Ta-Nehisi Coates to Leave Black Panther After Issue #25

[Marvell2100]

The success of a movie of Black Panther merely means they like Black Panther as a movie, not as a comic book. The success of adaptations doesn't, by itself, ultimately translate back into the source material.

The success of Iron Man the movie hasn't made Iron Man the comicbook a top-seller. The success of GOTG hasn't suddenly made the Guardians into the biggest Marvel team.

And By-The-Way...Ta-Nehisi Coates began his run on Black Panther before the movie. A Nation Under the Feet was published well before the movie came out, and was even cited by Coogler as a reference for the movie. TNC brought Shuri back from the dead after all. The movie is mostly based on McGregor and Priest's work, but the idea of Wakanda being imperfect and the Black Panther as King being flawed, and T'Challa being vulnerable and also learning from his enemies, comes from Coates, as in the line "It's hard for a good man to be a king".

Priest showed T'Challa as flawed in Sturm un Drang.

[Prof. Warren]

Unless you want to claim that the Black Panther, star of the highest-grossing solo superhero film in history, can't sell comics?

Success in the movies doesn't automatically translate to comic sales.

The fact that GotG, Ant-Man and Dr. Strange all have hit movies to their name hasn't caused their comics to become top sellers.

On the other side of the aisle, the success of the Wonder Woman movie didn't mean that her comic sales suddenly went up.

Most people who see comic book films have never - and will never - pick up an actual comic, no matter how much they enjoy the character on film.

That said, I do think there's a bigger audience for BP among the comic readership that has not been well served by Coates' run.

As someone who's been reading it from the start and has liked it quite a bit at various points, all I can say is that keeping up with it has felt like a chore for awhile now and I can't blame anyone who decided to jump ship.

A new creative team can only be a good thing.

[LastManStanding]

The success of a movie of Black Panther merely means they like Black Panther as a movie, not as a comic book. The success of adaptations doesn't, by itself, ultimately translate back into the source material.

The success of Iron Man the movie hasn't made Iron Man the comicbook a top-seller. The success of GOTG hasn't suddenly made the Guardians into the biggest Marvel team.

And By-The-Way...Ta-Nehisi Coates began his run on Black Panther before the movie. A Nation Under the Feet was published well before the movie came out, and was even cited by Coogler as a reference for the movie. TNC brought Shuri back from the dead after all. The movie is mostly based on McGregor and Priest's work, but the idea of Wakanda being imperfect and the Black Panther as King being flawed, and T'Challa being vulnerable and also learning from his enemies, comes from Coates, as in the line "It's hard for a good man to be a king".

The part in bold is incorrect. McGregor wrote T'Challa as a flawed character and being vulnerable followed by Priest.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

The part in bold is incorrect. McGregor wrote T'Challa as a flawed character and being vulnerable followed by Priest.

Priest showed T'Challa as flawed in Sturm un Drang.

There's a difference between flaws in the "I can't be awesome all the time but I have to be and need to be" sense of general superhero stories and flawed in the sense of "daddy issues, being a king issues" and so on and so forth. The former doesn't challenge the role that T'Challa is supposed to play and uphold, the latter very much does.

Look, Priest's run is the best, and it's better than TNC's and nothing will change that. At the same time, it needs to be acknowledged that Priest was writing within the superhero genre, and he did so wonderfully. He wrote T'Challa as the badass superhero and that's great, it was what was needed for a run that was supposed to establish Black Panther as a major title and sell him over to a largely white readership (as Priest acknowledged in interviews, preface and afterword).

At the same time, TNC did bring something new and different in his opening arc. Which really wasn't there before. I have read Jungle Action, I have read Priest's run, parts of Hudlin's, and Hickman's New Avengers run (also a defining portrayal of the character), and what TNC did was somehing new with the character. That his run didn't live up to that early peak, that his run didn't sustain that, or so on doesn't change that.

[Vibranium Weave]

The success of a movie of Black Panther merely means they like Black Panther as a movie, not as a comic book. The success of adaptations doesn't, by itself, ultimately translate back into the source material.

The success of Iron Man the movie hasn't made Iron Man the comicbook a top-seller. The success of GOTG hasn't suddenly made the Guardians into the biggest Marvel team.

And By-The-Way...Ta-Nehisi Coates began his run on Black Panther before the movie. A Nation Under the Feet was published well before the movie came out, and was even cited by Coogler as a reference for the movie. TNC brought Shuri back from the dead after all. The movie is mostly based on McGregor and Priest's work, but the idea of Wakanda being imperfect and the Black Panther as King being flawed, and T'Challa being vulnerable and also learning from his enemies, comes from Coates, as in the line "It's hard for a good man to be a king".

