log in or register to remove this ad

 

Black Panther Trailer

Imaro

Adventurer
And yet you felt the need, several times at length in fact, to mention the effects the movie might have on black people in your review so this topic is obviously important to you.

Yes it is important to me, but if I was talking about a movie... say Schindler's List... I would also stress the fact that the movie would resonate very deeply with Jewish people but stating that doesn't equate to... I like Schindler's List as a movie because it has a Jewish cast... :confused:

Yes the bad guy has a backstory to justify why he is not instantly thrown out. But he still shows up in Wakanda where nobody knew about him, punches T'Challa in the face and is crowned king. This ursurper out of nowhere story is nothing new as is how BP resolves it.

Nothing new in so far as what exactly? All superehero movies can be boiled down to villain creates problem... superhero fights and defeats villain. On the one hand you make the claim it's not a superhero movie (or not enough of a superhero movie) but then you complain it uses the basic structure of superhero movies instead of doing something different... I'm confused by what exactly you are looking for... so again, for the 3rd or 4th time I'll ask... could you name a superhero movie you feel is both a good superhero movie and that has a totally new story?

Several references to James Bond have already made and that is kinda the thing. If you remove the superpowers nothing much would change. T'Challa couldnt jump as high but thats it. Especially the 2nd half (Killmonger arrives in Wakanda) nothing would really change. Try to do that with Ant-Man and you would have to rewrite most if the movie including the entire premise.

So I assume you have issues with Iron Man (remove the suit and he's just a normal guy), Captain America (He has the same type of enhanced powers as T'challa), Hawkeye, Black Widow, Winter Soldier (Remove the arm and he's not a superhero), Ant Man (without the suit and Pymm particles he's an average Joe) and so on. And yes all of these stories (I'd argue nearly all superhero movie stories) could have been told with regular people, including Ant Man's... ex-convict given a second chance must stop a mad genius from developing a weapon from stolen designs (Wow does that sound like something out of James Bond). The powers add to the story, just like in any superhero movie but they aren't necessary to tell the story at a high level.

Granted, Black Panther doesnt have the most distinctive set of superpowers. Most action heroes are in the end stronger, faster and more enduring than average persons even outside superhero movies. Captain America at least had his signature shield to throw around. Black Widow is a good comparison. Yes, she is technically a superhero because she is part of the Avengers, but guess why she didnt had her movie yet and why Hawkeye probably wont be getting one.

Black Panther's vibranium suit and claws are just as distinctive as Cap's shield... and he's way past Black Widow and Hawkeye in strength, speed, agility, etc. this was both shown and explained throughout Civil War and Black Panther which again leads me to believe you may have missed some things in the movie.

Does BP make the Top 5? Yes, maybe. But not the Top 3. It is just a good movie but for the Top 3 you need more than that. And if in a few years I had to list all Marvel movies in the order they come to mind BP wouldn't be near the top as there is nothing that stands out.

You keep saying this and I've asked you to throw out some superhero movies (preferably siungle superhero movies) that do stand out and yet all you've done is repeat this without any type of explanation. So again I'll ask... what was a good/great superhero movie that did something totally different and whose story couldn't be told without super powers?

That there are hardly any references to the Marvelverse was not a complain but simply an information for Morrus.

Yes, but I'm asking why is that notable when it doesn't happen in any of the other origin story movies?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Derren

