Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 146
  1. #91
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    That's the thing right, the story of the MCU depends on Tony Stark being this figure of optimism, the man with the plan and who always finds a way out...i.e. "the billionaires will save us" when in reality they specifically are not doing that at all. In fact, rather the opposite. The movies operated on a bunch of assumptions about the idea of simple reform and change without sacrifice. ta



    Well, based on the plot and schema that the movie used (which by itself should not be considered the best and most effective story to tell), I'd have Killmonger be the one to end Wakandan isolation and reveal it to the world, HOX/POX Krakoa style, i.e. Killmonger gives a speech that tells the world that Wakanda is the government that exists to defend the rights of black people, and that they will offer trade and perks (i.e. Wakandan tech) but in exchange, the world will have to reform and change their laws. That would include demands like say, the African sculptures in European museums would have to be returned and so on. "While you slept, the world changed" and so on. (BTW, Michael B. Jordan said that Magneto from the X-Men films was one of his main inspirations for Killmonger). We need to see a glimpse of whether his ideas for redistribution of power could have worked, only for him to reject it because it's not enough or it comes with reaction and doubt, and then he escalates. There needs to be some middle ground between taking over Wakanda and then immediately launching a global invasion to take over the world. Without that, the entire message and call for redistribution and accountability that Killmonger calls for becomes a kind of grubby resentful bloodlust. T'Challa's centrist approach which the movie validates is especially out of touch after BLM and the wave of toppled statues of noble racists across the world.

    But again that's not the only plot the movie could have used. Not sure I know which one to propose but you have to wonder about the optics that the first outing for the major black superhero they decide to make it devolve into "black on black violence" where the victim is the only African-American character in the story. Anyway, I am not saying Black Panther isn't a worthy movie to make and that it's success isn't a big deal, because it is. The truth is that it's not free of problems.



    Which raises issues as to whether the genre can maintain its popularity in a period where so much is gray and murky.
    Black Panther was directed and written by African-Americans. I think they'd have a better idea of the optics for an African-American audience than you think and boiling the conflict between T'Challa and Killmonger to black on black violence is reductive at best, offensive at worst. This wasn't some 50 Cent produced gangster movie.

  2. #92
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    That's way too far in the other direction for my liking.

    First there's the unexamined conflation of superhero comics with all comics when in fact in the classic era superhero comics weren't always the best selling and most influential genres in the sequential art story. And historically comics creators and artists had a wide range of political beliefs and ideas but many of them were on the left.

    And even then "at their core hard rightwing Libertarian" is too ridiculous even for superhero comics. I don't even know if superhero comics have a "core".



    Someone needs to ask Jonathan Hickman about why he made an entire epic run on the Avengers and New Avengers showing why this was a terrible horrible idea that achieved nothing but failure. That's not the only counter-example but it's one among many.
    Let's not act like Jonathan Hickman is even close to the norm when it comes to superhero comics.

  3. #93
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Black Panther was directed and written by African-Americans. I think they'd have a better idea of the optics for an African-American audience than you think and boiling the conflict between T'Challa and Killmonger to black on black violence is reductive at best, offensive at worst. This wasn't some 50 Cent produced gangster movie.
    There was not really a conflict between T'Challa and Killmonger outside of who was the rightful heir to the Throne. Having the movie directed and written by African Americans seems like a small piece of the movie since the movie still follows the same formula as the rest of the other MCU films. Its kind off disappointing when you compare it to other African American movies: Black Klansman or Poetic Justice.

    Putting a 50 Cent gangster produced movie could be the spark and spice the MCU may need to survive without the original Avengers, where it is now beginning to matter most. MCU is a money making machine for Disney but they have yet to single handily produce a true artistic comic movie. The brand loyalty of MCU has now become a hindrance to Marvel. It will benefit MCU now to make an alternate universe movie that does not connect to the MCU.

    I regret to this day that they finally got their hands on X-Men and Spiderman. Sony and Fox could put out crap every now and then but they had and still have the only true artistic marvel movies. MCU just keeps following a manufactured Disney formula day in , day out.
    Last edited by Castle; 08-08-2020 at 11:08 AM.

  4. #94
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    There was not really a conflict between T'Challa and Killmonger outside of who was the rightful heir to the Throne.
    What qualifies as conflict to you? Because saying there was no real conflict between T'Challa and Killmonger is inaccurate to say the least.

