), how may sleeper agents are out there? Could we have a James Bond style film with Black Panther and his sister providing the gadgets? Or a GOT style film with the tribes splintering and fighting for dominance?

Winter Soldier is probably my favourite MCU film and it was a sequel to an average origin film. I can't help but think Black Panther 2 has the potential to be a truly excellent film as it has a much stronger foundation than Winter Soldier had. Marvel would be insane not to keep Ryan Coogler on board but I think he's safe as Marvel tend to keep the directors that work well for them eg James Gunn and the MArkus/Mcfeely combo.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, red snow said:

I still feel like T'Challa only beating Killmonger once he had the drugs and battle-armour a mis-step and weird "message". Someone did make the good argument of how Killmonger wanted the throne more at that point but it just didn't sit well with me as the easy interpreation was "T'challa needs the drugs and tech to win".

Recall that most of the climactic Killmonger/BP fight takes place on the track with the vibranium neutralising devices switched on. The killing blow, in fact, only lands because the suits are neutralised at that moment. 

But ultimately, I can live with the idea that absent the heart-shaped herb, Killmonger was simply a better fighter than T'Challa. Why not? In the end, it matters more that T'Challa was a better ruler and a better man. He doesn't have to be the better fighter for those things to be true.

As for the ritual combat, the implication is that it's usually a formality. I would bet M'Baku's challenge was the first for generations. So in effect, Wakanda is a hereditary monarchy, which is problematic, of course, but that's inherent to the character. The thing that makes Black Panther different is being a king as well as a hero. Ta-Nehasi Coates' run on the comic has examined that tension, and the problematic issue of Wakanda being so advanced but still a monarchy. I would bet that will figure heavily in the plot of the next film. 

[polishgenius]

7 hours ago, RumHam said:

I don't think so cause why would he go back to the old suit. 

 

5 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

Wrt. Bucky, I thought Shuri's joke wrt Martin Freeman, about having to fix yet another white boy, clearly meant that she'd already met Bucky. Meaning this was all after T'Challa ended the battle between Captain America and Ironman.

 

Yeah. The timeline at the beginning isn't entirely clear but the majority of the movie takes place after CW, pretty obviously, because of this exchange (plus Bucky being in the final scene of course), and the exchange between T'Challa and Everett Ross about how BP gave Ross Baron Zemo and in exchange Ross kept quiet about T'Challa being Black Panther.

[SpaceChampion]

Deleted Scenes:

 

[Martini Sigil]

Like most Marvel/Disney movies, this wasn't a mere "Good Guys V Bad Guys" flick.... There was a greater underlying plot as it pertains to European colonization, and the 21st century responses to complex sociology... Just as Winter Soldier was a political thriller, and Ant Man was a heist film, this was a compelling social commentary as it pertains to whether activism or violence is the most effective means to achieve socio/economic justice.

Chadwick Boseman simply owns this role...  he's both regal, and a legit superhero... 

Often, these movies are only as good as their villain... and Michael B Jordan's Killmonger might be the best foil in the Marvel Universe since Loki... he got *huge* for this role, and the combination of anger and conviction was absolutely terrifying

Lupita Nyong'o and Denai Gurira completely sold me as kick-ass spy and bad-ass general respectively... They were both great...

Letitia Wright's Shuri was probably the most pleasant surprise for me... besides pulling off the brilliant inventor/tech genius part of her character, I was always aware that she was T'Challa's little sister,... playful... rebellious... and no doubt the one who used to get him in trouble when they were kids... I loved their chemistry... 

The rest of the cast was all terrific... Daniel Kaluuya, Martin Freeman, Forest Whitaker, Andy Serkis, and Winston Duke killed it... 

... and I will publicly proclaim my love for Angela Bassett

[red snow]

10 hours ago, mormont said:

Recall that most of the climactic Killmonger/BP fight takes place on the track with the vibranium neutralising devices switched on. The killing blow, in fact, only lands because the suits are neutralised at that moment. 

But ultimately, I can live with the idea that absent the heart-shaped herb, Killmonger was simply a better fighter than T'Challa. Why not? In the end, it matters more that T'Challa was a better ruler and a better man. He doesn't have to be the better fighter for those things to be true.

As for the ritual combat, the implication is that it's usually a formality. I would bet M'Baku's challenge was the first for generations. So in effect, Wakanda is a hereditary monarchy, which is problematic, of course, but that's inherent to the character. The thing that makes Black Panther different is being a king as well as a hero. Ta-Nehasi Coates' run on the comic has examined that tension, and the problematic issue of Wakanda being so advanced but still a monarchy. I would bet that will figure heavily in the plot of the next film. 

I'm also cool with the idea that Killmonger was a better fighter (and wanted to win more) - it's just odd for a Disney film to even imply a hero is only at the top of his game on performance enhancing drugs. A more "wholesome" solution would have been revealing Killmonger had the same heart herb - there was even a point where it seemed as if Forrest Whittaker was going to get Killmonger to take the nullifying drink.

