Black Panther (Post-release)

What did you think of Black Panther?


  • Total voters
    114
As far as the standard Marvel formula goes, I thought they did an awesome job. As always with Marvel films, they can take an average plot and elevate it with a cast you just have no choice but to love. All the supporting cast killed it. Probably in my top 5 of Marvel films, mostly due to, as many have pointed out, Killmonger.

A villain with actual motivation to do something that relates to his character is so much better than the usual "wants to take over the world" type villain most Marvel movies are populated with. I mean-- YES, Killmonger wanted to take over the world, but his motivations and plan were grounded. Makes a huge difference.

On page one people were asking how he could challenge-- notice during the first ritual, all the tribes were offered a chance to challenge, then Zuri said that anyone of the royal family could also challenge-- that's when Shuri raised her hand to make a joke.

As for the politics-- I don't think it was any more heavy handed than any of the Captain America movies (which touch on fascism and a corrupt American government), the running theme of Tony Stark having been a weapons manufacturer, or Magneto's Nazi revenge quest in Days of Future Past. They are using real world drama to make the stories more legit, Marvel has always done this with their comics, so it makes sense it carries over into the films. It's not like T'Challa was the one that wanted to over-throw white countries-- that was the villain. T'Challa's father wanted to hide from the world, Killmonger was radicalized and wanted to strike out against the world-- T'Challa found the middle of the road like a real hero would. THAT'S the take-away theme. Our hero did not support revenge or racism of any sort-- but those things were what gave Killmonger what I think is arguably the best villain backstory in the MCU-- because it made him seem legit.

I will say this, and take away from it what you will. My 12 year old son loved it, and he asked after why Shuri called Ross a Colonizer. I told him that Killmonger was misguided but the things he was mad about actually happened. So, to somebody having lived in a country that was secure and untouched by British colonization, seeing a white person, especially a shifty CIA agent, may not be not be their favorite thing. He got it, and didn't think it was racist or wrong. He thought about it from her point of view and got it.

The only other thought I have is that I wish Angela Bassett hadn't played T'Challa's mother if only because when the MCU acquires and reboots the X-Men someday, I still want her to be Storm... like I have pretty much for the last 25 years.
 
Last edited:
The only other thought I have is that I wish Angela Bassett hadn't played T'Challa's mother if only because when the MCU acquires and reboots the X-Men someday, I still want her to be Storm... like I have pretty much for the last 25 years.

Respectfully disagree. My dream casting for Storm is and always will be Iman.

iman-at-amfar-new-york-gala-red-carpet-2-8-2017-1.jpg
 
My wife and I saw it this past weekend, and both loved it.

I think it's an extremely well-done film, and it's one that I also think is really, really important beyond just the film itself. I hope it leads to many more films of its type. It got me thinking about a movie being "for" a give audience as opposed to "available to" a given audience, with respect to representation in film. This movie did not feel "for" me. It felt "available to" me. Now, let me be clear: that was perfectly fine by me. But the truth is that, while I can look at a character like T'Challa and see things in him that I would like to see in myself, it's difficult to envision myself as T'Challa, or really any other character in the film. There's nobody who really reflects me on screen, except perhaps for Ross, but...meh...not sure I really wanna be reflected by the out-of-his-depth sidekick. I mean, I'm glad he's there, and he was a fun character, but he's not the guy I wanna be. That, to me, is the essence of "for" vs. "available to." The film didn't alienate me at all. It didn't make me feel unwelcome, or like there was nothing in it that I could connect with or relate to. But it also wasn't really interested in catering to me or offering me an heroic analog of myself to appear on the screen. And that's a good thing, I think. Not because it takes away something from me, but because it's opening up an untapped vein (of Vibranium!) for a lot of other people who have probably had my experience in the theater very, very often when they see a film. Similar story with the new Star Wars films. There's a limited number of people on screen that I can look at and map myself onto, and I don't always want to map myself onto those characters.