Hero
Yes it is important to me, but if I was talking about a movie... say Schindler's List... I would also stress the fact that the movie would resonate very deeply with Jewish people but stating that doesn't equate to... I like Schindler's List as a movie because it has a Jewish cast... :confused:
And for me such things do not matter at all for rating a movie
Nothing new in so far as what exactly? All superehero movies can be boiled down to villain creates problem... superhero fights and defeats villain. On the one hand you make the claim it's not a superhero movie (or not enough of a superhero movie) but then you complain it uses the basic structure of superhero movies instead of doing something different... I'm confused by what exactly you are looking for... so again, for the 3rd or 4th time I'll ask... could you name a superhero movie you feel is both a good superhero movie and that has a totally new story?
Mainstream movies with an original story are pretty rare. Thats why to be a great movie in my eyes it has to either do something special or be the best at something. Ant Man for example does that in my eyes because Heist movie + shrinking and ants is new and memorable.
Black Panther does not because not only is it a pretty conventional story it also doesn't really do anything special in my eyes.
So I assume you have issues with Iron Man (remove the suit and he's just a normal guy), Captain America (He has the same type of enhanced powers as T'challa), Hawkeye, Black Widow, Winter Soldier (Remove the arm and he's not a superhero), Ant Man (without the suit and Pymm particles he's an average Joe) and so on. And yes all of these stories (I'd argue nearly all superhero movie stories) could have been told with regular people, including Ant Man's... ex-convict given a second chance must stop a mad genius from developing a weapon from stolen designs (Wow does that sound like something out of James Bond). The powers add to the story, just like in any superhero movie but they aren't necessary to tell the story at a high level.

Guess why Iron Man 3 was so disliked. And yes, most CapAm movies are not really superhero movies either. But the advantage he has over BP is his shield which he actively uses. Black Panthers suit on the other hand is passive.
Sure you could remove all superpowers from Ant Man to have a regular heist movie, but what do you have to change to do that? First you have to find an entirely different premise as keeping the superpowers out of peoples hands is the entire point of the movie and you have to completely change the 2nd half of the movie, even bringing in new characters to take over the roles of the ants. The superpower is pretty central to the movie.
On the other hand, what would change if BP had no superpowers?
Black Panther's vibranium suit and claws are just as distinctive as Cap's shield... and he's way past Black Widow and Hawkeye in strength, speed, agility, etc. this was both shown and explained throughout Civil War and Black Panther which again leads me to believe you may have missed some things in the movie.

Its not about power.
CapAm throws his shield around. BP wears his suit. Active use vs. passive use.
I would even argue that Hawkeyes bow is more memorable than BPs suit.

I thought they were just armored..I didn't see anything that implied they were part robo....

They were just normal ones with vibranium horn.
 

Tonguez

Legend
I thought they were just armored..I didn't see anything that implied they were part robo....

could be, I got the impression that the glowing vibranium bits had been grafted directly into the Rhinos hide as a direct enhancement (it cant be the same tach as Black Panthers suit since Shuri indicated that was 'new')
 

ccs

40th lv DM
Guess why Iron Man 3 was so disliked.

Because people on the internet like to bitch & cry. And there's only a tiny % of us that found the Mandarin twist amusing.
You {and many others} say you want something unique/different in a superhero movie. Marvel gave you that by making Stark deal with much of the problem sans armor.
And everyone cried that they didn't like it....


And yes, most CapAm movies are not really superhero movies either. But the advantage he has over BP is his shield which he actively uses. Black Panthers suit on the other hand is passive.

Most Captain America movies.... Could you be more specific? If I were going to walk over to my shelf & watch the ones you think ARE superhero movies, wich ones am I watching tonight? You tell me:
1940s serial?
1970s TV movies?
early 90s movie?
CA: 1st avenger?
CA: Winter Soldier?
CA: Civil War?
3 Dev Adam? (What!? Don't tell me you've never heard of this un-authorized cinematic masterpiece where CA teams up with Mexican wrestler El Santo & fights the evil Turkish Spiderman in Istanbul!)


Its not about power.
CapAm throws his shield around. BP wears his suit. Active use vs. passive use.
I would even argue that Hawkeyes bow is more memorable than BPs suit.

From what your saying it kinda sounds like it is about the powers. Or at least the powers special effects....
What about Luke Cage? Afterall, he doesn't even wear a suit. He's just invulnerable. Superhero or not?
 

Istbor

Dances with Gnolls
Its not about power.
CapAm throws his shield around. BP wears his suit. Active use vs. passive use.
I would even argue that Hawkeyes bow is more memorable than BPs suit.

You could try to argue that, but I think you would find you are wrong.
 