I need to check the recent run of Black Panther. I actually liked his portrayal in Hickman's Avengers as well although the comic version feels like he's 10 years ahead of movie T'challa in terms of strategy and statecraft.

The odd thing about the social structure of Wakanda was how it reminded me of Jenkins "inhumans" run. In the sense that's exactly the kind of note the Inhumans show/film should have gone for.

[sperry]

On 2/17/2018 at 2:47 PM, Ran said:

Seen it, enjoyed it, certainly one of the better MCU movies thanks to its last 45 minutes or so, but at the same time "one of the better MCU movies" does not say too much (except, certainly, better than most DCU movies).

Really liked Shuri and Okoye, and the Dora Milaje were awesome. The fight scene in Seoul was the only one I really liked (the ritual combats underwhelmed me, OTOH). Serkis was terrific in his scenery-chewing way. Jordan has always been terrific at conveying emotion and feeling, and he certainly looked the part. Boseman was solid in a role that didn't demand much of him.

The costuming and production design, especially the all-too-few glimpses of the Wakandan city as seen in the streets, were stellar.

A massive blockbuster with a cast that's 95% black is a watershed moment. The film itself, I think, is pretty muddled in its social and political messaging, but this is inevitable when you're dealing with a Marvel comic book property that was all too hamfisted in its world building. Autocratic Wakandan nobility, who rely on inheritance or violent combat to determine succession, being the primary protagonists and antagonist will never not be a weird thing to have in a utopia.

Circling back to Killmonger, I have to say that his extreme ruthlessness -- casual murder of innocent bystanders and allies alike -- undercut any amount of sympathy I could have. The beats were right, I could see the underyling idea, but they made a hash of it by simply having him offer an unpalatable alternative to Wakanda's unpalatable isolationism.

Also, instead of Seoul, that whole sequence should have happened in Johannesburg, and instead of Oakland, T'Challa really should have been embracing Pan-Africanism and offering to assist his neighbors who had had their development depressed by the legacy of colonialism. I know it's a corporate franchise film hoping to win hearts and many, many dollars in the U.S., so I guess it's not unexpected, but I feel like it undercut the wonderful embrace of African culture that featured in the film.

 

 

 

Warmonger mentioned 2 billion people. He was from Oakland, but he was clearly referencing all black people. He also was supposed to be unpalatable. Nakia was the voice of reason who wanted to help the rest of the world without committing genocide, Warmonger was the embodiment of radicalism.

[fionwe1987]

2 hours ago, red snow said:

I'm also cool with the idea that Killmonger was a better fighter (and wanted to win more) - it's just odd for a Disney film to even imply a hero is only at the top of his game on performance enhancing drugs. A more "wholesome" solution would have been revealing Killmonger had the same heart herb - there was even a point where it seemed as if Forrest Whittaker was going to get Killmonger to take the nullifying drink.

Killmonger did have the same herb once he became king and before he burned the rest of the flowers. That's how he got to the ancestral plane, remember. He and T'Challa were exactly matched in terms of strength and equipment, in both their fights. The first time, he wanted it more, and T'Challa very likely underestimated him (Shuri certainly did, when she tells her mom Killmonger would never win). 

The second times, the stakes were much clearer to T'Challa, and he was also fresh from having seen Killmonger nearly kill his girlfriend as well as his sister. He just had greater motivation to win, so he did.

You can also make the argument that in the first fight, T'Challa had mixed feelings. He wanted to keep the throne and stop Killmonger, but he was also confused by revelations about his dad, and unsure what Wakanda needed to do.

The second time around, he had charted a course for himself and his country, and while he still pitied Killmonger, he was very clear his path would be awful for everyone in the world.

[Darth Richard II]

Well, I thought this film was fucking amazing. I usually don't liek to rank things til I;ve seen them more than once, but top 5 MCU films for sure.

[The Wolves]

5 hours ago, sperry said:

 

Warmonger mentioned 2 billion people. He was from Oakland, but he was clearly referencing all black people. He also was supposed to be unpalatable. Nakia was the voice of reason who wanted to help the rest of the world without committing genocide, Warmonger was the embodiment of radicalism.

It’s Killmonger and you’re right that he was the embodiment of radicalism(someone said that he approached the situation like an “American”)but I found myself agreeing with him most of the time. And yes Nakia was the voice of reason, they were on opposite sides of the same spectrum though. 

[Darth Richard II]

Man, I  a sucker for a well done car chase, and that one was good.

[sperry]

8 hours ago, The Wolves said:

It’s Killmonger and you’re right that he was the embodiment of radicalism(someone said that he approached the situation like an “American”)but I found myself agreeing with him most of the time. And yes Nakia was the voice of reason, they were on opposite sides of the same spectrum though. 