This phenomenon -- being able to see yourself in the characters in these stories -- is, I think, more important than people may realize. Mythology and storytelling are hugely important aspects of any culture, and films are our new mythology, instead of sitting around a campfire reciting rhyming phrases about a given hero of legend. We see ourselves in heroes, and those heroes act as models of ideal behavior for us. They let us aspire to greater things, and they give us a mechanism by which we can imagine our ideal world or lives or whathaveyou. When you look up on the screen, therefore, I think there's an unconscious desire to see yourself in the role of the hero, and while it's not impossible to do when the hero doesn't look like you, it's a whoooole lot harder. You can't really engage with it quite as closely as you might otherwise. Like, I can wear a Han Solo costume for Halloween, or a Qui-Gon or Obi-Wan costume, or whathaveyou. But I can't really go as Black Panther or Finn or Rey. Those characters are available for me to watch and enjoy their adventures, but they aren't "for" me as completely as other characters are.

That doesn't really bother met, though, because there are thousands of characters "for" me out there, and more on the way. But I think it's great that there seems to be an effort to create more characters that are "for" people for whom "my" characters just aren't. They should be able to imagine themselves in those roles and see themselves as those characters. They should be able to engage fully with central stars of the story -- and ones who aren't just the sidekick or the buddy or whathaveyou. The more, the merrier, I say. And I think Black Panther was really crucial in that respect. It also, from my view, didn't strike me as pandering, which is a whole other thing. It wasn't exploitative, it wasn't in your face about "THIS IS FOR YOU BUT NOT FOR THOSE GUYS!!!" It just told its story, and the characters were who they were, and you got to engage with it however you could. I hope there are more films like it in the future.



Back in the '80s I thought Grace Jones would have made a wicked Storm.

She would've made a wicked '80s Storm for sure! All depowered and with her mohawk...
 
Last edited:
My wife and I saw it this past weekend, and both loved it.

I think it's an extremely well-done film, and it's one that I also think is really, really important beyond just the film itself. I hope it leads to many more films of its type. It got me thinking about a movie being "for" a give audience as opposed to "available to" a given audience, with respect to representation in film. This movie did not feel "for" me. It felt "available to" me. Now, let me be clear: that was perfectly fine by me. But the truth is that, while I can look at a character like T'Challa and see things in him that I would like to see in myself, it's difficult to envision myself as T'Challa, or really any other character in the film. There's nobody who really reflects me on screen, except perhaps for Ross, but...meh...not sure I really wanna be reflected by the out-of-his-depth sidekick. I mean, I'm glad he's there, and he was a fun character, but he's not the guy I wanna be. That, to me, is the essence of "for" vs. "available to." The film didn't alienate me at all. It didn't make me feel unwelcome, or like there was nothing in it that I could connect with or relate to. But it also wasn't really interested in catering to me or offering me an heroic analog of myself to appear on the screen. And that's a good thing, I think. Not because it takes away something from me, but because it's opening up an untapped vein (of Vibranium!) for a lot of other people who have probably had my experience in the theater very, very often when they see a film. Similar story with the new Star Wars films. There's a limited number of people on screen that I can look at and map myself onto, and I don't always want to map myself onto those characters.

This phenomenon -- being able to see yourself in the characters in these stories -- is, I think, more important than people may realize. Mythology and storytelling are hugely important aspects of any culture, and films are our new mythology, instead of sitting around a campfire reciting rhyming phrases about a given hero of legend. We see ourselves in heroes, and those heroes act as models of ideal behavior for us. They let us aspire to greater things, and they give us a mechanism by which we can imagine our ideal world or lives or whathaveyou. When you look up on the screen, therefore, I think there's an unconscious desire to see yourself in the role of the hero, and while it's not impossible to do when the hero doesn't look like you, it's a whoooole lot harder. You can't really engage with it quite as closely as you might otherwise. Like, I can wear a Han Solo costume for Halloween, or a Qui-Gon or Obi-Wan costume, or whathaveyou. But I can't really go as Black Panther or Finn or Rey. Those characters are available for me to watch and enjoy their adventures, but they aren't "for" me as completely as other characters are.