Kaodi

Adventurer
I wonder if you could make an argument that in some ways Ragnarok and Black Panther fit together thematically. Black Panther references what might have been possible without colonialism. Ragnarok can be read as covering up the "unpleasant" bits of a colonial past.
 

Tonguez

Legend
I wonder if you could make an argument that in some ways Ragnarok and Black Panther fit together thematically. Black Panther references what might have been possible without colonialism. Ragnarok can be read as covering up the "unpleasant" bits of a colonial past.

thats certainly a good point and its notable that the directors in both cases are from ethnic minorities from countries with colonial histories. You could even tie in Iron Mans anti-imperialism arc (best demonstrated by the Maximoff twins hatred of Tony Stark and his change from weapons dealer to Hero).

Marvel also has a big subplot concerning dysfunctional fathers - from merely amoral Howard Stark through to negligent T'chaka and the insane David Banner right through to universe conquering Odin and Ego the Living Planet (if need be we can through the fathers of Luke Cage, Daredevil and Quake into that line up too).

Its no wonder their children deal with problems through violence :p
 

xanadunl

First Post
I am kinda surprised that people are not talking more about it now that it is released.

Although to be honest, while the movie is well made and I can't find anything really wrong with it, imo it also lacks highlights and wow moments. And the story is in my eyes even more generic than in the other superhero movies.

I have to partly agree. The is not alot of Black Panther going on, but I wouldn't call it generic. Thanks to the whole African theme going on, it felt pretty fresh.
 


Derren

Hero
I wonder if you could make an argument that in some ways Ragnarok and Black Panther fit together thematically. Black Panther references what might have been possible without colonialism. Ragnarok can be read as covering up the "unpleasant" bits of a colonial past.

BP is still a comic adaption and I find any it rather questionable to use Wakanda as some sort of "what would have been without colonialism" role model.
 

Gammadoodler

Explorer
Perhaps I’m missing the connective thought? Is there a reason that “comic adaptation and “what would have been without colonialism” role model should be exclusive to each other or even “questionable”?
 

Tonguez

Legend
Perhaps I’m missing the connective thought? Is there a reason that “comic adaptation and “what would have been without colonialism” role model should be exclusive to each other or even “questionable”?

the reactions coming out of the Black Panther screenings in Africa itself have tended to be positive, with the movie making big money in both East, West and South Africa. People are positive about the emphasis on 'hi-tech' modern Africa rather than the crisis and poverty and the fact that a big budget superhero now exists that talks with an African accent (almost), wears kente cloth and looks 'African'. (as a Polynesian I saw the same reaction to Disneys Moana, such that even my 16 year old neice bought a Moana blanket).

Nonetheless that ignores the fact that Wakanda survived and flourished due to being built on 10000 tonnes of Vibranium - thats the fictional part which means that it lackls relevance to the real world and we will never know what uncolonised Uganda might have been like sans Vibranium.

(Theres also criticisms of Ross' role as CIA stooge and the whole Killmonger was the true hero angle, but that gets into politics we don't want)
 
Last edited:

Imaro

Adventurer
BP is still a comic adaption and I find any it rather questionable to use Wakanda as some sort of "what would have been without colonialism" role model.

Yes because that so isn't what sci-fi, fantasy and comic book fiction has been exploring forever (mainly what if's...)... So what exactly would be an entertaining and enjoyable medium where this fictitious scenario could be explored?
 

Imaro

Adventurer
the reactions coming out of the Black Panther screenings in Africa itself have tended to be positive, with the movie making big money in both East, West and South Africa. People are positive about the emphasis on 'hi-tech' modern Africa rather than the crisis and poverty and the fact that a big budget superhero now exists that talks with an African accent (almost), wears kente cloth and looks 'African'. (as a Polynesian I saw the same reaction to Disneys Moana, such that even my 16 year old neice bought a Moana blanket).

Nonetheless that ignores the fact that Wakanda survived and flourished due to being built on 10000 tonnes of Vibranium - thats the fictional part which means that it lackls relevance to the real world and we will never no what uncolonised Uganda might have been like sans Vibranium.

