Black Panther *Spoilers*

[RikWriter]

I thought Hela was a great villain. Vulture was awesome as well, and Ego was very good.

[k von doom]

In my opinion, Ego was the weakest of the most recent villains because he was neither sympathetic nor menacing. Even though he was supposed to be godlike in power, his demonstration of it fell flat because (a) the director couldn’t convey it properly or (b) Ego didn’t really want to kill Starlord. Whereas, compared to Hela and Vulture, who wouldn’t think twice about killing their respective heroes (for varying levels of reason). And Killmonger, whom you could feel for, because of the way he and his family were treated. Ego… I don’t know… the way it was done “I had to give your mother a tumour”… was it really something he had to admit to Peter? If he was trying to cultivate an alliance or relationship with Starlord, it seems like something Ego should have left out; or the writer/director simply had no idea how to bring about conflict between the two so they threw this clumsy line - it made Ego unrelatable (I love your mom so I killed her).

[k von doom]

I think Marvel may be missing numerous chances of making villains almost as popular as the heroes. They got Loki right, so he’s turned out to be a better rounded character than Thor. Vulture is still around so there’s still a chance there. And who knows where the Red Skull is. Out of the Marvel Comics stable of villains, Loki would have to rank third (at best) behind Dr Doom and Magneto because the latter two are more relatable, and have a solid connection to their counterparts (as Loki does). So until the MCU gets their hands on Doom and Magneto, they should make the villains (or at least, their cause) more sympathetic ala Killmonger, and stop making them “one and done” characters.

[The Cool Thatguy]

I think Marvel may be missing numerous chances of making villains almost as popular as the heroes. They got Loki right, so he’s turned out to be a better rounded character than Thor. Vulture is still around so there’s still a chance there. And who knows where the Red Skull is. Out of the Marvel Comics stable of villains, Loki would have to rank third (at best) behind Dr Doom and Magneto because the latter two are more relatable, and have a solid connection to their counterparts (as Loki does). So until the MCU gets their hands on Doom and Magneto, they should make the villains (or at least, their cause) more sympathetic ala Killmonger, and stop making them “one and done” characters.

Loki's only really acted as a foil to Thor, though, and a main villain only twice. Not like he can be transplanted to say, Cap.

The big problem is that the movies are all different genres. Loki showing up in Panther would have undermined the sociopolitical issues.

I think if we want repeat villains, we need to look towards the secondaries. Those guys can go from movies to movie with little issue, and carry gravitas of at least being a physical threat.

Batroc, for example, could be like his canon counterpart, fighting superhumans simply because they are there.

Panther, for example, is gonna need someone to fight on a physical level next movie

[Soubhagya]

I think Marvel may be missing numerous chances of making villains almost as popular as the heroes. They got Loki right, so he’s turned out to be a better rounded character than Thor. Vulture is still around so there’s still a chance there. And who knows where the Red Skull is. Out of the Marvel Comics stable of villains, Loki would have to rank third (at best) behind Dr Doom and Magneto because the latter two are more relatable, and have a solid connection to their counterparts (as Loki does). So until the MCU gets their hands on Doom and Magneto, they should make the villains (or at least, their cause) more sympathetic ala Killmonger, and stop making them “one and done” characters.

I tend to disagree. Neither is it necessary, nor is it desirable.

They make the films to tell a story. And to tell a story of the person whose name is on the title. Whether that be Ant Man or Doctor Strange or Captain America or even Guardians of The Galaxy. They use the villains to serve the film. Further the plot. Develop the hero. Like that way. Take the example of Guardians of The Galaxy. No one cares for Ronan. But everyone cares and loves the Guardians. They managed to make a walking tree with a serious speech limitation as a popular character loved by the audiences. And i am speaking about the first film. Not the second where Groot had the advantage of being an adorable kid.

Their films focus on heroes. Tell their story. Flesh out there characters. That is why audiences love the heroes and keep coming back for them. What good would a great Killmonger do if he is not heading a series of films of his own? Audiences love the MCU. Critics love the MCU. What more do they need?

See it like this. Black Panther had the advantage of appearing in Civil War. We knew who he was. His powers. His character. He got quite fleshed out in that film. His sadness on loosing his father for instance. Or his grave personality resembling royalty. Or even that he was royalty. Thus, Black Panther film could develop a lot of other things as well as his character.

So a good villain is not desirable? No that's far from the truth. I think most of their villains are good. But aren't as fleshed out or highlighted as the hero. Iron Man, the first film's villain was forgettable. But the film turned out to be really good. So, a memorable villain is welcome. But not really necessary. We care for the heroes and love them.

But we can do good with some wonderful villains who can be used more number of times. Loki is always a delight. I hope the likes of Magneto and Doctor Doom could be such villains when and if they appear. Adding something valuable to any film they appear.

