Canada, originally
Cool. It's nice to see Bruce try other methods
Of course it's quite possible it could be offensive, but it's not always so. I'm not saying they have to solve anything. Just that villains shouldn't be the only onea calling out problems in the world. And how is heroes not caring about this not offensive?
Ok. Because, I don't villainizing everyone who tries to fix anything is a good idea
Last edited by CosmiComic; 08-05-2021 at 05:41 PM.
I agree with not wanting to see superheroes trying to tackle real world problems that go beyond the ability to punch a nazi. There's a reason that Wakanda having a cure for cancer has been brought up as a criticism of the BP/Wakanda narrative, because cancer is real and impacts a lot of people reading those comics and we surely wish we had a T'Challa who could rid the world of such an awful thing. Compare that to the one-off panel joke where Everett Ross opens up T'Challa's desk drawer and sees a Galactus Contingency Plan. That's funny while also establishing he and Wakanda are no joke. Also, Galactus isn't real so there's no harm to be done by writing about BP/Wakanda being able to tackle that issue.
And few writers want to tackle the reality of Africa's history and interaction with the Western world and its exploitation because these comics are largely written for a Western audience and the issue is ongoing, depressing, and likely to continue for generations to come. It's hard explaining why Wakanda would ignore those realities and easier to touch on them briefly but treat them as if they're far in the past and/or akin to natural disasters that just happened/are happening, rather than something someone could be blamed for (or in the fictional realm blamed for standing by and watching happen).
Given tackling those subjects, or writing about BP putting on some vibranium gloves and slapping Firelord around, which would a comic writer rather tackle? Or hell, feel like they were qualified to tackle? Which one is going to sell more comics? Which one would Disney rather you talk about? Even if you tackled less controversial topics that a Western audience isn't going to be prickly about like climate change, what happens when you tackle it? The Authority by Warren Ellis had their team fix some of those real world problems, but mostly what they did to establish that was have the characters say a few lines, show some panels with the way the world had improved, then it was moving on. Because at the end of the day what story is there to be had by having Superman announce he removed mercury and other heavy metals from the water supply with his Super Breath? "Good job Superman!" then moving on. Wouldn't take more than a panel, would change nothing, and might be insulting to those in the real world.
To put it out there, it was Mark Millar's run that first had The Authority take on world issues, but even he was going for dark satire. It led up to a story where the G-8 had an assassin "kill" the team to stop them from meddling in politics.
I know there was a later storyline by someone else where the team took over America, but I didn't read it beyond the first issue. It seemed like a bad version of Mark Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme from the 80's...
I understand and I basically agree with you. I brought Nick's version of Sam/Cap because the comic was definitely about the ramifications of having a black Capt America in today's politically polarized climate trying to do good, but running into overlapping social challenges. Spenser was smart enough to not just do simplistic punch-a-bad-guy-and-now-racism-is-solved stories. I thought his run was good example of how to do such stories in a superhero title.
Yeah, I thought it did a good job. I think it can work if the issues aren't immediately solved, but the heroes are aware of these things and at times at least try their best to help. Admittedly, there are some people who are the kind superheroes can punch, but not every situation can be resolved that way
It's offensive because you bring the audience's attention to a serious issue that may affect them personally, and then offer a solution that is either unrealistic or unworkable, which only serves to remind them of the fact that after the movie is over, they have to go back to the real world where such a magic fix doesn't exist and the problem persists. Offering a feasible solution to climate change or racism or wealth inequality or whatever is far beyond the scope of what a two hour movie is able to address, and papering over long simmering disputes with platitudes is just insulting to people who have spent their lives working on these problems and have seen their good intentions repeatedly run up against a brick wall of vested interests.
I recall a line from Luke Cage in Al Ewing's Mighty Avengers. It's something to the effect of "I can't cure cancer but maybe I can save the guy who can".
Basically, I don't think you necessarily need to have the hero address this problem but it is alright to have them do their part every now and then.
Black Panther Discord Server: https://discord.gg/SA3hQerktm
T'challa's Greatest Comic Book Feats: http://blackpanthermarvel.blogspot.c...her-feats.html
But that's not really what I'm saying they should do. My point is, if these movies want to acknowledge any of these real world issues (not saying they should), I don't think it should just be the villains making these points.
And talking about issues doesn't equal solving them. I don't think everyone would hate a movie just because it brought up something from the real world. For some people, seeing a fictional character try to deal with things those people encounter might actually a form of entertainment. I wouldn't assume everyone in the audience would be angry
Why would it not be entertaining?
I would like to point out that while Black Panther didn't solve the problems Killmonger was pointing out, he did have a start in doing so. And the movie wasn't any less entertaining for it.