T'Challa was incompetent and irresponsible in Coates' run, not vulnerable. Wakandans were shown as hypocrites and complainers in Coates' run. That is what that run gave to us. It did NOT capitalize on the success of the BP film. This is why the run is abruptly ending. I am sure Coates planned to go on past issue 25, probably all the way to the Issue 200 of Black Panther.

[Marvell2100]

There's a difference between flaws in the "I can't be awesome all the time but I have to be and need to be" sense of general superhero stories and flawed in the sense of "daddy issues, being a king issues" and so on and so forth. The former doesn't challenge the role that T'Challa is supposed to play and uphold, the latter very much does.

Look, Priest's run is the best, and it's better than TNC's and nothing will change that. At the same time, it needs to be acknowledged that Priest was writing within the superhero genre, and he did so wonderfully. He wrote T'Challa as the badass superhero and that's great, it was what was needed for a run that was supposed to establish Black Panther as a major title and sell him over to a largely white readership (as Priest acknowledged in interviews, preface and afterword).

At the same time, TNC did bring something new and different in his opening arc. Which really wasn't there before. I have read Jungle Action, I have read Priest's run, parts of Hudlin's, and Hickman's New Avengers run (also a defining portrayal of the character), and what TNC did was somehing new with the character. That his run didn't live up to that early peak, that his run didn't sustain that, or so on doesn't change that.

No, Priest showed Panther as someone who as headed down a dark path as pointed out by Storm who told him that he was becoming Magneto. He also had T'Challa have an aneurism and showed T'Challa does have emotional depth.

Flaws don't have to mean someone who has daddy issues in which Panther never had(he also wanted to become king which is another misconception by the writer). It could be someone who always believes the are right and that the ends justify the means. They are willing to sacrifice anyone or anything to achieve their goals, someone who is so obsessed with plans upon plans upon plans that they almost become ruthless. That is a different kind of flaw.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

T'Challa was incompetent and irresponsible in Coates' run, not vulnerable.

Coates wrote a more vulnerable T'Challa, so yeah, it's possible that he went too far in that and it came off that way for a lot of people. That's fair.

Wakandans were shown as hypocrites and complainers in Coates' run.

Wakanda "the city that was never conquered" (established and celebrated in Aaron's classic "See Wakanda and Die...") being in fact invaded by Doom, Namor, the Black Order with great violence and loss of lives and so on...does in fact shatter the myth about Wakanda as "the city that never falls" and so on. All that happened before TNC came in. So Wakandans definitely have a right to look at T'Challa and see, a king who failed to protect them.

It did NOT capitalize on the success of the BP film.

It.
Was.
Written.
And.
Published.
Before.
The.
Movie.

This is why the run is abruptly ending.

Abrupt ending is when it closes after a year, when it happens with the writer learning it from twitter or whatever. Not in the case of a run that goes four years (which is impressive for any character, I mean Grant Morrison's run on New X-Men was four years) and is expected to end with all loose ends cleared. By this standards, Aaron's run on Thor ended abruptly.

I am sure Coates planned to go on past issue 25, probably all the way to the Issue 200 of Black Panther.

Only a small number of writers in the history of comics have had runs that go to 100+ issues in a single monthly ongoing (which is what BP is). For a title to go all the way to 200 issues, that would mean TNC would have had to work for some 17 years or so, was never realistically possible.

[MouserGrey]

Not once in Jungle Action or in Priest's run is the concept and foundation of Wakanda as an absolute monarchy and T'Challa as King raised to question and doubt. In both stories T'Challa has setbacks, a period of exile and so on, but he bounces back and returns to the status-quo.

Coates' run is the first to challenge that status-quo, and transform Wakanda into a Constitutional Monarchy. T'Challa listens to his enemies Reri and Tetu, and absorbs some of their ideas...much as Movie!T'Challa does so with Killmonger. In the process, Wakanda comes to the spotlight much like in the movie itself where Wakanda more than T'Challa is the protagonist.

I get that some people have a vociferous dislike for TNC, and I am not saying his run was perfect or wasn't flawed. Like I said, he peaked early but it did have a lot of interesting ideas at the start and A Nation under our Feet is legitimately a great comics story.

Ah. But you stated Coates was the first to explore T'Challa's flaws. Further more, one of the reasons i did not care for Coates run is the number of times previously some sort of revolution or insurection has taken place in Wakanda. That is not new as that was Killmongers objective in MacGregor's work, whats his names in Hudlin's, the colaberators in Doomwar, etc. Just been done to death as far as BP plots go, and therefore boring for longtime diehards. Constitutional monarchy, ill grant was new, but never really followed up on and based on a poor plot foundation. So, yes, i still say untrue. Besides i find his pace slow, ponderous, dirivitive, and therefore booooooooring.

[Snoop Dogg]

They mean that Coates' last issue is #25, which is actually BP #197, three issues away from #200.

Also, the real good news is that Daniel Acuña is free.

[Prof. Warren]

They mean that Coates' last issue is #25, which is actually BP #197, three issues away from #200.

Also, the real good news is that Daniel Acuña is free.

Yes to the bolded! I hope they hook him up with a great title to work on.

Be funny, though, if Coates stayed on Cap for a post issue #25 relaunch and Acuna joined him over there.

And by funny, I mean heartbreaking and depressing.

[Vibranium Weave]

Wakanda "the city that was never conquered" (established and celebrated in Aaron's classic "See Wakanda and Die...") being in fact invaded by Doom, Namor, the Black Order with great violence and loss of lives and so on...does in fact shatter the myth about Wakanda as "the city that never falls" and so on. All that happened before TNC came in. So Wakandans definitely have a right to look at T'Challa and see, a king who failed to protect them.

Man, this is the Marvel Universe. I am not sure if you've read Avengers: Kang Dynasty or Red Zone. Or if you've read the 1st appearance of Morlun in the Amazing Spider-Man (how Morlun caused destruction on New York City & terrorized the citizens). Destruction happens ALL THE TIME to various citis/countries. I'm sorry, but I never bought into the Coates logic because as a Marvel comic fan it didn't make sense.

In the Kang Dynasty, Kang blows up Washington DC and enslaves most of the USA.
In the Red Zone, Red Skull infiltrates the US government and releases a virus on the population.

Not to mention that in the Dark Reign story line, Norman Osborn is CHOSEN to take over & replace Sheild.

So Coates wants BP fans to believe that because Namor, using the phoenix force, hit the central city of Wakanda with a title wave ( side note: Namor did the same thing to New York City in the 40's, without the Phoniex Force), that Wakndans lost their minds and want to replace and overthrow their 1,000s of yrs old form of government ?

Not only overthrow it, but replace it with a form of government that was not effective against the forces of Kang the Conqueror (Kang Dynasty), allowed Red Skull (a nazi criminal) to infiltrate it and unleash a killer virus on the population, and further more allowed Norman Osborn ( a homicidal criminal maniac killer) to be in charge of the top security force because he shot a skrull? This is the form of government Coates believes Wakanda should have ? I haven't even mentioned what happened to the country during Onslaught, Kree/Skrull War, etc.

The Black Order affected the whole world, not just Wakanda.

And, might I add, the Warrior-King of Wakanda used the infinity stone to RESTORE the whole world. Not Cap, not Thor, not Iron Man, BUT the Warrior-King of Waknda RESTORED the WHOLE WORLD and the Wakandans want to replace & overthrow him ? Funny how Coates in 4 years never really made this point in the MAIN Black Panther comic (wasted opportunity)

Doomwar & AvX are small potatoes compared to Avengers: Kang Dynasty, Avengers:Red Zone, and/or Dark Reign.

It.
Was.
Written.
And.
Published.
Before.
The.
Movie.

Black Panther made his MCU debut a month after the 1st issue of Coates run. Coates never really capitalized on it.

Abrupt ending is when it closes after a year, when it happens with the writer learning it from twitter or whatever. Not in the case of a run that goes four years (which is impressive for any character, I mean Grant Morrison's run on New X-Men was four years) and is expected to end with all loose ends cleared. By this standards, Aaron's run on Thor ended abruptly.


Only a small number of writers in the history of comics have had runs that go to 100+ issues in a single monthly ongoing (which is what BP is). For a title to go all the way to 200 issues, that would mean TNC would have had to work for some 17 years or so, was never realistically possible.

Coates only needed to write 3 more issues to reach the historic Issues 200 for Black Panther, based on Legacy Numbering. Marvel cut him short by three issues.I am sure Coates goal was to reach issue 200 of BP.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Black Panther made his MCU debut a month after the 1st issue of Coates run. Coates never really capitalized on it.

Do you mean CA:Civil War? For those who want their timelines straight...TNC started in 2016, Coogler's movie came out in 2018.

And if by "capitalize" you mean success...I have to tell you that Black Panther Volume 1 sold pretty well and was a major success. So if we mean Captain America: Civil War, then yeah he did capitalize on it.

The extent to which comics can capitalize on the success of movie adaptations is impossible to judge. For instance after the Batman 1966 show, Julius Schwartz greenlit Neal Adams and others to start making Batman a more serious title...the reason is that the short-term boost of interest in comics abated sharply when the movie ended. So Schwartz and others felt that there was no point doing Batman in the old way.