 

Killmonger had plenty of reasons to be angry with T'challa and Wakanda, and he was certainly correct that they shouldn't be hoarding their technology and letting the rest of the world suffer. But past that, he was a psychopath. The scene in the junkyard shows pretty definitively that any talk about caring about other people was bullshit; he just wanted power and revenge. 

[john]

Yeah, it was good. I enjoyed the James Bond elements, the epic fantasy style elements and the blending of the two.  The sequence in Seoul was particularly good, though I thought the ritual combat scenes were a bit lame and the final fight scenes with the battle rhinos were pretty silly.

The performances were strong (Martin Freeman’s American accent was a bit off I thought but that’s a minor quibble) and thematically it was heartfelt and relevant, if a big vague.

so, it probably is one of the top three marvel movies (but the marvel movies aren’t that good, sorry guys). I preferred the thematic musings of both Winter Soldier and Civil War and the fun and frolics of the first GoTG.

 

[john]

1 hour ago, sperry said:

Killmonger had plenty of reasons to be angry with T'challa and Wakanda, and he was certainly correct that they shouldn't be hoarding their technology and letting the rest of the world suffer. But past that, he was a psychopath. The scene in the junkyard shows pretty definitively that any talk about caring about other people was bullshit; he just wanted power and revenge. 

The scene in the junkyard was designed to show that he’ll go to any lengths for his principles.   I don’t think he’s a psychopath, although it would’ve helped if he’d shown a moment of regret for anything other than his dads death. In the end his argument, which seems solid from most angles, came down to a means vs ends scenario and we all know how those work out in blockbuster movies.  They could have been more subtle about it, maybe having Kaluuya’s character as a more thoughtful exponent of expansionism with Killmonger as his mad dog operative.

[Ran]

43 minutes ago, john said:

The scene in the junkyard was designed to show that he’ll go to any lengths for his principles.   I don’t think he’s a psychopath, although it would’ve helped if he’d shown a moment of regret for anything other than his dads death. In the end his argument, which seems solid from most angles, came down to a means vs ends scenario and we all know how those work out in blockbuster movies.  They could have been more subtle about it, maybe having Kaluuya’s character as a more thoughtful exponent of expansionism with Killmonger as his mad dog operative.

I think it's important that someone who has been in the outside world be the person driving the action... but I could have seen the argument that, instead of Erik, perhaps a War Dog such as Nakia might have worked somewhat better as the person who saw what was going on in the outside world and decided enough was enough.

That said, I'd just stick with Killmonger. But instead of having him simply challenge for the throne, he should have accepted a place as a prince of Wakanda, and begun to influence people toward revealing Wakanda, putting the focus on the many things Wakanda could do for others, etc. Have the traditionalists -- T'Challa included -- take the "wrong" side. Perhaps have some brutal civil war going on on Wakanda's border that the Wakandans have fastidiously stayed out of, and have it be the breaking point where Killmonger has support to take over and redirect things, revealing in the process that his father was murdered, and so on.

Then you can start seeing that he bears a personal animosity towards T'Challa thanks to his father's death after this point, and that what he went through in life has left him morally broken and utterly ruthless. When his interventions fail or lead to more problems, he starts seeing every problem as a nail and Wakanda and its advanced technology as a hammer, and in the process has found supporters who buy his argument that a new world order, led by Wakanda, needs to happen. The intervention in the civil war leads to more inequities, while Killmonger prepares to send out arms and support to forment revolts and wars elsewhere, saying that it's the only way to change the system that's been stacked against Africans and their unwilling diaspora for centuries, etc. 

Feels to me like you'd have a significantly more nuanced character, one who isn't just a wild, murderous radical, while still being able to get across that he has a point.

[Myrddin]

Ran, if this was a long form show (like Netflix or something), then I'd be on board with your idea. As it was, 2 hours was barely enough time to get in the existing story plot and still give the characters their moments.

Even though the movie felt slow at times, I thought they did a great job of juggling all the new characters and making them all feel fleshed out with admittedly just a little bit of screen time.

Not sure where I'd rank this among the MCU... upper quarter to be sure. Solid film a around. I won't repeat most of the comments above.

 

[Ran]

2 hours ago, Myrddin said:

Ran, if this was a long form show (like Netflix or something), then I'd be on board with your idea. As it was, 2 hours was barely enough time to get in the existing story plot and still give the characters their moments.

I came out of it with the impression that there was a lot of wasted time, though, especially at the start. I think with some heavy reconfiguration, you could do something like the above and still keep more-or-less the same time frame. Skip the lead up to his arrival in Wakanda, flash to Nakia sorting out her mission solo rather than making a whole sequence out of it, have Erik betray Klaue in Seoul in a way that makes him look like he was always gunning for him and then reveals who he is to T'Challa and co., they take him to Wakanda, run from there.

Could be wrong, though! Maybe the slow start felt longer than it really was.