Black Panther Appreciation 2020

[Dboi654]

I'm starting to think this decision was based on the fact that they think T'Challa being BP is not necessary as the focus was more on Wakanda and not a lot on the character of T'Challa which is what I was expecting to be expanded upon in the sequel. But Disney just went "Hey T'Challa being BP is not necessary, why focus on this hero when the world he is based upon is more interesting?". I mean if you look at the recent BP comics, there is more emphasis on the world of Wakanda and the supporting characters than T'Challa himself. This unfortunate tragedy has just propelled them to take this route.

[chief12d]

That’s what I’ve been thinking as well. Marvel knows T’Challa is way to important of a character to just toss to the side. But at the same time, Boseman’s passing is still way too recent.

I strongly suspect that Disney's preference would've been to recast but the PR shitstorm around recasting so soon probably made them decide to sideline T'Challa. They could easily bring T'Challa back 5-6 years after Boseman's death via the multiverse or a resurrection through KoTD.

[Toonstrack]

I look at it this way. There will be another Iron Man movie at some point but it won’t be Tony Stark. There will be a Cap movie but it won’t be Steve Rogers. Movies are doing what comics have been afraid to do. Move on. I get that’s it’s way too soon. I agree with that. If they’re able to take ok good stories though, I’ll be happy. Just tell great stories.

We aren't going to see another Steve Roger's or another Tony Stark for a long time. A very long time. Maybe a decade or more.

If we do it will be using the multiverse.... which they can also use to bring back TChalla.... but a different TChalla. What if there's one whose Wakanda was destroyed and he decides to take up the role on the Earth we are watching? That'd be the safest way to conserve the character while respecting Boseman portrayal.

And it should be. Because like I said these characters on these movies are defined by the actors. Post Avengers 2, pretty much any character in costume IS that character and I truly believe that. If Ruffalo dies, we aren't seeing Banner again. If Hemsworth dies we aren't seeing Thor again. If Saldana died a month from now, we'd never see Gamora in this franchise again. Not a Gamora as we know her, at least.. And so on and so forth. That's something I appreciate about the MCU. It recognizes its cast is a depiction of a character, and that character isn't just some replaceable face. Chadwick and his portrayal were much more than that.

Part of me feels like Fiege thought that if he were to replace the actor, people would accuse Marvel of treating BP like a commodity. Where you can put just any black guy in the suit and no one would notice the difference. And you know that accusation would fly around in parts. Its a bad look even if its not true. So to avoid that PR nightmare they decided to cut TChalla out entirely. There was no real right answer for this one.

If they recast then Chad and the character just become A placeholder, like Howard as Rhodey or Norton as Banner. That just feels wrong to me.

But if they do what they did, then we don't see the character again, crippling the appeal of the franchise itself. They have to explain away a huge part of the world and still instead write some movie that will either have to dodge around his existence or explain why he isnt there with some off screen event. Neither of which is satisfactory or appealing to many especially here.

There was just no right way to do it.

[baxer]

I think they are still figuring out things. If Shuri would take Black Panther mantle they would announce it on the presentation.
I hope they take some time to really think about this

[Dboi654]

I strongly suspect that Disney's preference would've been to recast but the PR shitstorm around recasting so soon probably made them decide to sideline T'Challa. They could easily bring T'Challa back 5-6 years after Boseman's death via the multiverse or a resurrection through KoTD.

And this where they somewhat made a mistake by not thinking of the long run. Yes, an announcement now would lead to a backlash of some sort, it's inevitable. This has happened numerous times with other characters from other properties so it's nothing new. But after a while, people will start to warm up to the new actor considering he does a good job and from there, it won't matter.

[Jman27]

We aren't going to see another Steve Roger's or another Tony Stark for a long time. A very long time. Maybe a decade or more.

If we do it will be using the multiverse.... which they can also use to bring back TChalla.... but a different TChalla. What if there's one whose Wakanda was destroyed and he decides to take up the role on the Earth we are watching? That'd be the safest way to conserve the character while respecting Boseman portrayal.

And it should be. Because like I said these characters on these movies are defined by the actors. Post Avengers 2, pretty much any character in costume IS that character and I truly believe that. If Ruffalo dies, we aren't seeing Banner again. If Hemsworth dies we aren't seeing Thor again. If Saldana died a month from now, we'd never see Gamora in this franchise again. Not a Gamora as we know her, at least.. And so on and so forth. That's something I appreciate about the MCU. It recognizes its cast is a depiction of a character, and that character isn't just some replaceable face. Chadwick and his portrayal were much more than that.

Part of me feels like Fiege thought that if he were to replace the actor, people would accuse Marvel of treating BP like a commodity. Where you can put just any black guy in the suit and no one would notice the difference. And you know that accusation would fly around in parts. Its a bad look even if its not true. So to avoid that PR nightmare they decided to cut TChalla out entirely. There was no real right answer for this one.

If they recast then Chad and the character just become A placeholder, like Howard as Rhodey or Norton as Banner. That just feels wrong to me.

But if they do what they did, then we don't see the character again, crippling the appeal of the franchise itself. They have to explain away a huge part of the world and still instead write some movie that will either have to dodge around his existence or explain why he isnt there with some off screen event. Neither of which is satisfactory or appealing to many especially here.

There was just no right way to do it.

i agree same with not making Zendaya flat out being MJ the conversation would be more about her race than the actual portrayal. I dont know what they should have done cause they couldnt end the franchise people would have complained

[Chesterfield]

Can't even get the main character int he mcu anymore, can't even get a tv series, and you are still dreaming of azzuri hahaha.

Pleeease, I'm trying to grasp at any straw of hope because I can't believe what's happening right now.

[Dariel81]

Seeing a Black woman taking on the Mantle of BP brings me joy

[TrooperCameron]

I don't know about you fellas, but should the thread name be changed to T'Challa: The Black Panther, like the other threads? Just so some people know what to expect when they start talking in here.

[chief12d]

I'm starting to think this decision was based on the fact that they think T'Challa being BP is not necessary as the focus was more on Wakanda and not a lot on the character of T'Challa which is what I was expecting to be expanded upon in the sequel. But Disney just went "Hey T'Challa being BP is not necessary, why focus on this hero when the world he is based upon is more interesting?". I mean if you look at the recent BP comics, there is more emphasis on the world of Wakanda and the supporting characters than T'Challa himself. This unfortunate tragedy has just propelled them to take this route.

We've spoken ad nauseum about this and you're right. The first BP film had no less than 3 characters be considered for the mantle when T'Challa was considered dead: Okoye, Nakia, and M'Baku. Shuri has a comic claim to the throne and the MCU habit of having heroes face off against villains with the same powers as them puts KM in the conversation as well. Doubly so since he's of the royal line and could theoretically be brought back as an anti-hero, a popular direction many fans want. Compared to Iron Man or Captain Marvel if you didn't know just how essential T'Challa was in the source material you'd think T'Challa wasn't essential to the franchise in the same way they are. In terms of debut films that is.

And this goes further than just laying claim to the throne. Core character traits of T'Challa were shaved off and given to supporting characters, like his intelligence being grafted onto Shuri or his cosmopolitan values being given to Nakia. T'Challa, while expertly played by Boseman and given plenty to do, was very much a cipher for the audience's perspective on Wakanda's evolution. We saw the world through his neutral POV and grew with him. And while I'll always disagree with the statement, there was definitely talk from MANY fans that T'Challa was the least interesting part of the film.

There was a certain air of expendability built around T'Challa because he was never the only competent person in the room and he didn't have many exaggerated character traits, serving as an amalgamation of all his supporting characters' schticks. He had a bit of Shuri's intelligence, a tad of Nakia's morality, some of Okoye's warrior spirit, and just enough of M'Baku's respect for tradition. Didn't help he was dead for a part of the third act and that screentime that traditionally would've gone to the lead went to investing in the side characters.

So yea, Disney probably does think they don't NEED T'Challa. I'm sure they would've preferred to keep him around, but with the lore of Wakanda, the strength of the remaining cast, and new story possibilities opened up by his death, they probably feel they can continue on without the character. At least until/if they decide to recast. And the comics have certainly adopted a similar perspective, though I'd say that's more coincidental, as Coates started his ensemble BP run before the debut film. If anything, is it possible his decentralized approach to telling his stories influenced the decision to push the supporting cast/worldbuilding as much as they did in the movie? Either way, Coogler's direction was solid and his approach to uplifting the world of Wakanda wasn't nearly as detrimental as Coates' lol.

