Black Panther Appreciation 2019

[XPac]

But then we have the EXACT same problem folks had with season one of Coates' run.

At the end of ENDGAME and throughout FAR FROM HOME, we see that New York City & much of Europe have recovered well enough that ordinary life goes on without any visible disruption. School children can bounce around half of Europe with minimal adult supervision, and not have to worry about rebellious Balkan warlords carving off petty fiefdoms.

Do you REALLY think Coogler's first reaction would be: "I know! Let's show the only major Afrofuturistic society in fiction collapsing into civil war three years later! Just because the REST of the planet has adapted well doesn't mean we can't let Wakanda collapse into disorder!!!"

Monarchys are legitimately a more unstable model of government. It's believable that with it's leadership gone, it would have a much tougher time recovering. There could be all sorts of civil wars or coups occuring in a vacuum that are far less likely to occur in a place like the US. There are actual reasons why people have moved away from that model of government... it's not just a comic book thing.

That said, if Coogler doesn't want to tell that sort of story he won't and is free to do something else entirely. It's merely a potential time to tell that sort of story IF Coogler wants to tell it.

[Ezyo1000]

Monarchys are legitimately a more unstable model of government. It's believable that with it's leadership gone, it would have a much tougher time recovering. There could be all sorts of civil wars or coups occuring in a vacuum that are far less likely to occur in a place like the US. There are actual reasons why people have moved away from that model of government... it's not just a comic book thing.

That said, if Coogler doesn't want to tell that sort of story he won't and is free to do something else entirely. It's merely a potential time to tell that sort of story IF Coogler wants to tell it.

Your missing the point... Per usual

[XPac]

Your missing the point... Per usual

Okay... what point did I not address in my response?

[KOSLOX]

Okay... what point did I not address in my response?

That this **** is pretend.

[XPac]

That this **** is pretend.

I never said they HAD to show Wakanda having problems. Merely saying IF Coogler wants to tell some variation of A Nation Under Our Feet, he could tell it now in a believable enough manner. Again, I said in my earlier response that the Russos gave Coogler a blank enough slate to tell whatever story he wants. He can incorporate what happened in the Avengers movies, or ignore it completely.

All that aside, if we're using the "this **** is pretend" line of thinking, then Coogler would be free to tell whatever story he wants regardless of what we saw at the end of End Game.

[Ezyo1000]

Okay... what point did I not address in my response?

The point in BoGs post your missing is, why would coogler go the dysfunctional route when the rest of the MCU has moved on? Why is it that the afrofuturistic Black nation would be the only one to not recover? Especially when it was shown to have recovered? Just because it's a Monarch doesn't mean that it automatically descended into chaos.

On top of that. We just had a civil war happen on the first movie. Why retread that? Sure Coogler could do it, he could do anything really. But why not advance the mythos and development?

[XPac]

The point in BoGs post your missing is, why would coogler go the dysfunctional route when the rest of the MCU has moved on? Why is it that the afrofuturistic Black nation would be the only one to not recover? Especially when it was shown to have recovered? Just because it's a Monarch doesn't mean that it automatically descended into chaos.

On top of that. We just had a civil war happen on the first movie. Why retread that? Sure Coogler could do it, he could do anything really. But why not advance the mythos and development?

I didn't miss that point. I addressed it. IF Coogler hypothetically wants to adopt a Nation Under Out Feet, there are valid reasons why a Monarchy would have greater difficulty recovering from the loss of their leadership than a nation like tehe US. A monarchy is a very unstable form of government especially when there is a vacuum... coups and rebellions can occur even when T'Challa is around, let along when he's not. So if he wants to tell a story which requires that Wakanda has not recovered as quickly as the US, there's justification for telling it.

But again, that's only an IF... he is likewise free to completely ignore the consquences of the snap and have Wakanda move on too. Given the Russos left Coogler with a complete blank slate, that an option as well. Things can be bad, or things can be fine. Whatever works best for whatever story Coogler wants to tell.

No one is saying Coogler HAS to tell this story now or ever... what I am merely arguing is that IF he wants to tell it, it would work now. You would need certain specific circumstances to bring about that sort of story, and the Avengers movie do that IF it's needed. Or not. It's whatever.

[Marvell2100]

Judging from what happened in the 1st BP movie, what happened in Infinity and how Endgame ended, I seriously doubt he wants to go "Wakanda in turmoil" for his 2nd movie. He already did that in the 1st.

My guess is that a lot of the 2nd movie will take place outside of Wakanda.

People are trying to get Coates isht in the movie when actually Coates has been pulling things from the movie and putting in the solo.