    Having the movie directed and written by African American seems like a small piece of the movie since the movie still follows the same formula as the rest of the other MCU films.
    No it doesn't. T'Challa actually taking the villain's words and origins into account and changing his ways because of it is not something that happens in other MCU movies

    Putting a 50 Cent gangster produced movie could be the spark and spice the MCU may need to survive without the original Avengers, where it is now beginning to matter most. Art and Quality. MCU is a money making machine for Disney but they have yet to single handily produce a true artistic comic movie. The brand loyalty of MCU has now become a hindrance to Marvel.
    I cannot stress enough how "art and quality" do not belong in the same sentence as "50 Cent gangster movie" or how the MCU does not at all need such a film to survive. And I say this as someone who has his own issues with the MCU.

  5. #95
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Black Panther was directed and written by African-Americans. I think they'd have a better idea of the optics for an African-American audience than you think and boiling the conflict between T'Challa and Killmonger to black on black violence is reductive at best, offensive at worst. This wasn't some 50 Cent produced gangster movie.
    Quite a few African-American voices had issues with Black Panther, such as Christopher Lebron
    (http://bostonreview.net/race/christo...-black-panther)

    "In the course of Killmonger’s swift rise to power, however, Coogler muddies his motivation. Killmonger is the revolutionary willing to take what he wants by any means necessary, but he lacks any coherent political philosophy. Rather than the enlightened radical, he comes across as the black thug from Oakland hell bent on killing for killing’s sake—indeed, his body is marked with a scar for every kill he has made. The abundant evidence of his efficacy does not establish Killmonger as a hero or villain so much as a receptacle for tropes of inner-city gangsterism.

    In the end, all comes down to a contest between T’Challa and Killmonger that can only be read one way: in a world marked by racism, a man of African nobility must fight his own blood relative whose goal is the global liberation of blacks. The fight takes a shocking turn: T’Challa lands a fatal blow to Killmonger, lodging a spear in his chest. As the movie uplifts the African noble at the expense of the black American man, every crass principle of modern black respectability politics is upheld."


    And here: "In 2018—in a world home to both the Movement for Black Lives and a president who identifies white supremacists as fine people—we are given a movie about black empowerment where the only redeemed blacks are African nobles. They safeguard virtue and goodness against the threat not of white Americans or Europeans, but a black American man, the most dangerous person in the world."

    Likewise African voices such as the Kenyan writer Patrick Gathara also had issues with the movie (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ion-of-africa/)

    Black Panther has not been impervious to criticism. It's made by a lot of African-American artists yeah but it's also a mainstream film that is there to appeal to a broad spectrum and that often leads to a centrist message.

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    I regret to this day that they finally got their hands on X-Men and Spiderman. Sony and Fox could put out crap every now and then but they had and still have the only true artistic marvel movies. MCU just keeps following a manufactured Disney formula day in , day out.
    I don't entirely agree with the assessment of the MCU but I do agree that we had more chances for more original and interesting takes on X-Men and Spider-Man, (and in theory, Fantastic Four), then is likely to be the case in the MCU.

  6. #96
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    What qualifies as conflict to you? Because saying there was no real conflict between T'Challa and Killmonger is inaccurate to say the least.

    .
    There was no deep conflict between the two characters. A deep conflict should have taken up 80% of the movie with various scenes of them together talking about their experience of blackness. Nothing is fully explored in the film. Its was the same thing as Civil War.


    I cannot stress enough how "art and quality" do not belong in the same sentence as "50 Cent gangster movie" or how the MCU does not at all need such a film to survive. And I say this as someone who has his own issues with the MCU.
    We can trust it is 50 Cents vision and true point of his view. Hate or love it, it will be his own art that he is showing. Every MCU movie follows a formula made up by Disney and that is the opposite of art. Art is suppose to be an individual thing. Moving forward with comic movies, I think a lot of people are going to be harder with MCU. The days of comic films been all about fun, cool action scenes and building on phases feels over for many reasons including Endgame and most of the actors retiring. Comic movies feels as if they are going back to the old days of separate contained movies. I think the next batch of MCU movies would have quality issues with the New Batman films and Spiderverse sequels.
    Last edited by Castle; 08-08-2020 at 11:40 AM.