That doesn't really bother met, though, because there are thousands of characters "for" me out there, and more on the way. But I think it's great that there seems to be an effort to create more characters that are "for" people for whom "my" characters just aren't. They should be able to imagine themselves in those roles and see themselves as those characters. They should be able to engage fully with central stars of the story -- and ones who aren't just the sidekick or the buddy or whathaveyou. The more, the merrier, I say. And I think Black Panther was really crucial in that respect. It also, from my view, didn't strike me as pandering, which is a whole other thing. It wasn't exploitative, it wasn't in your face about "THIS IS FOR YOU BUT NOT FOR THOSE GUYS!!!" It just told its story, and the characters were who they were, and you got to engage with it however you could. I hope there are more films like it in the future.

Well said, Dan. :)
 
One thing I was thinking recently in regards to people thinking Vibranium is a bit too much like "magic" since they do every thing with it - the Iron Man movies have already long established "magic" tech. From the first movie where he has a super high level AI along with all the other tech he builds IN HIS GARAGE. Not to mention the stuff he hands over to Shield early on to the multiple ways he compacts his suit..

In my opinion there is not much difference. :)
 
One thing I was thinking recently in regards to people thinking Vibranium is a bit too much like "magic" since they do every thing with it - the Iron Man movies have already long established "magic" tech. From the first movie where he has a super high level AI along with all the other tech he builds IN HIS GARAGE. Not to mention the stuff he hands over to Shield early on to the multiple ways he compacts his suit..

In my opinion there is not much difference. :)

Let's not forget what he built in a cave...with a box of scraps.
 
I'm confused...In the film T'Challa is on his way home to Wakanda after the events of Civil War...But during mid-credits scene of Civil War he's already home helping Barnes and Rogers...
 
I'm confused...In the film T'Challa is on his way home to Wakanda after the events of Civil War...But during mid-credits scene of Civil War he's already home helping Barnes and Rogers...

Dang...I never thought of this. That is confusing :confused
 
In the beginning of the movie, he's heading to pull Nakia off her mission because he wants her home for the funeral. On the way he's watching the coverage of recent events, including his handing over of Zemo to Ross. The Civil War post-credits scene easily fits before this, as they freeze Bucky down. I have no problem seeing Steve go off with the Raft escapees and T'Challa takes Okoye and departs, and that's where we pick up with him in the aircraft. Remember there was a whole Wakandan delegation in Geneva for the signing of the Sokovia Accords. They weren't all on that craft with them, and there weren't others around. Possible they went on ahead and he diverted, but it works just as well for everyone to have gotten home and him to have headed off again to get Nakia before the funeral.

The "another white boy to fix" line doesn't necessarily indicate she's already fixed Bucky -- just that Ross is being added to her queue. His injury is purely physical, though, so he's on his feet in hours and can help with the chaos that follows. After all of that, some indeterminate amount of time later, is when she is able to sort out Bucky's head for that post-credits scene. It all fits just fine.

And I don't get how the Spider-Man: Homecoming post-credits scene was "thrown out", either.

--Jonah
 
I guess maybe dig up that movie's thread and lay it out for me? I'm planning to watch Homecoming again tomorrow, but none of the previous times did anything seem amiss.


I don't get how those were thrown out, either. One is literally Toomes in prison, which clearly fits chronologically.

The other is a video of Cap doing "Public Service Announcements." We can logically figure that a guy that's been alive for the better part of a century, as Captain America, has probably done TONS of PSAs in his time...so there's no reason to think that they are out of place. Heck, I'm pretty sure they were watching more of these PSAs in class.


Now...if you want to get into the idea that "Homecoming" in GENERAL is way out of whack as far as the timeline goes, then that's fine...because it is...but the post credits scenes are fine.
 
The other scene from Civil War was just Peter playing around with some gadgets that Stark gave him. Aunt May almost catches him and she asks him about all the bruises from the Civil War airport battle. That scene is clearly setting up Homecoming, which to me seems to take place pretty close to if not simultaneously to Black Panther.

Marvel is usually pretty good with its timelines. I've not seen any official announcement that either of these scenes were thrown out.
 
My bigger problem with the timeline re: Civil War and Black Panther, is that the news report at the beginning of BP says that T'Chaka was killed a week earlier, but the events of Civil War take over a week.
 
Watching Fatman on Batman podcast where Marc Bernard mentions someone on Twitter who pointed out, "Do you realize that the climactic fight of this movie takes place with two black guys, literally, on an underground railroad?"
 
This thread is more than 3 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top