T'Challa: Black Panther Appreciation 2018

[Ezyo1000]

The thing is that the Eisners are voted on by people within the medium. It's not the same thing as Newsweeks top 10... it's people within the comic book industry itself which votes. So while I wouldn't say having a name outside the medium is a non factor, I likewise wouldn't necessary say it's the deciding factor either.

All the more reason to believe the Eisner award means nothing, but a pandering award, like the new category they made for the Oscars because BP is looking to clean house

[Jabare]

The New Category was killed back in September fam because of all the backlash. No comic movies winning best picture doesn't fit the standard







hope someone is helping Coogler with the script

[XPac]

All the more reason to believe the Eisner award means nothing, but a pandering award, like the new category they made for the Oscars because BP is looking to clean house

I don't think the new award was created because BP was looking to clean house. I think the category was created to give BP a chance at cleaning house. Popular super hero movies aren't going to win best picture for reasons, so this gave BP something it could win. Though the backlash looks to have killed it.

[DigiCom]

I'm reminded of the (artificial) distinction of "literary" and "popular" fiction in the book community. While several folks claim there's some sort of qualitative difference, the conecept has always smacked to me of rather pretentious elitism: "We're writing REAL literature, not the stuff the hoi polloi read".

For years, comics, especially superhero ones, were lumped into "It's just for kids". In the 80's, the likes of Moore & Miller (and later Morrison & Gaiman) cracked the barrier a bit, but they were considered the exception, not the rule. "Well, SOME comics have merit, but..."

Nowadays, though, superhero comics are more mainstream, so rather than lump the entire medium into the category, they lionize books that are either psychological character pieces (see Lemire's MOON KNIGHT or King's MISTER MIRACLE) or simply books written by one of the literati. Coates & Gay fit into the latter category, because of their political relevance.

Telling a good story is often beside the point. We aren't meant to ENJOY the stories... that's what the common people do! :P

The Oscars tried to play the same game, sticking popular movies in their own little corner so as to not contaminate the "real" Awards with works that are not true cinema. Thankfuly, folks didn't buy it.

PS: To illustrate what I'm talking about in the first paragraph, this is the current definition of "literary fiction" on Wikipedia:

Literary fiction is a term used in the book-trade to distinguish novels that are regarded as having literary merit from most commercial or "genre" fiction.

Clear as mud, isn't it? They later try to explain what that means. I've highlighted a few bits:

A concern with social commentary, political criticism, or reflection on the human condition.
A focus on "introspective, in-depth character studies" of "interesting, complex and developed" characters, whose "inner stories" drive the plot, with detailed motivations to elicit "emotional involvement" in the reader.
A slower pace than popular fiction. As Terrence Rafferty notes, "literary fiction, by its nature, allows itself to dawdle, to linger on stray beauties even at the risk of losing its way".
A concern with the style and complexity of the writing: Saricks describes literary fiction as "elegantly written, lyrical, and ... layered".
Unlike genre fiction plot is not the central concern.
The tone of literary fiction can be darker than genre fiction.

Sound familiar?

[MindofShadow]

I'm reminded of the (artificial) distinction of "literary" and "popular" fiction in the book community. While several folks claim there's some sort of qualitative difference, the conecept has always smacked to me of rather pretentious elitism: "We're writing REAL literature, not the stuff the hoi polloi read".

For years, comics, especially superhero ones, were lumped into "It's just for kids". In the 80's, the likes of Moore & Miller (and later Morrison & Gaiman) cracked the barrier a bit, but they were considered the exception, not the rule. "Well, SOME comics have merit, but..."

Nowadays, though, superhero comics are more mainstream, so rather than lump the entire medium into the category, they lionize books that are either psychological character pieces (see Lemire's MOON KNIGHT or King's MISTER MIRACLE) or simply books written by one of the literati. Coates & Gay fit into the latter category, because of their political relevance.

Telling a good story is often beside the point. We aren't meant to ENJOY the stories... that's what the common people do! :P

The Oscars tried to play the same game, sticking popular movies in their own little corner so as to not contaminate the "real" Awards with works that are not true cinema. Thankfuly, folks didn't buy it.

PS: To illustrate what I'm talking about in the first paragraph, this is the current definition of "literary fiction" on Wikipedia:



Clear as mud, isn't it? They later try to explain what that means. I've highlighted a few bits:



Sound familiar?

[Cville]

I'm reminded of the (artificial) distinction of "literary" and "popular" fiction in the book community. While several folks claim there's some sort of qualitative difference, the conecept has always smacked to me of rather pretentious elitism: "We're writing REAL literature, not the stuff the hoi polloi read".

For years, comics, especially superhero ones, were lumped into "It's just for kids". In the 80's, the likes of Moore & Miller (and later Morrison & Gaiman) cracked the barrier a bit, but they were considered the exception, not the rule. "Well, SOME comics have merit, but..."

Nowadays, though, superhero comics are more mainstream, so rather than lump the entire medium into the category, they lionize books that are either psychological character pieces (see Lemire's MOON KNIGHT or King's MISTER MIRACLE) or simply books written by one of the literati. Coates & Gay fit into the latter category, because of their political relevance.

Telling a good story is often beside the point. We aren't meant to ENJOY the stories... that's what the common people do! :P

The Oscars tried to play the same game, sticking popular movies in their own little corner so as to not contaminate the "real" Awards with works that are not true cinema. Thankfuly, folks didn't buy it.