[Ezyo1000]

I didn't miss that point. I addressed it. IF Coogler hypothetically wants to adopt a Nation Under Out Feet, there are valid reasons why a Monarchy would have greater difficulty recovering from the loss of their leadership than a nation like tehe US. A monarchy is a very unstable form of government especially when there is a vacuum... coups and rebellions can occur even when T'Challa is around, let along when he's not. So if he wants to tell a story which requires that Wakanda has not recovered as quickly as the US, there's justification for telling it.

But again, that's only an IF... he is likewise free to completely ignore the consquences of the snap and have Wakanda move on too. Given the Russos left Coogler with a complete blank slate, that an option as well. Things can be bad, or things can be fine. Whatever works best for whatever story Coogler wants to tell.

No one is saying Coogler HAS to tell this story now or ever... what I am merely arguing is that IF he wants to tell it, it would work now. You would need certain specific circumstances to bring about that sort of story, and the Avengers movie do that IF it's needed. Or not. It's whatever.

I didn't say your missing point as in not addressing it. I'm saying your missing the point in the grand picture of what this means outside of just the movie. And really how Wakanda is set up. It would be fine because there are plenty who can lead. Us there is a council

[KingNomarch]

Coogler plans on making T'Challa Wakanda's greatest king and already expressed the desire to explore him further as a king instead of just starting out as one. A Nation Under Our Feet ain't getting adapted no time soon if ever. There are more interesting stories that can be adapted. The ending of BP 1 perfectly sets up Enemy of the State I/The Client. Sturm Und Drang is perfect if Coogler wants to write about the outside world's reaction to T'Challa and Wakanda since its opening.

[KingNomarch]

We already had internal conflict and T'Challa can't be the greatest king if he willingly does nothing about rape camps or ask despots for help. So don't expect a sudden emergence of misogyny, the Jabari men being rapist, the Dora being 'slaves', no No One Man, none of it.

If a BP movie ever has that for a subtitle expect it to have nothing but the title in common with it.

[Marvell2100]

Coogler plans on making T'Challa Wakanda's greatest king and already expressed the desire to explore him further as a king instead of just starting out as one. A Nation Under Our Feet ain't getting adapted no time soon if ever. There are more interesting stories that can be adapted. The ending of BP 1 perfectly sets up Enemy of the State I/The Client. Sturm Und Drang is perfect if Coogler wants to write about the outside world's reaction to T'Challa and Wakanda since its opening.

You are correct!

[DigiCom]

I didn't miss that point. I addressed it. IF Coogler hypothetically wants to adopt a Nation Under Out Feet, there are valid reasons why a Monarchy would have greater difficulty recovering from the loss of their leadership than a nation like tehe US.

And here's the crux of the problem. Not one MCU movie has been a direct adaptation of a comics storyline. Not ONE.

But all I'm hearing here is "What hoops would Coogler have to jump through to get one of the least-liked BP storylines directly adapted into the MCU?"

Where're the discussions on adapting The Client? Or Enemy Of the State? Why is it that the ONLY storyline that gets mentioned in what would be the FIRST adaptation of a comics storyline in the MCU is the one where the hero, his family, and his country are all in shambles?

Is the idea of a successful, strong African society that scary to you that the best thing you can come up with is to destroy it? AGAIN?

[dkrook]

And here's the crux of the problem. Not one MCU movie has been a direct adaptation of a comics storyline. Not ONE.

But all I'm hearing here is "What hoops would Coogler have to jump through to get one of the least-liked BP storylines directly adapted into the MCU?"

Where're the discussions on adapting The Client? Or Enemy Of the State? Why is it that the ONLY storyline that gets mentioned in what would be the FIRST adaptation of a comics storyline in the MCU is the one where the hero, his family, and his country are all in shambles?

Is the idea of a successful, strong African society that scary to you that the best thing you can come up with is to destroy it? AGAIN?

It should be noted that Coates has a penchant for dwelling in the realm of dysfunction and oppression in just about all of his literature and every narrative that Coogler has put out has been about redemption and strength of character. Even with them sharing notes I have faith that we won't have to suffer from seeing the Coates-like treatment of T'challa on the big screen no matter the nature of the 2nd movie's plot.

[XPac]

I didn't say your missing point as in not addressing it. I'm saying your missing the point in the grand picture of what this means outside of just the movie. And really how Wakanda is set up. It would be fine because there are plenty who can lead. Us there is a council

Wakanda would be fine without T'Challa if Coogler decides its' fine... or they can be coups and civil war if Coogler decides things are not fine. We have to remember in the comics, that stuff can happen even when T'Challa is around. Stuff like the Desturi and the People arose under T'Challa's nose. Though again, it obviously only happens when the writers want it to.

I'll say again though, no one is saying that this sort of thing 100% has to happen. The arguement is merely IF Coogler wanted to fit that story into the MCU, now would be a logical enough time to try. Obviously he may go in an entirely different direction. The Russo's left him with enough of a blank canvas to do whatever the heck he wants.