(Theres also criticisms of Ross role as CIA stooge and the whole Killmonger was the true hero angle but that gets into politics we don't want)

I don't think just because it uses a fictional catalyst for the successful rejection of colonialism means the movie lacks real world relevance (though I agree we can never know what an Uganda that was never colonized would actually be like). Maybe I'm reading your statement wrong but you seem to be saying no fiction can have relevance to the real world because it has fictitious elements/events. If that is the premise I disagree fictional stories like myths, legends, etc. have always had relevance to the real world... even though we know they aren't documentaries.
 

Gammadoodler

Explorer
Why exactly do you think colonization happened? Do you think that Europeans showed up in Africa (or North and South America, or Asia) with guns and gunpowder in order to secure a pretty travel destination? Vibranium is a very reasonable analogue for silk, diamonds, gold, cotton, etc. The only difference, such as it is, is that, where these other materials are primarily valuable as trade goods, vibranium has physical properties relevant to the development of technology akin to magic.

You don’t think that it is at least plausible to imagine a world where an African nation’s native population had an opportunity to profit on their natural resources?
 
Last edited:

Derren

Hero
Yes because that so isn't what sci-fi, fantasy and comic book fiction has been exploring forever (mainly what if's...)... So what exactly would be an entertaining and enjoyable medium where this fictitious scenario could be explored?

And what scenario gets explored exactly?
"What if Africa wasnt colonized" or "What if there was a high technological african kingdom with the king wearing a panther suit and punching bad guys"?

When they created BP they started with the result, a panther themed superhero, and added some fantasy elements as origin. You can't simply turn this around and use it as allegory of what could have been without colonialism as the creators never asked that question.

This comic book origin is also a major disconnect in the movie. On one hand Wakanda is very advanced, on the other it is very archaic because some comic logic had to be kept.
 

Imaro

Adventurer
And what scenario gets explored exactly?
"What if Africa wasnt colonized" or "What if there was a high technological african kingdom with the king wearing a panther suit and punching bad guys"?

Why is it an either or proposition?

EDIT: The Matrix was both an exploration of the themes of Gnosticism and a movie where the slickly dressed heroes kick and punch bad guys... wasn't it?

When they created BP they started with the result, a panther themed superhero, and added some fantasy elements as origin. You can't simply turn this around and use it as allegory of what could have been without colonialism as the creators never asked that question.

How do you know this? More importantly, even assuming your knowledge of the creation process for the Black Panther and Wakanda are correct... why couldn't the original creation evolve into an exploration of that theme as Wakanda became more fleshed out and more prominent in the comics?

This comic book origin is also a major disconnect in the movie. On one hand Wakanda is very advanced, on the other it is very archaic because some comic logic had to be kept.

Archaic in what way... and please don't confuse cultural differences for something being archaic...
 

Derren

Hero
Why is it an either or proposition?

EDIT: The Matrix was both an exploration of the themes of Gnosticism and a movie where the slickly dressed heroes kick and punch bad guys... wasn't it?



How do you know this? More importantly, even assuming your knowledge of the creation process for the Black Panther and Wakanda are correct... why couldn't the original creation evolve into an exploration of that theme as Wakanda became more fleshed out and more prominent in the comics?



Archaic in what way... and please don't confuse cultural differences for something being archaic...

Because starting with the desired result first and then going backwards to justify that result is completely unscientific and any explorasion made on this premise is flawed. And I doubt that anyone at Marvel has enough experience as a historian to even begin to make an informed exploration of alternate history. Especially as the comics are still intended as light entertainment with mass market appeal so they go with the rule of cool and whatever their marketing department things the target demographic likes instead of doing actual historic evaluations.

Archaic as in their head of state is chosen by single combat.
 

Gammadoodler

Explorer
This seems like an awfully reductive approach to exploration. To me:

- what conditions might form an African superhero, and
- what is one possible result of uncolonized Africa

are not barred from similar conclusions in that they are both fundamentally speculative in nature.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top