PS: To illustrate what I'm talking about in the first paragraph, this is the current definition of "literary fiction" on Wikipedia:



Clear as mud, isn't it? They later try to explain what that means. I've highlighted a few bits:



Sound familiar?

But Mister Miracle is really good. I think King managed to achieve by throwing in elements of popular fiction as well as comedy.

[Blind Wedjat]

But Mister Miracle is really good. I think King managed to achieve by throwing in elements of popular fiction as well as comedy.

Late to the current discussion (also partially ignored it), but I don't think BoW is trying to say literary fiction is bad (and neither do I as I greatly enjoyed Tom King's Vision and Mister Miracle, but there are also bad literary fiction works as well like World of Wakanda).

What he's trying to say is that literary fiction is only seen as better than popular fiction (or in this case, a typical comic book) just because it's literary fiction, regardless of whether it is well written or not.

And this sort of elitist discrimination is all over entertainment media. Sometimes we can be guilty of it if we aren't careful. And it's the same mentality people like James Mangold and his fans have regarding his Logan film being better than the rest because it's "mature and R-rated", Zack Snyder and his fans try (and fail) to use to defend his DCEU films because they're "dark and gritty", and Nolan fanboys have used to prop up The Dark Knight above everything else because it's "realistic" (or as recent discourse shows and relevant to this thread, "better than Black Panther" for instance).

Not to say Logan or The Dark Knight are bad films (far from it), but they are given a special credence because of what each of them attempted to be in terms of tone and style, and not what they are as movies.

Setting the movie example aside, the same thing applies to the comics. Never mind the poor art, difficult dialogue or questionable story, Coates and Gay Black Panther works get the praise and acclaim they got mostly because of what each book represents or is trying to say rather than if they're actually good or not (as a matter of opinion).

[MindofShadow]

hope someone is helping Coogler with the script

I hope Fiege or the other comic nerds at Marvel name drop some villain names, drop a stack of trades on the table and then just leave Coogler alone to do what he does.

[MindofShadow]

T'chadwick won "The Male Movie Star of 2018" and Danai Gurira was awarded "The Action Movie Star of 2018" for Black Panther at the Peoples Choice Award.


I'm pretty sure I was told that T'chadwick wasn't popular and his T'challa was weak at some point...

[Ezyo1000]

I'm reminded of the (artificial) distinction of "literary" and "popular" fiction in the book community. While several folks claim there's some sort of qualitative difference, the conecept has always smacked to me of rather pretentious elitism: "We're writing REAL literature, not the stuff the hoi polloi read".

For years, comics, especially superhero ones, were lumped into "It's just for kids". In the 80's, the likes of Moore & Miller (and later Morrison & Gaiman) cracked the barrier a bit, but they were considered the exception, not the rule. "Well, SOME comics have merit, but..."

Nowadays, though, superhero comics are more mainstream, so rather than lump the entire medium into the category, they lionize books that are either psychological character pieces (see Lemire's MOON KNIGHT or King's MISTER MIRACLE) or simply books written by one of the literati. Coates & Gay fit into the latter category, because of their political relevance.

Telling a good story is often beside the point. We aren't meant to ENJOY the stories... that's what the common people do! :P

The Oscars tried to play the same game, sticking popular movies in their own little corner so as to not contaminate the "real" Awards with works that are not true cinema. Thankfuly, folks didn't buy it.

PS: To illustrate what I'm talking about in the first paragraph, this is the current definition of "literary fiction" on Wikipedia:



Clear as mud, isn't it? They later try to explain what that means. I've highlighted a few bits:



Sound familiar?

If that ain't the most pretentious sounding garbled mess..

That is just... Wow. That sums up both of Coates and Gays work and what a terrible job they did at it.

And I find myself especially drawn to the "Unlike genre fiction plot is not the central concern." Bit as that is painfully obvious that happened to the point of completely contradicting and undermining the entire story

[Ezyo1000]

I hope Fiege or the other comic nerds at Marvel name drop some villain names, drop a stack of trades on the table and then just leave Coogler alone to do what he does.

Yeah pretty much. Let him and J Cole go to work and do the process they did before that let to the event that was Black Panther

[Jabare]

I hope Fiege or the other comic nerds at Marvel name drop some villain names, drop a stack of trades on the table and then just leave Coogler alone to do what he does.

Yeah pretty much. Let him and J Cole go to work and do the process they did before that let to the event that was Black Panther

He's tight with Coates so he needs other influences. Also the fact that he's never done a sequel before. He's fire with eh first movies but now he's got pressure to do something he's never really done before. I'm kind of worried thats part of the reason he backed away from Creed II

[MindofShadow]

but now he's got pressure to do something he's never really done before.

Like make a mega budget super hero action movie?

[MindofShadow]

BP vs DP #1 44,533

- second highest opening for a BP spin off, behind WoW.

Shuri #1 34,425.... YIKES

- this is worse opening than The Crew. for refernce, Rise lost 20k on the second issue. Crew lost around 18k. This is bad.

BP #5 31,254


Do y'all want charts/graphs?

[Cville]

Seems to be settling around the 30,000 region. That will be reason enough to continue the rest of his time on the book in this Universe. He wont want to go back to the low 20s.