[k von doom]

They make the films to tell a story. And to tell a story of the person whose name is on the title. Whether that be Ant Man or Doctor Strange or Captain America or even Guardians of The Galaxy. They use the villains to serve the film. Further the plot. Develop the hero. Like that way. Take the example of Guardians of The Galaxy. No one cares for Ronan. But everyone cares and loves the Guardians.

I’m pretty sure no one cared about Ronan because the character wasn’t really fleshed out and served only to ‘destroy’ (an unrelatable goal). His appearance in the movie didn’t have an effect on the Guardians and it could have starred any no-name villain and the film would have worked. The Guardians are well liked because of their interactions with each other (misfits becoming family) not their relationship with the villain.

What good would a great Killmonger do if he is not heading a series of films of his own? Audiences love the MCU. Critics love the MCU. What more do they need?

Same as Loki - be a foil or a flip side to T’challa. Killmonger was already great, even with his limited screen time. His death added weight to the character but did he have to die? Or could his relatability (similar to Magneto’s) and popularity been used for a later film? Caged him up ala Loki - have him break out, perhaps undergo a redemption of sorts, learn.. then have the rug pulled from under us. Personally, I like the Loki character and not really looking forward to his inevitable demise in Infinity War.

[k von doom]

Loki's only really acted as a foil to Thor, though, and a main villain only twice. Not like he can be transplanted to say, Cap.

The big problem is that the movies are all different genres. Loki showing up in Panther would have undermined the sociopolitical issues.

I think if we want repeat villains, we need to look towards the secondaries. Those guys can go from movies to movie with little issue, and carry gravitas of at least being a physical threat.

Batroc, for example, could be like his canon counterpart, fighting superhumans simply because they are there.

Panther, for example, is gonna need someone to fight on a physical level next movie

That’s true. However, when you look at the way Loki was utilised in all three Thor movies plus Avengers, it just shows how unevenly the villains have been used. Also, looking at how Loki interacted with Dr Strange, he could have easily had a bit part in the Dr Strange origin. Match-wise, if they hadn’t been killed, we could have had Yellowjacket vs Ironman, Red Skull vs Black Panther, Ronan vs Thor, Killian vs Antman or as we had hero battles in Civil War; villain match ups: Malekith vs Kaecilius, Whiplash vs Yellowjacket, Killmonger vs Batroc, Surtur vs Dormammu.

[The Cool Thatguy]

That’s true. However, when you look at the way Loki was utilised in all three Thor movies plus Avengers, it just shows how unevenly the villains have been used. Also, looking at how Loki interacted with Dr Strange, he could have easily had a bit part in the Dr Strange origin. Match-wise, if they hadn’t been killed, we could have had Yellowjacket vs Ironman, Red Skull vs Black Panther, Ronan vs Thor, Killian vs Antman or as we had hero battles in Civil War; villain match ups: Malekith vs Kaecilius, Whiplash vs Yellowjacket, Killmonger vs Batroc, Surtur vs Dormammu.

Well, Surtur and Dormammu are still around.

But the thing with repeat villains, mastermind level, is that they could undermine the credibility of the hero they're fighting. Why is Iron Man fighting Ant-man's cast offs?

More than that, what do mastermind villains bring the second time around? Killmonger's already said his piece.

I think secondaries is the way to go. Their threat can carry over from one movie to another, can easily be included ("Hey, want a prison break?") and can save screen time.

[Soubhagya]

I’m pretty sure no one cared about Ronan because the character wasn’t really fleshed out and served only to ‘destroy’ (an unrelatable goal). His appearance in the movie didn’t have an effect on the Guardians and it could have starred any no-name villain and the film would have worked. The Guardians are well liked because of their interactions with each other (misfits becoming family) not their relationship with the villain.

Which is my point. Instead of trying to flesh out Ronan they tried to flesh out the Guardians. That's a conscious choice. By design, MCU films try to focus on the heroes and their journey. The villains are quite often there just because you need the hero to overcome something.

Same as Loki - be a foil or a flip side to T’challa. Killmonger was already great, even with his limited screen time. His death added weight to the character but did he have to die? Or could his relatability (similar to Magneto’s) and popularity been used for a later film? Caged him up ala Loki - have him break out, perhaps undergo a redemption of sorts, learn.. then have the rug pulled from under us. Personally, I like the Loki character and not really looking forward to his inevitable demise in Infinity War.

I share your opinion. His death deprives us from seeing him again. When villains aren't much to begin with like Ronan its alright. But when you have Killmonger or Vulture its preferable to keep them around. I enjoyed Serkis' performance too.