  7. #97
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Quite a few African-American voices had issues with Black Panther, such as Christopher Lebron
    (http://bostonreview.net/race/christo...-black-panther)

    "In the course of Killmonger’s swift rise to power, however, Coogler muddies his motivation. Killmonger is the revolutionary willing to take what he wants by any means necessary, but he lacks any coherent political philosophy. Rather than the enlightened radical, he comes across as the black thug from Oakland hell bent on killing for killing’s sake—indeed, his body is marked with a scar for every kill he has made. The abundant evidence of his efficacy does not establish Killmonger as a hero or villain so much as a receptacle for tropes of inner-city gangsterism.

    In the end, all comes down to a contest between T’Challa and Killmonger that can only be read one way: in a world marked by racism, a man of African nobility must fight his own blood relative whose goal is the global liberation of blacks. The fight takes a shocking turn: T’Challa lands a fatal blow to Killmonger, lodging a spear in his chest. As the movie uplifts the African noble at the expense of the black American man, every crass principle of modern black respectability politics is upheld."


    And here: "In 2018—in a world home to both the Movement for Black Lives and a president who identifies white supremacists as fine people—we are given a movie about black empowerment where the only redeemed blacks are African nobles. They safeguard virtue and goodness against the threat not of white Americans or Europeans, but a black American man, the most dangerous person in the world."

    Likewise African voices such as the Kenyan writer Patrick Gathara also had issues with the movie (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ion-of-africa/)

    Black Panther has not been impervious to criticism. It's made by a lot of African-American artists yeah but it's also a mainstream film that is there to appeal to a broad spectrum and that often leads to a centrist message.



    I don't entirely agree with the assessment of the MCU but I do agree that we had more chances for more original and interesting takes on X-Men and Spider-Man, (and in theory, Fantastic Four), then is likely to be the case in the MCU.
    If you look at the non crap Sony and Fox dished out. Logan, Days of Future Past, Deadpool and Spiderverse . These movies easily outshined every MCU movie that year and that was because they had more chance to be original, more artistic and put their own takes on a marvel movie instead been confined by the MCU Disney way only, which has shown to be painfully limited and very manufactured. Even Venom was seen as a breath of fresh air and formed a cult following.

  8. #98
    Ultimate Member Holt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,054

    Default

    This thread is largely inventing problems that don't actually exist.

  9. #99
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    15,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    There was not really a conflict between T'Challa and Killmonger outside of who was the rightful heir to the Throne. Having the movie directed and written by African Americans seems like a small piece of the movie since the movie still follows the same formula as the rest of the other MCU films. Its kind off disappointing when you compare it to other African American movies: Black Klansman or Poetic Justice.

    Putting a 50 Cent gangster produced movie could be the spark and spice the MCU may need to survive without the original Avengers, where it is now beginning to matter most. MCU is a money making machine for Disney but they have yet to single handily produce a true artistic comic movie. The brand loyalty of MCU has now become a hindrance to Marvel. It will benefit MCU now to make an alternate universe movie that does not connect to the MCU.
    Black Klansman??? We are going to compare a super hero movie with a REAL LIFE event?
    Poetic Justice was a box office FLOP that later got cult status like Evil Dead and other films.

    And what hit movie did 50 Cent make? Not star in. He made be it writer or producer or director. Freelanders is the ONLY one.
    So you want him to make a black gangster movie to spice up MCU? Didn't Marvel already do that with a show called Luke Cage?
    Oh did you know black folks are fed up with those movies. The last two that came out FLOPPED.


    If Marvel had the rights to Spidey & X-Men-Tony, Steve & Thor would NOT have 9 movies between them. There would be no Avengers. No Antman or Dr Strange. No GOTG. Probably no Carol Danvers. Maybe Black Panther would have gotten his film.

    If Tony, Steve & Thor were phase 4-I am sure a thread like this would scream the end of MCU because those guys got movies.


    It is NOT Disney's job to make some artistic movie to pander to ANYONE. The main crybabies who scream that are the MAIN ones doing the greatest gymnastic routines to NOT support those films. No one was screaming that for Transformers, Jurassic Park, TWILIGHT and all these other movies.

    Marvel is not trying to be DC where one guy holds EVERYONE hostage. No one is screaming how will DC live without him. They did fine when they DIDN'T focus on him with WW & Aquaman.

  10. #100
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    15,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Holt View Post
    This thread is largely inventing problems that don't actually exist.
    NO it's just hidden hatred for Disney.

    A hatred that is so hidden folks run to see the movies to just whine about them online.

    If the MCU Disney is so offensive-simple solution don't watch the movies.