[MindofShadow]

you have the correct mindset people grow and age yet our characters cant grow with us. I thought the purpose was storytelling

If it was story telling, they woulda recast bc tchallas story just started.

He got his origin. Thats it

[MindofShadow]

We've spoken ad nauseum about this and you're right. The first BP film had no less than 3 characters be considered for the mantle when T'Challa was considered dead: Okoye, Nakia, and M'Baku. Shuri has a comic claim to the throne and the MCU habit of having heroes face off against villains with the same powers as them puts KM in the conversation as well. Doubly so since he's of the royal line and could theoretically be brought back as an anti-hero, a popular direction many fans want. Compared to Iron Man or Captain Marvel if you didn't know just how essential T'Challa was in the source material you'd think T'Challa wasn't essential to the franchise in the same way they are. In terms of debut films that is.

And this goes further than just laying claim to the throne. Core character traits of T'Challa were shaved off and given to supporting characters, like his intelligence being grafted onto Shuri or his cosmopolitan values being given to Nakia. T'Challa, while expertly played by Boseman and given plenty to do, was very much a cipher for the audience's perspective on Wakanda's evolution. We saw the world through his neutral POV and grew with him. And while I'll always disagree with the statement, there was definitely talk from MANY fans that T'Challa was the least interesting part of the film.

There was a certain air of expendability built around T'Challa because he was never the only competent person in the room and he didn't have many exaggerated character traits, serving as an amalgamation of all his supporting characters' schticks. He had a bit of Shuri's intelligence, a tad of Nakia's morality, some of Okoye's warrior spirit, and just enough of M'Baku's respect for tradition. Didn't help he was dead for a part of the third act and that screentime that traditionally would've gone to the lead went to investing in the side characters.

So yea, Disney probably does think they don't NEED T'Challa. I'm sure they would've preferred to keep him around, but with the lore of Wakanda, the strength of the remaining cast, and new story possibilities opened up by his death, they probably feel they can continue on without the character. At least until/if they decide to recast. And the comics have certainly adopted a similar perspective, though I'd say that's more coincidental, as Coates started his ensemble BP run before the debut film. If anything, is it possible his decentralized approach to telling his stories influenced the decision to push the supporting cast/worldbuilding as much as they did in the movie? Either way, Coogler's direction was solid and his approach to uplifting the world of Wakanda wasn't nearly as detrimental as Coates' lol.

Okoye wasn't considered. She was with killmonger/the throne when nakia revealed she had the hsh.

Basically any tribal leader + shuri can make a claim. All the have tobdo is challenge and defeat shuri

[XPac]

And this where they somewhat made a mistake by not thinking of the long run. Yes, an announcement now would lead to a backlash of some sort, it's inevitable. This has happened numerous times with other characters from other properties so it's nothing new. But after a while, people will start to warm up to the new actor considering he does a good job and from there, it won't matter.

But the thing is, they can always still decide to recast later, perhaps when the potential backlash is lessened. I agree this is a short term decision, but I don't necessarily think the long term plan necessarily is set in stone.

[chief12d]

Okoye wasn't considered. She was with killmonger/the throne when nakia revealed she had the hsh.

Basically any tribal leader + shuri can make a claim. All the have tobdo is challenge and defeat shuri

You're right my bad, Okoye was considered in the sense Nakia believed her and the Dora could help overthrow KM. But she was called the greatest warrior Wakanda had in the wake of T'Challa's "death", which suggests she has the skills to be BP even if she's not necessarily a tribal leader or eligible. Put her in a BP habit and I think she can be around as dangerous as T'Challa/KM.

If the plan is to give Shuri the mantle they're gonna avoid having challenge day altogether. They'll announce an intention to have one in the beginning of the film but whoever the main villain is will interrupt things and by the end all the tribes decide not to challenge, trusting Shuri as Queen and BP even if she doesn't have the raw martial arts skill. That or she becomes a h2h combat master in some sort of time skip lol.

[Dboi654]

But the thing is, they can always still decide to recast later, perhaps when the potential backlash is lessened. I agree this is a short term decision, but I don't necessarily think the long term plan necessarily is set in stone.

Who knows what will happen in the future but for now, this is the situation we are in with regards to what direction they are taking.

Things might change though, I mean Disney fired James Gunn only to bring him back to direct GOTG VOL.3 but I don't know if that is what we will get with BP.