[hulahulk]

That’s true. However, when you look at the way Loki was utilised in all three Thor movies plus Avengers, it just shows how unevenly the villains have been used. Also, looking at how Loki interacted with Dr Strange, he could have easily had a bit part in the Dr Strange origin. Match-wise, if they hadn’t been killed, we could have had Yellowjacket vs Ironman, Red Skull vs Black Panther, Ronan vs Thor, Killian vs Antman or as we had hero battles in Civil War; villain match ups: Malekith vs Kaecilius, Whiplash vs Yellowjacket, Killmonger vs Batroc, Surtur vs Dormammu.

Acts of Veangence, baby!!!

[GhostPirate]

I found Black Panther to be disappointing, and grossly overrated; much like Dark Knight, Logan, Wonder Woman and Deadpool, it's an ok/good movie being elevated to "all time best EVAR!!!" status because of content, tone, director, and, in this case, racial bias. It's an ironically sad commentary on the current state of society, to be honest.

As is Killmonger. He was a textbook example of what people typically claim to hate in MCU villains: he boiled down to being nothing more than a paper thin racist black militant villain who was evil (and racist) because reasons, who would have been considered offensive by all the same people rushing to praise the character if he was written exactly the same, but white. It's honestly scary how many people not only consider him a "sympathetic villain with a valid point", but don't understand how racist it makes them believing that. It's a real shame too, because I've always really liked Michael B. Jordan as an actor, and this role was just a waste of his talent.

[Master Planner]

I found Black Panther to be disappointing, and grossly overrated; much like Dark Knight, Logan, Wonder Woman and Deadpool, it's an ok/good movie being elevated to "all time best EVAR!!!" status because of content, tone, director, and, in this case, racial bias. It's an ironically sad commentary on the current state of society, to be honest.

As is Killmonger. He was a textbook example of what people typically claim to hate in MCU villains: he boiled down to being nothing more than a paper thin racist black militant villain who was evil (and racist) because reasons, who would have been considered offensive by all the same people rushing to praise the character if he was written exactly the same, but white. It's honestly scary how many people not only consider him a "sympathetic villain with a valid point", but don't understand how racist it makes them believing that. It's a real shame too, because I've always really liked Michael B. Jordan as an actor, and this role was just a waste of his talent.

IMO,the point of Killmonger is to prove that despite his valid points about the opression of people in African continent and the black community in USA,he is as racist and violent as the "oppressors" he accuse.It's Magneto all over again,but with less better execution.

The movie was good.It was a serious film in comparison to Thor 3 or Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2,but he wasn't on calliber with Winter Soldier or Civil War.And i agree that it tends to be slightly overrated in its positive criticism.

[Chessboxer]

One of my favorite things about the movie were the waterfall scenes, and how mentally taxing that must be for T'Challa.

If you think about it. T'Challa must be at quite a disadvantage at the beginning of those fights. He has the power of the Black Panther drained from him before the fight stars. That has to be quite jarring. You go from having god like ability to mortality in a matter of seconds, then you have to engage in life or death combat (let alone an expert like Killmonger), in a setting like THAT. Mentally that is extremely discombobulating.

[Midvillian1322]

I found Black Panther to be disappointing, and grossly overrated; much like Dark Knight, Logan, Wonder Woman and Deadpool, it's an ok/good movie being elevated to "all time best EVAR!!!" status because of content, tone, director, and, in this case, racial bias. It's an ironically sad commentary on the current state of society, to be honest.

As is Killmonger. He was a textbook example of what people typically claim to hate in MCU villains: he boiled down to being nothing more than a paper thin racist black militant villain who was evil (and racist) because reasons, who would have been considered offensive by all the same people rushing to praise the character if he was written exactly the same, but white. It's honestly scary how many people not only consider him a "sympathetic villain with a valid point", but don't understand how racist it makes them believing that. It's a real shame too, because I've always really liked Michael B. Jordan as an actor, and this role was just a waste of his talent.

Those are your opinions nd that's fine. But I don't see how it's racist to sympathize with Killmonger. People who say he was the real hero not Tchalla. Those ppl I can see your point with but that a small minority of people. Most people sympathize with aspects of the character. His childhood and the sentiment that it was wrong for Wakanda to hide behind they're boarder with all they're tech while Black people across the globe suffered. The rest of his character is what makes him a Villian.

[TheInvisibleMan]

IMO,the point of Killmonger is to prove that despite his valid points about the opression of people in African continent and the black community in USA,he is as racist and violent as the "oppressors" he accuse.It's Magneto all over again,but with less better execution.

The movie was good.It was a serious film in comparison to Thor 3 or Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2,but he wasn't on calliber with Winter Soldier or Civil War.And i agree that it tends to be slightly overrated in its positive criticism.

I put it on the same level with Winter Soldier, TBH

similar conversations

WS talked about surveillance and the police state

BP talked about race, isolationism, and some other things