    The MCU Disney way got a Black Panther movie made and it was a hit. Something that OTHER company doesn't have. A successful black lead movie and the one guy who could give them that-doesn't belong to them.

    The MCU way got stuff comic book entitlement fans scream is unsaleable because they don't like it and made it sell. Another issue the other company seems to have.

    The MCU way got films made that were not held hostage by ONE FRANCHISE's dark and gloomy universe unlike that other company.

    Is it perfect-NO. Does it work? So far it has.

  11. #101
    Astonishing Member Blind Wedjat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    I knew this would turn into yet another MCU bashing, X-Men film praising thread.

    It was only a matter of time.

  12. #102
    Ultimate Member Holt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skyvolt2000 View Post
    NO it's just hidden hatred for Disney.
    I have no issue with people hating corporate monopolies. That's not really the issue. It seems more like people projecting their personal dislikes to try and speak for most. There've always been people who disliked the MCU just as there were always more serious comic book movies being put out by rival studios.

    Neither is a new or recent development, so saying those will lead to the downfall of the franchise seems like wishful thinking.

  13. #103
    Ultimate Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    19,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    That's the thing right, the story of the MCU depends on Tony Stark being this figure of optimism, the man with the plan and who always finds a way out...i.e. "the billionaires will save us" when in reality they specifically are not doing that at all. In fact, rather the opposite. The movies operated on a bunch of assumptions about the idea of simple reform and change without sacrifice.
    I disagree with the "change without sacrifice" thing here. Tony nearly died, was held hostage, had to hook a car battery up to his chest to survive, then nearly lost his company and was almost murdered again by his life-long friend and business partner. And while the film doesn't touch on this too deeply, it mentions the damage done to the company's stock several times, and for a organization like Stark's, that could be a loss of millions. There was sacrifice and the proverbial trial by fire.

    The general consensus is that yes, billionaires are far more worried about their tax cuts than they are anything else, and will swindle the good ideas out from under the feet of hard working innovators. But in this, we're dealing with a negative stereotype. Nothing says that *every* industrialist acts in such a way and it's folly to assume *every* one of them does, just as it's folly to assume any stereotype about a group of people. Plus, Tony *did* start out as a crappy person. His experiences with the Ten Rings brings about change and growth, that's essentially the entire character arc of that first film. If we say all industrialists are evil, then a story where one learns from his mistakes and becomes a better person is something we should celebrate and encourage, not disregard because "industrialists are bad."

    Well, based on the plot and schema that the movie used (which by itself should not be considered the best and most effective story to tell), I'd have Killmonger be the one to end Wakandan isolation and reveal it to the world, HOX/POX Krakoa style, i.e. Killmonger gives a speech that tells the world that Wakanda is the government that exists to defend the rights of black people, and that they will offer trade and perks (i.e. Wakandan tech) but in exchange, the world will have to reform and change their laws. That would include demands like say, the African sculptures in European museums would have to be returned and so on.
    And this is essentially what does happen. T'Challa recognizes that, for all Killmonger's skewed way of thinking, he had a valid point. Killmonger had no desire to pursue peace or equality, his goal was to do to the world what was done to Africa centuries ago (and even then, he ignores Africa's own role in the history). His goal wasn't noble, it was racist and cruel and pointless....but beneath the hate, he *did* have a point about Wakanda leaving everyone else to fend for themselves, and T'Challa made good on that. What you say you wanted to see is basically what we got.

    But again that's not the only plot the movie could have used. Not sure I know which one to propose but you have to wonder about the optics that the first outing for the major black superhero they decide to make it devolve into "black on black violence" where the victim is the only African-American character in the story. Anyway, I am not saying Black Panther isn't a worthy movie to make and that it's success isn't a big deal, because it is. The truth is that it's not free of problems.
    No narrative is free of problems. And you could read the film as "black on black violence" and have a good argument for that. But is that not indeed a real problem, especially in America? More African Americans are killed by African Americans than by police officers. At least BP spoke out about that a bit, everyone else ignores it. And boiling the film down to that single theme, while not wrong per se, is also ignoring all the other themes and topics at play. And ultimately, T'Challa is a questionable choice for non-allegorical commentary on the "Black American experience." He comes from a fantastical nearly Utopian land where he's a king, he's not equipped to speak directly on the problems that plague African Americans, given that he's neither American nor has suffered as African Americans have. If we want a real exploration of the problems that plague us, Luke Cage is a better choice; he's tasted those problems first hand. T'Challa's role is to be aspirational, to show the promise of something better than we have, rather than making direct commentary on American social issues.

