Spoilers Black Panther grade and discussion thread

[The Nth Doctor]

For those (including myself) who complained about the lack of development and exposure for the Okoye/W'Kabi relationship, it turns out there was a deleted scene that expanded on that relationship, a scene that Coogler fought to include for a long time.

 

[gblews]

For those (including myself) who complained about the lack of development and exposure for the Okoye/W'Kabi relationship, it turns out there was a deleted scene that expanded on that relationship, a scene that Coogler fought to include for a long time.

I would really like to have seen the scene in the movie, although it's exclusion didn't take anything away from my enjoyment. We'll have to wait a couple of years to see the scene actually integrated into the movie when it's finally shown on Fx.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Considering it was used in some of the screenings, I wonder if there's any hope of Coogler releasing a director's cut. None of the Marvel films have done this but Black Panther is creating all kinds of precedents, so who knows?

 

[bigglesworth]

Do people not find cold blooded murderers a bad thing anymore? I'm genuinely surprised at the empathy psycho Killmonger is creating. And at the talk of how complex he was. He literally dealt with every obstacle by killing and fighting. There wasn't a subtle bone in his self-inflicted scarred body.

Are people projecting so much onto him because they're simply desperate to love their villains more than the heroes for some twisted reason?

In defense of those empathizing with the villain, Killmonger kinda cucked T'Challa, in that he took out Klaue and and slapped the king in the face with it in front of his council. W'Kabi certainly seemed impressed.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Well, if we carried your logic, T'Challa would have said, "Killmonger, we're not locking you up. You'll be free to spend your days in Wakanda. You just can't challenge for the throne again." If you're interpretation is right, and the movie seems to contradict it, then my theory that Killmonger did not commit any crime against Wakanda law is on the money.

No, he wouldn't have, because that's not how people talk. Especially not this person, who is typical very stoic and is in this situation highly confused and conflicted because of the responsibility of his office and the familial guilt he feels over Erik's backstory. Most likely, even T'Challa himself does not actually know what they would or would not do with Erik should he live, because he has had almost no time to think about any of this.

So you're saying that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we have to assume something is criminal? Wakanda law doesn't seem the same as ours, but they do seem to be people of principle, and their citizens seem happy, which indicates that it is not a brutal North Korea like dictatorship. If someone commits a crime, people know about it. As you mention, what we saw was pretty unprecedented, which means that they didn't contemplate it. If they didn't contemplate it, then no crime has been committed.

Most civilized societies, and there's no reason to believe Wakanda is different, do not outlaw something and then punish someone who committed that act before the act was outlawed.

No, I'm saying you're making baseless assumptions because you have absolutely no knowledge of what Wakandan law is or isn't. And you continue to wildly misinterpret the basic principle of legality. Just because people might not have imagined the possibility of ramming a plane into a building at one point, doesn't mean that the first person to deliberately do so wouldn't be guilty of murder. Laws do not have to spell out every single possible form and permutation of the proscribed behavior. That's why lawyers build cases arguing whether a specific act did or didn't fall under a specific law and judges and juries hear both sides and make a ruling.

The rules clearly imply that no outside interference is allowed either. For example, T'Challa couldn't get help from other warriors to gang up on Killmonger or vice versa. While the rule book isn't displayed, it was clearly meant to be a one on one fight, and T'Challa would have died but for the interference of others. T'Challa was the clear loser of that fight. Had there been any doubt, Killmonger would not have been anointed the new king, but he was. He went through the whole ceremony and procedure. He was the legit king at that point. T'Challa actually cheated to continue the challenge.

Killmonger did not usurp the throne. He won it. Fair and square. He even had a right to refuse T'Challa's challenge because T'Challa was only alive due to cheating, namely the help of his friends and family who saved his life.

At best, you are arguing for a disputed claim with each side having a fair argument. That argument was settled when the two fought again and T'Challa won. While that fight may not have been perfectly true to Wakandan tradition, it was still a fair fight under equal circumstances and T'Challa won. But that doesn't mean Killmonger committed a crime.

You are just assuming things on the basis of almost no knowledge. The ONLY rule ever stated was 'Death or Yield'. You may feel that you can infer other rules based on appearances, but the fact of the matter is that we saw the ritual exactly twice and IT WAS DEPICTED DIFFERENTLY in each case. So your inferences are no basis for analysis. The only thing we know for certain is that Killmonger did break the one single confirmed rule of the challenge.

Actually, a specific crime WOULD have to be spelled out in detail in law books to be prosecuted. That's kind of the point of having specific crimes and penalties. Otherwise, one can pick any act you do, call it a crime, and prosecute you for an action that was not illegal anywhere.