In the case of the MCU, the problem is that the usual appeal of a comics tie-in and so on was that you get to see the in-between stuff bridging sequels, but in the MCU that happens in the movies itself. What happened between BP1 and BP2? Why Avengers:IW and Endgame, that's what.

[DigiCom]

I want to address Coates' influence on the movie, if I may. It turns out, Coogler has actually spoken on the topic (emphasis mine):

“Oh, I love it, man,” the filmmaker said when I asked him what he thinks of the series. “I mean, he’s my favorite writer right now in the world. Since being turned on to his work, I’m reading everything that he does. His nonfiction work, especially. But what he’s doing with Panther is just incredible. You can really see his background as a poet in some of the dialogue. And what Brian Stelfreeze is doing with the visuals in that book. And some of the questions that it’s asking. It’s just inspiring for [co-screenwriter] Joe Robert Cole and myself.”

“So, it’s influenced the way you think about the character?” I asked. “Absolutely, absolutely,” he replied. “What’s so great about Panther is he’s a superhero who, if you grab him and ask him if he’s a superhero, he’ll tell you, ‘No.’ He sees himself as a politician, as a leader in his country. It just so happens that the country is a warrior-based nation where the leaders have to be warriors, as well, so sometimes he has to go fight. I think starting at that is really so interesting. If you look at that, anything that’s happening in the world right now, or in the world in the past, in the political realm and how people deal with each other, it can be an inspiration.”

Source: https://www.vulture.com/2016/07/ryan...s-panther.html

The part that amuses me the most is that, for all his supposed influence, Coates' vision of T'Challa (one who would rather play superhero/scientist than be king) is diametrically opposed to Coogler's.

(I do wonder if Coogler thought Coates wrote the Rootsong poem, but we'll never know)

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I want to address Coates' influence on the movie, if I may. It turns out, Coogler has actually spoken on the topic (emphasis mine):

“Oh, I love it, man,” the filmmaker said when I asked him what he thinks of the series. “I mean, he’s my favorite writer right now in the world. Since being turned on to his work, I’m reading everything that he does. His nonfiction work, especially. But what he’s doing with Panther is just incredible. You can really see his background as a poet in some of the dialogue. And what Brian Stelfreeze is doing with the visuals in that book. And some of the questions that it’s asking. It’s just inspiring for [co-screenwriter] Joe Robert Cole and myself.”

As Mr. Coogler said. "Some of the questions that it's asking"...the subtext and so on, is in Coates' and in the movie. Which is what I've said. The idea of Wakanda needing to open up to the world and step up to the plate, which is a theme in the movie, and which in the book is about becoming a constitutional monarchy, are in the same ballpark.

The part that amuses me the most is that, for all his supposed influence, Coates' vision of T'Challa (one who would rather play superhero/scientist than be king) is diametrically opposed to Coogler's.

Both Coates and Coogler see a tension between being superhero and being a King. In the movie...Coogler ultimately has BP be a superhero by choosing to reject the conservative isolationism of the past. In the comic, Coates has T'Challa devolve his authority.

I do wonder if Coogler thought Coates wrote the Rootsong poem

There's this perverse attitude that assumes that movie directors are some kind of morons by default, we see this in the attacks on George Lucas, and we see it here.

Mr. Coogler isn't an idiot.

[DigiCom]

As Mr. Coogler said. "Some of the questions that it's asking"...the subtext and so on, is in Coates' and in the movie. Which is what I've said. The idea of Wakanda needing to open up to the world and step up to the plate, which is a theme in the movie, and which in the book is about becoming a constitutional monarchy, are in the same ballpark.

Um... no? I don't see a resemblance between "becoming a leader on the global stage" and "pulling a Prince Harry".

Both Coates and Coogler see a tension between being superhero and being a King. In the movie...Coogler ultimately has BP be a superhero by choosing to reject the conservative isolationism of the past. In the comic, Coates has T'Challa devolve his authority.

You and I have very different definitions of superhero, I think… to me, that says that T'Challa became a better leader by opening the borders instead of hiding... superheroics have nothing to do with it. Hell, superheroes are usually about PRESERVING the status quo.

There's this perverse attitude that assumes that movie directors are some kind of morons by default, we see this in the attacks on George Lucas, and we see it here.

Mr. Coogler isn't an idiot.

Of course not, but the only poetic dialogue I can think of in the first 4 issues of Coates' run (which are all that had come out by that point) was the aforementioned Dumas piece. I could have forgotten other examples, of course.