    Which raises issues as to whether the genre can maintain its popularity in a period where so much is gray and murky.
    Eh, the superhero movie bubble will burst eventually. Maybe current events will pop it, maybe not. I'm of the mind that the genre will be fine. Studios will approach the films from a different angle, taking the national conversation into account, just as they have for almost a century. The superhero genre was born during troubling social times, has enjoyed some of it's greatest heights during social unrest, and will likely continue to do so. Comics, at their best, balance real world considerations against the escapist fantasy of raw entertainment and simple mythological tales of good versus evil. That's an appeal that never goes away, it just changes a bit with the times. End of the day, people just want to set their worries and their protest signs down for a bit and enjoy a simple story where the line between good and evil is clearly drawn and the hero wins in the end.
    "We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."

    ~ Black Panther.

  14. #104
    Astonishing Member Blind Wedjat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Well, based on the plot and schema that the movie used (which by itself should not be considered the best and most effective story to tell), I'd have Killmonger be the one to end Wakandan isolation and reveal it to the world, HOX/POX Krakoa style
    There's a lot of assumption and possibly projection going on here. It's starting to sound like a lot of people didn't get the character of Killmonger at all (trust me, I hate how pretentious it makes me sound). Killmonger didn't really care about African sculptures in European museums. If he did, he would have never patterned up with Klaue. The only reason he gave that woman that speech was to make her feel bad. If he did care, he wouldn't have taken that mask because he was "just feelin' it". Now I saw that as a commentary on how some African Americans only appropriate elements African culture for their own egotistical needs, rather than because they understand the significance or do have an ancestral connection to said cultural element (and if it's not clear, I'm not African American but Nigerian). And personally, I liked that, because it needed to be said.

    Likewise, Killmonger didn't care about worldwide liberation of black people and redistributing power. He himself says he killed his own brothers and sisters just to get to the position in which he could then kill T'Challa himself. If he cared about liberation, he would have surely known that going to war with the world would do way more harm than good. If he cared about power redistribution, he wouldn't have proposed overturning the current power structure and imposing a new one where he's on top of everyone else. When people assert that Killmonger suddenly changed in the third act of the film (or as you put it, there's no middle ground between taking over Wakanda and then immediately launching a global invasion to take over the world) it's because they weren't paying attention and projecting their own feelings onto him. All the signs were right there. A black revolutionary doesn't partner up with a racist South African mercenary and weapons dealer that repeatedly calls African people "savages". And it's not as if there aren't African Americans that don't think the way Killmonger does in the real world. They're called hoteps.

    Not to mention that Killmonger was also an American soldier who knew how destabilise foreign governments, and America has been meddling in African elections for years (which makes this thing they have with Russia now almost funny). I don't care if he was an African American character posturing as a revolutionary. That again needed to be said.

    That being said though, your idea is an admittedly interesting one (and is one of the reasons why I liked Hox/PoX). I think with what the sequel has set up, an idea or plot like that can be explored hopefully. I also agree that T'Challa's message at the end does sound centrist, but I don't think it's all that wise to impose leftist ideology to an African man either (something America has tried with African countries to great failure). Besides, there's a reason why the film also highlights Nakia's worldview as the right one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Quite a few African-American voices had issues with Black Panther, such as Christopher Lebron
    (http://bostonreview.net/race/christo...-black-panther)
    Most of what I have issues with this critique with are summed up above, but it also sounds to me like Lebron here has an issue with African nobles being uplifted over African Americans. Which is refreshing to me. Do they ever get that kind of treatment in Hollywood or by African Americans themselves?

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Likewise African voices such as the Kenyan writer Patrick Gathara also had issues with the movie (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ion-of-africa/)
    I have read Gathara review before, and I personally have many issues with it.

    First, he refers to Wakanda as a continent, which sounds to me a lot like seeing the entire country of Africa as a singular entity or country rather than a diverse land. Second, he says the heart of the movie is about a "divided, tribalized continent, discovered by a white man who wants nothing more than to take its mineral resources" which is hardly the crux of the film. Klaue is only one part of the film, nor does he solely discover Wakanda himself, and he frames this as if it is a bad thing. Do we not know of countless white men who want nothing more from an African country other than its resources?