See above.

Killmonger did not commit and treasonous crime. He challenged for the throne and won. Legally. His actions as king were legal under Wakanda law where the king has very broad powers. Nothing he did while king could possibly have been illegal and no one objected under those grounds. Moral grounds? Yes. Legal grounds? No. Killmonger then faced a challenge for the throne and lost. Fine. But at least under Wakanda law, he's not guilty of anything.

Again, you know literally nothing about Wakandan law. This is 100% made up.

Also, your whole discussion about Wakandan law is ignoring the obvious: Killmonger never said he would be locked up in Wakanda in the first place. That was once again your own baseless assumption, despite the fact that he is an international terrorist and there is a friendly, trustworthy CIA agent on hand to arrest him.

 

[Set Harth]

The integrity she showed in turning down Nakia's emotional plea to join her in overthrowing Killmonger was something we could use in congress today.

Actually, in Congress today we could use more people with the integrity to stand up to Tweetmonger.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Do people not find cold blooded murderers a bad thing anymore? I'm genuinely surprised at the empathy psycho Killmonger is creating.

You are living in morally ambiguous times (about many subjects) where "cold blooded murderers" are given as much sympathy and in some cases, aggressive support as heroic figures. In Star Wars land, from the start, you had some trying to argue sequel trilogy Emo whiner Kylo Ren was someone to follow, or tried to justify his murderous life, when there's no excuse for his actions, or support of him. In Black Panther, some viewers support Killmonger as he's constantly justifying his racism / calls for a race war by being the victim of it (which is not justifiable by any stretch of the imagination), including his self-serving account of Middle Passage slaves preferring to jump to their drowning deaths rather than live in bondage.

Its the talk of the oppressed giving Killmonger cover, because if one sees him as speaking to a certain truth about the state of anyone of African descent around the globe, then one "must" assume he is not the problem, but the solution.

 

[Gryffindorian]

Empathy or apathy?

 

[Kirk Prime]

Do people not find cold blooded murderers a bad thing anymore? I'm genuinely surprised at the empathy psycho Killmonger is creating. And at the talk of how complex he was. He literally dealt with every obstacle by killing and fighting. There wasn't a subtle bone in his self-inflicted scarred body.

Are people projecting so much onto him because they're simply desperate to love their villains more than the heroes for some twisted reason?

Don't confuse the idea that he committed no crime in Wakanda with the idea that this is a good man. He SHOULD be locked up in America for the murders he committed when stealing the vibranium. But his actions in Wakanda? Not guilty.

No, he wouldn't have, because that's not how people talk. Especially not this person, who is typical very stoic and is in this situation highly confused and conflicted because of the responsibility of his office and the familial guilt he feels over Erik's backstory. Most likely, even T'Challa himself does not actually know what they would or would not do with Erik should he live, because he has had almost no time to think about any of this.

T'Challa, as king, should know the law, and should know that because Killmonger committed no crime, he would not be locked up. He sure knew that the guy who challenged him at his first ceremony was free to go and lead his people.

No, I'm saying you're making baseless assumptions because you have absolutely no knowledge of what Wakandan law is or isn't. And you continue to wildly misinterpret the basic principle of legality. Just because people might not have imagined the possibility of ramming a plane into a building at one point, doesn't mean that the first person to deliberately do so wouldn't be guilty of murder. Laws do not have to spell out every single possible form and permutation of the proscribed behavior. That's why lawyers build cases arguing whether a specific act did or didn't fall under a specific law and judges and juries hear both sides and make a ruling.

These are not baseless assumptions at all. These are based on what was shown in the movie and the reaction of the people of Wakanda. Your 9/11 analogy is absolutely wrong. Hijacking a plane was illegal before 9/11. So was murder. So that was a crime. Laws do spell out the elements of a crime, and what has to be done to meet the that crime. If A kills B, and fills the elements of murder, it wouldn't matter what form of weapon A used. In this movie, we see that killing someone does not always amount to a crime, especially in that ceremony.

You are just assuming things on the basis of almost no knowledge. The ONLY rule ever stated was 'Death or Yield'. You may feel that you can infer other rules based on appearances, but the fact of the matter is that we saw the ritual exactly twice and IT WAS DEPICTED DIFFERENTLY in each case. So your inferences are no basis for analysis. The only thing we know for certain is that Killmonger did break the one single confirmed rule of the challenge.

I'm using facts, as shown in the movie. It doesn't need to be spelled out for example that outsiders can't interfere in the fight. T'Challa had a lot of loyal followers who gladly would have killed Killmonger even if T'Challa said no. We saw enough of the ritual to see that Killmonger became the lawful king until T'Challa took it away from him via challenge. Both were recognized as king once the respective challenges were done. Nothing Killmonger did as king was illegal. Different maybe, but not illegal. Killmonger did not break a rule of the challenge. T'Challa did, when he was revived by his family.

Also, your whole discussion about Wakandan law is ignoring the obvious: Killmonger never said he would be locked up in Wakanda in the first place. That was once again your own baseless assumption, despite the fact that he is an international terrorist and there is a friendly, trustworthy CIA agent on hand to arrest him.

Other than the direct quote where he flat out said that he didn't want to be locked up, which is why he chose death, you're right. Except you're not, because again--direct line. Not a baseless assumption. You just don't like what you're reading. At no point did anyone talk extradition.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Now you're not even responding to what I'm actually saying. I never mentioned 9-11, the fact that murder was always a crime but could still be applied to new situations that people couldn't predict was my entire point, and the key words in that 'locked up' discussion are 'IN WAKANDA'. Killmonger said 'locked up', he did not say 'locked up in Wakanda', so all this hand wringing is pointless to start with because it doesn't matter whether the Wakandans have cause to lock him up. Everett Ross most certainly does. And with that, I'm done with talking to a brick wall.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I gave it an A. Possibly a little over-generous on my part but I was tired last night and I think I would’ve enjoyed it more if I hadn’t been.

The cast were all excellent so it’s hard to pick anyone out but I really did enjoy Michael B. Jordan’s role and would’ve liked his character to hang around for sequels, possibly becoming something of an anti-hero. Failing that, someone needs to give the man a superhero franchise. Blade? Green Lantern?

Loved the look of Wakanda and the scenery in general. The visuals of the suit, car etc. were brilliantly handled.

I thought it a little slow to get started but once they got to Korea, it really got going. There was a James Bond meets The Lion King for the first 45 mins or so. Ross was almost like the Felix Leiter proxy!

I don’t know much about the comic BP character but guessed pretty early who Jordan’s character must be (not a big stretch, I know). Incidentally, I was slightly surprised that Marvel didn’t use their de-ageing technology for the 1992 scenes and instead cast different actors to play younger equivalents.

T’Challa’s survival was somewhat convenient (not that I expected the hero to be billed but “oh we found him and brought him here” was a bit of a copout). He did lose fair and square to Killmonger, even if he didn’t yield, so it was hard to see why he should win on the rematch, if both were boosted by the potion. Oh well, dramatic licence.

Rhinos being ridden into battle. Legendary.

Agree with the betrayal of rhino-keeper guy being a bit convenient and unconvincing.

All in all an entertaining outing which, like Thor Ragnarok shows Marvel adding new potions to its winning formula.

 

[gblews]

Actually, in Congress today we could use more people with the integrity to stand up to Tweetmonger.

I agree. That's actually what I meant, but that sentence kinda got away from me a bit.

 

[gblews]

I don’t know much about the comic BP character but guessed pretty early who Jordan’s character must be (not a big stretch, I know). Incidentally, I was slightly surprised that Marvel didn’t use their de-ageing technology for the 1992 scenes and instead cast different actors to play younger equivalents.

I've read that the actor who played younger T'Chaka was actually the son of the actor who played T'Chaka in Civil War. So, I guess they felt this was a better way to go than using technology.

T’Challa’s survival was somewhat convenient (not that I expected the hero to be billed but “oh we found him and brought him here” was a bit of a copout). He did lose fair and square to Killmonger, even if he didn’t yield, so it was hard to see why he should win on the rematch, if both were boosted by the potion. Oh well, dramatic licence.

I think this might have been discussed earlier in the thread, but my take on this was that because T'Challa did not yield and was not killed, the challenge really never ended despite Killmonger's subsequent coronation.

 

[kirk55555]

I saw the movie today. It was very food. It had a few small issues, like pacing problems in the middle, but overall I liked it good deal. I don't think Killmonger is quite as fantastic a villain as some people say, but he was good and better then the standard MCU villain (though from recent movies I think I found both Ego and Hela to be more entertaining, even if Killmonger was written a bit better then they were). I got a bit annoyed by the whole "Person is loyal to the crown regardless of ethics" thing, too. Rational good people don't follow obviously evil people because some ceremony was correctly observed, so Okoye lost a lot of my respect/interest with that. To be clear, this is the exact same issue I have with the Shi-ar in Marvel Comics, its not a specific Black Panther related gripe. The third act CG fest, while decent, was also a bit of a let down. I wish the Panther v Panther fight had used some practical fighting.

I liked all of the supporting cast. Shuri was 5000% better then the arrogant doofus version from the comics, if the comics would add one MCU think to them I'd want it to be completely retconning Shuri into the movie version. Ross was very good for what his role was, although obviously not quite enough for me to remember or google his characters name. M'Baku was also a surprising standout even with only a few scenes, I'm curious if we'll see him become a villain in sequels like he is in the comics. Klaw was hilarious, Andy Serkis did a great job.

So overall I think this was a very good movie. It has a few flaws, but overall it was a good experience and I hope it gets sequels. I voted A-.

 

[EmoBorg]

I have never read the comics so can a woman become the Black Panther or only males inherit the throne of Wakanda ?

 

[Turtletrekker]

^Shuri was the Queen and Black Panther in the comics for a time.

 

[Ethros]

Finally saw this yesterday, wasn't the best film ever but enjoyed it enough, was kinda what I thought it would be, especially the plot, exactly what I thought it would be.

My one criticism would be Chadwick Boseman/T'Challa. Looking back literally every other character and actor in the movie (esp MBJ) stood out more than him. Dunno, I just found him pretty bland.

 

[Set Harth]

I saw the movie today. It was very food.

Ah, but was it gourmet food or was it fast food?

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I saw the film again today and it's just as magnificent on the second viewing as the first, perhaps even more so.

As much as I love Iron Man, Homecoming, and Civil War, I think Black Panther is now my favorite Marvel film.

Black Panther edged out The Last Jedi for second place as the fastest to $250 by just over a million dollars.

I saw the movie today. It was very food. It had a few small issues, like pacing problems in the middle, but overall I liked it good deal. I don't think Killmonger is quite as fantastic a villain as some people say, but he was good and better then the standard MCU villain (though from recent movies I think I found both Ego and Hela to be more entertaining, even if Killmonger was written a bit better then they were). I got a bit annoyed by the whole "Person is loyal to the crown regardless of ethics" thing, too. Rational good people don't follow obviously evil people because some ceremony was correctly observed, so Okoye lost a lot of my respect/interest with that. To be clear, this is the exact same issue I have with the Shi-ar in Marvel Comics, its not a specific Black Panther related gripe. The third act CG fest, while decent, was also a bit of a let down. I wish the Panther v Panther fight had used some practical fighting.

I liked all of the supporting cast. Shuri was 5000% better then the arrogant doofus version from the comics, if the comics would add one MCU think to them I'd want it to be completely retconning Shuri into the movie version. Ross was very good for what his role was, although obviously not quite enough for me to remember or google his characters name. M'Baku was also a surprising standout even with only a few scenes, I'm curious if we'll see him become a villain in sequels like he is in the comics. Klaw was hilarious, Andy Serkis did a great job.

So overall I think this was a very good movie. It has a few flaws, but overall it was a good experience and I hope it gets sequels. I voted A-.

I'm glad you enjoyed it in the end.

Was the music as distracting as you feared it would be?

 

[David cgc]

Its different with most other Marvel characters, Tony Stark's race is not an integral part of his story. Steve Roger's race is not an integral part of his story, so yes, its easy to change the race of those characters.

I'm not so sure. Tony Stark is who he is because of what he inherited (in every sense) from his father, who (in the MCU, at least) grew up working-class. However, both his parents had steady jobs that probably paid better than if they'd been black, which gave Howard the foundation to start building his fortune. And Howard lied about his background to avoid discrimination, which would've been impossible if he hadn't been white.

Likewise, while it's entirely possible a black Steve Rogers might've been subjected to horrifying medical experimentation in the '40s, he still would've been serving in a segregated Army, and kept even further away from the front lines than he was as a USO act. Black enlistees had a three-year waiting period before they could begin combat training, and the Tuskegee Airmen weren't even deployed until 1944.

A black Steve Rogers or Tony Stark would be as different as a white T'Challa would be (which, as some wags have pointed out, is basically just "Thor"). That's not necessarily a reason those characters couldn't be reimagined as black, though (it's not like there's a shortage of popular white headlining superheroes). Captain America would probably work better, you could swap in the segregation thing for the PR-monkey thing in the film, though I have trouble thinking of how African-American Tony Stark wouldn't end up being a lot more like Whiplash (son of a brilliant inventor whose work and legacy was stolen by others while he was erased), or maybe just one-man Wakanda, creating all these technological wonders that are ignored by others either because they can't believe they were made by someone like him, or hidden because other people would take the credit.