    He also has an issue with Wakanda's government, to which I say that first of all it is a fantasy movie about kingdoms. What's wrong with that? We get to have Game of Thrones which does the exact or similar things. Who is to say many African nations still wouldn't have kingdoms if the white man didn't invade and then divide up the continent as if it a cake or a pie? These drawn up borders is a huge part of many African nations' problems because many tribes are grouped together when they possibly shouldn't be. Second, Wakanda is clearly shown to not be an absolute monarch anyway. This video does a great job of explaining Wakanda's political system (again, this is a fantasy movie). Third, just because Wakanda's form of government involves trial by combat (fantasy movie!) doesn't mean that its inability to let go of traditions or a system that isn't working isn't a universal topic. Democracy might as well be overrated if your current political and economic system (something many people overlook) are not working or helping anyone, or even causing more problems than solving. The movie even spells this entire thing out which one of Shuri's lines ("Just because something works doesn't mean it can't be improved").

    Then he asserts Wakanda is only made up of warriors and royals and isn't diverse as other Western locations in film (and the MCU) which is wrong. Shuri is a scientist and she's one of the main characters in the film. She's not a warrior. Second, we Nakia who although is a warrior but she's also an activist of sorts. Third we have the council members who are political and local leaders. Fourth, it's not as if other Marvel movies have ever highlighted the common people on the streets. Every other character is a superhero or love interest to said superhero. And fifth, we do see common people in Wakanda. We see the farmers, the civilians, the street food cooks and merchants, etc.

    There's also the attempt at conflating Black Panther with Chinese racism and xenophobia and the movie Wolf Warrior 2, which falls flat. How is a Chinese version of the white saviour narrative that paints an unnamed African country in dire need of saving remotely the same as a fantasy utopia in Africa that faces none of the problems many other African countries are plagued with?

    These are most of his criticisms and I don't think the majority of them actually land. Is there a lot to say about how Hollywood depicts Africa as a whole? Yes, I think there is that discussion to be had, but I don't think the majority of that actually applies to the film, at least with the points he brings up.
    Last edited by Blind Wedjat; 08-08-2020 at 02:08 PM.

  15. #105
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    There was sacrifice and the proverbial trial by fire.
    That's overstating things vastly in the movie. In Iron Man 1, Tony suffered in captivity and yeah that's harsh not taking that away, but to say that he suffered a "trial by fire" over his decision to divest his company from defense expenditure is overstating things. Look I know there's a section of Iron Man fans who like the character and as such, understandably, take criticisms of the social implications of his character as an attack on the character. The fact is that if people can attack and question Frank Castle's NRA-propaganda vigilantism then I don't know how you can let Stark off the hook. FWIW, Tony Stark isn't as directly problematic as the Punisher is, as the Punisher has become but that doesn't mean a reckoning is so far away either.

    But in this, we're dealing with a negative stereotype.
    The fact is only a very few inventors become entrepreneurs. Elon Musk never invented the Tesla car, Bill Gates did not invent the GUI, Steve Jobs likewise never invented anything. Zuckerberg is a slight exception, he did co-create the algorithm that created Facebook but of course there's debate and conjecture about how the credit breaks down for that. Most of the rich types that RDJ's Stark is modeled on are either frauds or glorified showmen and salesmen in the real world.

    What you say you wanted to see is basically what we got.
    No. What you see at the end of the movie is far less radical than what Erik Killmonger was talking about. It's basically Wakanda joining the UN and becoming part of the First World. We don't get Wakanda calling the rest of the world out, and asking for a reckoning and accounting with history. Obviously T'Challa, as the isolationist Prince who was toppled and then restored, can't claim that platform completely. But we never got to see Killmonger claim that either. We never hear the most driven and passionate voice of the downtrodden within the narrative of the film assert any dignity. Basically what we get with Krakoa in HOX/POX where the rest of the world is called to task for their crimes and where relationships and agreements are made as the beginning of restitution. The fact is the movie paints Killmonger as a terrible king whose ideas don't have popular appeal. You can still have him plot world domination but there needs to be grounds between him becoming King and then going over.

    In comics, you know, Doctor Doom is allowed dignity to prove that he is, or can be, a great scientist and ruler and that his tyranny and authoritarianism is overreach and unnecessary because he has enough qualities to make himself leader of Latveria in any fair democratic election. Killmonger in the MCU isn't allowed that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •