Black Panther - AfroFuturism takes on Broadway!!

[GolemsVoice]

Saw the movie yesterday, absolutely loved it. Very beautifully shot, with cool sets and all. Nice work.

As for the challenge of succession, from the movie I interpreted it like it was mostly a formality by now. That is, the tribes and their leaders usually already have a good opportunity to take a look at the heir apparent, and will only challenge them if they see something seriously wrong. But since Wakanda is super-traditional regarding some things, they still go out, dress up, and do the ritual, including adhering to its stranger results.

[LaZodiac]

I don't know, Rhodes is already War Machine.. and I never get the vibe that he is being groomed for anything. Where as Black Panthers sister is portrayed as smart, like stupidly smart. She has that jokey feeling that Tony displays. And she is already proficient in the hand blaster shooty thing Iron Man uses. Plus with her heading up that thing now, and living in America. She will effectively have that new person fish out of water thing most Disney Princesses have.

Him being War Machine is why he'll be the new Iron Man. Wheter they change his name or not (likely they won't, but we'll see) remains to be seen.

Shuri will stay Shuri because Shuri is awesome. But I'm like, 95% sure that Iron Heart's going to come from Shuri's outreach center, and she'll 100% be a mentor roll for her if it DOES happen.

[Devonix]

I stopped reading Iron Man long ago...like when Tony became a cyborg director of SHEILD.....but there was an Iron Girl, right?

Naw Tony technically never stopped being Ironman. Though Doctor Doom did claim the name while he was in a coma.

And there's Riri Williams who's Iron heart but that's separate.

[Kyberwulf]

I am going to have to nope the whole Rhodes becoming Iron Man. MAAYYYBE if Rhodes had a younger actor. As it is, I think Don Chadell is older then Robert Downey Jr.. Just by that fact alone... He won't be becoming Iron man. Same thing with Winter Soldier, and Captain America.

The ability to keep these franchises going for the money. Is why we are probably going to start seeing either, younger characters being introduced but, not being aligned with as any current Heroes. Or just seeing the current heroes being outright replaced in their next movie.

[FreddyNoNose]

I am going to have to nope the whole Rhodes becoming Iron Man. MAAYYYBE if Rhodes had a younger actor. As it is, I think Don Chadell is older then Robert Downey Jr.. Just by that fact alone... He won't be becoming Iron man. Same thing with Winter Soldier, and Captain America.

The ability to keep these franchises going for the money. Is why we are probably going to start seeing either, younger characters being introduced but, not being aligned with as any current Heroes. Or just seeing the current heroes being outright replaced in their next movie.

If you want a young actor why not?.....wait for it.... Iron Spider Man!

[Mechalich]

I am going to have to nope the whole Rhodes becoming Iron Man. MAAYYYBE if Rhodes had a younger actor. As it is, I think Don Chadell is older then Robert Downey Jr.. Just by that fact alone... He won't be becoming Iron man. Same thing with Winter Soldier, and Captain America.

Age isn't really an issue - especially for Iron Man in which the leads barely even wear the blasted suit and don't have to do any stunts - it's all about contracting. Downey both doesn't want to do these movies anymore and makes way too much money when doing them to make Marvel happy. Cheadle is, potentially, a cheaper ask, though probably not by that much considering he's fairly well established in his own right. Sebastian Stan - who plays the Winter Soldier - is absolutely a cheaper ask than Chris Evans.

There's going to be a whole lot of reshuffling in general following the 2019 Avengers film. A soft reboot of some kind - blame Dr. Strange and the Time Stone - is also possible depending on how much damage Thanos does and how they want to reintegrate reclaimed properties like X-Men and the Fantastic Four.

[LaZodiac]

Age isn't really an issue - especially for Iron Man in which the leads barely even wear the blasted suit and don't have to do any stunts - it's all about contracting. Downey both doesn't want to do these movies anymore and makes way too much money when doing them to make Marvel happy. Cheadle is, potentially, a cheaper ask, though probably not by that much considering he's fairly well established in his own right. Sebastian Stan - who plays the Winter Soldier - is absolutely a cheaper ask than Chris Evans.

There's going to be a whole lot of reshuffling in general following the 2019 Avengers film. A soft reboot of some kind - blame Dr. Strange and the Time Stone - is also possible depending on how much damage Thanos does and how they want to reintegrate reclaimed properties like X-Men and the Fantastic Four.

I don't think we'll go as far as a soft reboot (though if we do I'm gonna be disappointed) and the good news is the Time Stone'll probably be destroyed at the end of this so it won't be a danger for the future.

And yeah, Cheadle's definitely a cheaper ask than Downy, and not only is Sebastian cheaper than Chris Evans they've also been heavily, heavily forshadowing this is going to happen, repeatedly. Winter Soldier's gonna become the new Captain America. Call him Captain America, Patriot, maybe even White Wolf like the Wakandans are calling him. Either way, he's the new Cap. Hell, personal opinion: "get this man a shield" from the trailers refers to him, not Steve Rogers.

[Cheesegear]

So putting aside the race aspect that everyone is focusing on, is this movie worth seeing?

The main character is basically invincible. So all action scenes featuring dudes with machine guns are meaningless.
There's a couple of forced jokes that are three years' dead. I think Shuri's What are those!? actually induced a groan from me.
The protagonist fights an almost identical clone of himself in the final fight.
The main character is boring...And invincible. And obviously is the titular character in a Marvel Disney movie, and thus there are no stakes, even when the movie is trying to tell you that there are... How stoked was I when in Thor; Ragnarok he actually loses an eye. Holy Hell. The titular character actually got significantly - and permanently - hurt.
The trailer pushed Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis - they're barely in it.
Forest Whitaker plays the same character that he's played for the last 10 years.

The visuals are stunning.
Michael B. Jordan was excellent...Given the material he had to work with.
Nakia and Okoye were great.
The Casino scene was better than The Last Jedi's...I guess.

Overall, I thought it was watchable. Unfortunately, all the super-hero tropes that I've come to expect from these movies, were all there. Those are starting to grind my bones something fierce. I think the studio believes Winter Soldier or Iron-Man 3 are mistakes, too grown up 'cause they can't sell toys to children with those movies. You can't treat comic book movies seriously, because then you have to take comic book movies seriously...Or something.

If you have a problem with the current Marvel tropes, literally all of them are there. If you find Marvel movies 'fun', then yeah. Sure.

Spider-Man: Homecoming was actually one of the ones I like (and, if you've noticed, I've began to hate Marvel movies, just like yourself, if you can't tell). If you didn't like Spider-Man, then...Yeah. I guess maybe wait 'til you can stream it. It's not like Black Panther hasn't already broken all the records and desperately needs your ticket sale to make revenue.

I think the joke is on us though, because of the way that Disney has set up the franchise (leading to Infinity War), if you miss any of the movies, you miss out. So...Guaranteed ticket sales, am I right? That's the only reason I saw it. Because if I don't, I feel like I'm going to miss out on something important... And that's such a terrible reason to see a movie.

AFAIC, if you think 'race' is an issue, a thing, you're better off watching Luke Cage, or the currently running, Black Lightning. Both have better, and more 'important' subject matter, and both are excellent.

[Douglas]

I don't think we'll go as far as a soft reboot (though if we do I'm gonna be disappointed) and the good news is the Time Stone'll probably be destroyed at the end of this so it won't be a danger for the future.

An Infinity Stone, destroyed? That seems very unlikely to me.

[LaZodiac]

An Infinity Stone, destroyed? That seems very unlikely to me.

How else are they beating Thanos other than destroying the Infinity Stones?

Destroying them seems like the actual route they'd go, to me.

[Kitten Champion]

Falcon could occupy the Captain America role as well.

I don't believe they have any intent on making another Captain America, Thor, or Iron Man movie until their business model collapses. They'll just focus on growing the properties they're developing now like Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, Ant-Man and the Wasp, Black Panther, and Captain Marvel into being the core the universe. They can only make so many movies in a year as it stands and with so many characters - without even worrying about integrating Fox properties assuming that happens as intended - they have to economize somewhat to keep the MCU narrative condensed enough to follow and their release schedule intelligible as a studio. They've gotta finish the Guardians of the Galaxy's story too.

As a monstrous hype-generating marketing machine, the Marvel Studios brand has evidently worked to make properties successful without relying on significant existing name recognition. Other than, ya'know, on television. Rebooting the universe would in most respects stymie their internal momentum, that - even if you aren't interested in Black Panther or know anything about him - you are interested in seeing the Marvel Universe's development as a wider text within the individual releases, and trivializing that with a Days-of-Future-Past-esque 'boot would jeopardize a major pillar of their success.

[Chen]

How else are they beating Thanos other than destroying the Infinity Stones?

Destroying them seems like the actual route they'd go, to me.

If it's like the comics Thanos will leave his body for some reason and someone will just take the gauntlet off his hand (was Nebula I think).

[Devonix]

If it's like the comics Thanos will leave his body for some reason and someone will just take the gauntlet off his hand (was Nebula I think).

A lot of people forget that Nebula was the final boss fight of Infinity Gauntlet.

[Devonix]

How else are they beating Thanos other than destroying the Infinity Stones?

Destroying them seems like the actual route they'd go, to me.

Separating the gems seems more likely than destroying them.

[Dr.Samurai]

Spoiler: Frozen Feet

Show

@Dr. Samurai: The villain's dialogue directly addresses some of the questions you had. Perhaps most memorably:

T'Challa: "I'm the King of Wakanda, not all people."
Killmonger: "Why not all people? Isn't Africa where all people come from?"

But T'Challa is not the king of Africa. He's the king of Wakanda. I do remember this line from the movie, but it just seems like a such silly question to ask, like he's being rhetorical even.

To my mind, it is a much more obvious statement to take for granted that T'Challa is not the king of all people, then to say "why shouldn't you be the king of all people".

It's possible that this was the director telling me that Killmonger is actually looking out for all of humanity, but it didn't come across that way to me.

Also, it's not simply a matter of race, as one of the listed foreign targets is Hong Kong. Killmonger does make the point about similar-looking people, but he also makes a point about all the oppressed overthrowing their oppressors. He wants to give the imperialists a taste of their own medicine, and its clear his ambitions go beyond simple matter of race.

I agree that his ambitions go beyond race, but not because he cares about everyone. Rather, I think he simply wants to grab power, and he uses race as a justification for that. His ambition is to conquer, and he uses the plight of the 2 billion brown and black people in the world as a reason to do it.

This said, you are right that this motivations are off and your comparison to destitute "white" people hating on better off "white" people is solid. (Also, a thing that exists in reality.) But his motivations have to be off, otherwise it'd be hard to consider him the villain. And to balance that, if he was totally wrong, T'Challa would not be able to make the points he does at the end of the movie. King of Wakanda may still be just the King of Wakanda, but that doesn't mean it was right to abandon the rest of the world.

Agreed. Wakanda doesn't come off looking good either to my mind, because it's never made clear why they were so afraid of spreading. It is really kind of miracle that a country as powerful as Wakanda did not go out adn conquer the world. I mean... that's pretty ahistorical. If the story of Wakanda is true, they would have been the imperial power in the world. At the very least they would have conquered Africa and repelled any invaders, if not spread from Africa and conquer the globe.

So we have to believe that the most powerful and advanced country in the world (with spies everywhere) was afraid of being conquered or that the rulers of Wakanda are truly the least ambitious and most apathetic rulers in the history of the world.

Both seem kind of strange propositions.

More subtly (or not, your opinion may vary), Killmonger makes it clear at a point that his vision is as much about revenge against the world as anything else... and we know what T'Challa learned of revenge in Cap 3. I was happy they didn't just forget about it and had T'Challa offer Killmonger an opportunity to be healed. It also seals where Killmonger's heart is: it's not with Wakandans, it's with the oppressed who would rather die than choose to live like that.

That's a good point. I really was hoping that Killmonger would stay alive because I think he's pretty compelling. But you raise a good point that it demonstrates where his heart really lies.

Wait guys. Doesnt T'Challa specifically spell out in Civil War that the Black Panther is a mantle, but that for the first time ever Black Panther also hppens to be the king of Wakanda?

I seem to remember this too actually. I don't remember if it's addressed in Black Panther though. I'll have to check out Civil War again.

I am going to have to nope the whole Rhodes becoming Iron Man.

I agree. I don't see Rhodes becoming Iron Man. I really liked him in Civil War during the debate about the Accords because he was actually engaging and making real points and imposing himself. But other than that he's just been a sidekick and I don't really see him carrying a movie or anything.

Winter Soldier's gonna become the new Captain America.

It's strange. I really like the Winter Soldier. But his lines are limited in both movies he appears in, and he's mostly the same quiet intense warrior. He's softened up, a little, in Civil War, but there isn't much to his character. And yet, I like him a lot. But if he's going to be the next Captain America, they're going to have to do a lot in Infinity War to get him up to speed. Because right now we don't have much there in terms of character.

[Red Fel]

An Infinity Stone, destroyed? That seems very unlikely to me.

How else are they beating Thanos other than destroying the Infinity Stones?

Destroying them seems like the actual route they'd go, to me.

Warlock.

Falcon could occupy the Captain America role as well.

I don't believe they have any intent on making another Captain America, Thor, or Iron Man movie until their business model collapses. They'll just focus on growing the properties they're developing now like Spider-Man, Doctor Strange, Ant-Man and the Wasp, Black Panther, and Captain Marvel into being the core the universe. They can only make so many movies in a year as it stands and with so many characters - without even worrying about integrating Fox properties assuming that happens as intended - they have to economize somewhat to keep the MCU narrative condensed enough to follow and their release schedule intelligible as a studio. They've gotta finish the Guardians of the Galaxy's story too.

As a monstrous hype-generating marketing machine, the Marvel Studios brand has evidently worked to make properties successful without relying on significant existing name recognition. Other than, ya'know, on television. Rebooting the universe would in most respects stymie their internal momentum, that - even if you aren't interested in Black Panther or know anything about him - you are interested in seeing the Marvel Universe's development as a wider text within the individual releases, and trivializing that with a Days-of-Future-Past-esque 'boot would jeopardize a major pillar of their success.

I think they will create another of their staple movies when they're ready to transition the characters. As multiple posters have now noted, they've been building in replacements that will allow them to continue the universe, without the need for any kind of reboot - just trade a character out for a new one that fills the same niche. Bring the old one back for a cameo or two, or straight-up kill them off. Cap has multiple replacement options already established. Iron Man can be replaced, and Shuri's given us the potential for Iron Heart. And while it seems doubtful they'll make Jane Foster into the next Thor, the power is canonically transferable. So when they're ready to switch out the old guard for the new, we'll get another Iron Man or Captain America movie to tell the story about the mantle being handed over.

Fortunately, there's no rush to do that. They've now established an entire stable of characters who could get their own movies, played by - this is key - cheaper actors who they can lock into less expensive multi-film deals.

I agree that a reboot - hard or soft - would be counterproductive. Making all of the films interconnected and interdependent is a marketing genius move. When I saw Black Panther with family, I had to remind them of the events of Civil War that introduced the character and concept of Black Panther, and nod to Age of Ultron, which first introduced Klaue and expanded the notion of Vibranium. Tying the movies together forces an audience that wants to understand everything to go see every single one. Or to pay for a streaming service. Or buy the DVD box set. Everything puts more money into the studio coffers. Rebooting the universe may lower the barrier to entry, but it also resets those connections, making them unnecessary.

I mean, yeah, they'll have to reboot eventually, just because it will all get so dense that introducing new viewers will become impossible. But that's still a long way off.

[Devonix]

Trust me Winter Soldier's not gonna become Cap. Stuff like that works in comics, not so much in film.

If Bucky becomes anything he'll be White Wolf.

[LaZodiac]

So we have to believe that the most powerful and advanced country in the world (with spies everywhere) was afraid of being conquered or that the rulers of Wakanda are truly the least ambitious and most apathetic rulers in the history of the world.

It's strange. I really like the Winter Soldier. But his lines are limited in both movies he appears in, and he's mostly the same quiet intense warrior. He's softened up, a little, in Civil War, but there isn't much to his character. And yet, I like him a lot. But if he's going to be the next Captain America, they're going to have to do a lot in Infinity War to get him up to speed. Because right now we don't have much there in terms of character.

I mean that IS what the Wardog spies are for. Keep some eyes on what the other countries are doing so that, say, a surprise army of Iron Men don't show up on the borders of Wakanda and are like "Your village is being protected by us. Weather you like it or not." and then you have to deal with that. So yeah, they probably are afraid to be conquered, their spies saw what happened to the rest of the world.

I'm going to assume Bucky and Steve are gonna have some really good conversations in Infinity Wars that'll help with that. We've already got a bit more characterization for him by showing him interact with Shuri in Black Panther (even if it's just some minor stuff).

[Dr.Samurai]

Trust me Winter Soldier's not gonna become Cap. Stuff like that works in comics, not so much in film.

If Bucky becomes anything he'll be White Wolf.

Wait, the White Wolf is an actual comic book character?

I mean that IS what the Wardog spies are for. Keep some eyes on what the other countries are doing so that, say, a surprise army of Iron Men don't show up on the borders of Wakanda and are like "Your village is being protected by us. Weather you like it or not." and then you have to deal with that. So yeah, they probably are afraid to be conquered, their spies saw what happened to the rest of the world.

I meant more to say that they don't really have reason to be afraid of being conquered. They've had this super magic metal that can do anything for thousands of years. They would be the conquerors, not the other way around. In other words, history would have turned out differently, but it didn't.

I'm going to assume Bucky and Steve are gonna have some really good conversations in Infinity Wars that'll help with that. We've already got a bit more characterization for him by showing him interact with Shuri in Black Panther (even if it's just some minor stuff).

I'm guessing Wakanda will go along way in healing his mind.

[LaZodiac]

Wait, the White Wolf is an actual comic book character?

I meant more to say that they don't really have reason to be afraid of being conquered. They've had this super magic metal that can do anything for thousands of years. They would be the conquerors, not the other way around. In other words, history would have turned out differently, but it didn't.

I'm guessing Wakanda will go along way in healing his mind.

Yeah White Wolf is a white man in Wakanda adopted by T'Chaka as a second son. In terms of plot he's basically Eric Killmonger from this film with regards to the whole "I want my shot at king!", but T'Chaka fixed that by appointing him to king of secret murder police, which T'Challa disbanded because ****ing christ secret murder police. Then he and his group left Wakanda, became a PMC, and he got a golden Black Panther suit. Much like all of Black Panther's comicbook cast they've changed things slightly to make it less racist and less comicbook-stupid. Read: M'Baqu being called MAN-APE in the comics.

They already implied he's fine in this film. "Oh you brought me another broken white boy to fix" and seeing him at the end talking with people and being...you know, awake and sane.

[Red Fel]

They already implied he's fine in this film. "Oh you brought me another broken white boy to fix" and seeing him at the end talking with people and being...you know, awake and sane.

More than implied. In Avengers: Infinity War Prelude (yeah, a comic), they more directly address Bucky's recuperation and therapy - at Shuri's hands. (Comic spoilers in link.)

Because even in the comics adaptation of the film, Shuri is awesome and better at science than Tony.

But yeah. Of course White Wolf is a character in the comics. Why else would they even include that line in a post-credits scene if it wasn't designed to leave comics fans with soiled trousers?

[Legato Endless]

I agree that a reboot - hard or soft - would be counterproductive. Making all of the films interconnected and interdependent is a marketing genius move. When I saw Black Panther with family, I had to remind them of the events of Civil War that introduced the character and concept of Black Panther, and nod to Age of Ultron, which first introduced Klaue and expanded the notion of Vibranium. Tying the movies together forces an audience that wants to understand everything to go see every single one. Or to pay for a streaming service. Or buy the DVD box set. Everything puts more money into the studio coffers. Rebooting the universe may lower the barrier to entry, but it also resets those connections, making them unnecessary.

I mean, yeah, they'll have to reboot eventually, just because it will all get so dense that introducing new viewers will become impossible. But that's still a long way off.

Close but not quite. It's a genius marketing move to make the films interconnected and appear interdependent. But they're actually meticulously designed not to be. Part of the reason the other cinematic universes have so far failed is they aren't developed as successful standalones. You can watch Avengers without bothering with any of the lead up to it and still grasp the film. Indeed, a lot of people watch the MCU selectively as any glance at the box office numbers will bear out. The big crossovers get huge turnouts, but the solo outings tend to vary. This is a hard concept to grasp here, as this forum is one with people who either go all in for the franchise or write it off entirely. Hell, it's even fooled other major studios.

But the films actually avert this with a clever bait and switch. There's any number of allusions for comic book fans and to previous films, but precious few of them are contingent on enjoying the film. Ragnorok opens on an exposition scene to a corpse for the millions of people who didn't watch the first two Thor films. Even the most continuity heavy film, Civil War, still minimizes this. While Winter Solider and Avengers 2 help greatly, Ant-man is setup in the film to avoid confusing the hefty portion of the audience that passed on his film. The numbers bear this out.

Now yes, to understand everything requires committed consumption, but the average viewer rarely cares about such things. Black Panther was seen and enjoyed by a substantial amount of people who probably won't see any other MCU films, as the film functions fine as a standalone. Knowing the preceding events heightens the experience, but you're fine seeing the film in isolation. This flexibility is what allows the devoted Marvel fan and the casual to both consume the franchise according to their preference. Everyone wins.

I think the joke is on us though, because of the way that Disney has set up the franchise (leading to Infinity War), if you miss any of the movies, you miss out. So...Guaranteed ticket sales, am I right? That's the only reason I saw it. Because if I don't, I feel like I'm going to miss out on something important... And that's such a terrible reason to see a movie.

Except for completionists like Cheesegear.

[Frozen_Feet]

@Dr. Samurai:

Spoiler

Show

About the "King of Wakanda, not all people thing": the opening is clear that Wakanda got founded when the first Black Panther essentially conquered a bunch of warring African tribes.

That's what Killmonger's point is about. He shares basically the same criticism of Wakanda as you do: why stop there? In Killmonger's mind, Wakanda could've been all the world and all the people. That's the wrong he's set on righting.

[Red Fel]

@Dr. Samurai:

Spoiler

Show

About the "King of Wakanda, not all people thing": the opening is clear that Wakanda got founded when the first Black Panther essentially conquered a bunch of warring African tribes.

That's what Killmonger's point is about. He shares basically the same criticism of Wakanda as you do: why stop there? In Killmonger's mind, Wakanda could've been all the world and all the people. That's the wrong he's set on righting.

Spoiler

Show

That's part of the wrong he's set on righting. The other part is what he experienced growing up.

Not to go into too much real-life stuff, but suffice to say this: Killmonger grew up in California in the 80s and 90s. The opening scene takes place in 1992. Stuff was happening that made a lot of people understandably upset. He was also raised on stories of what was essentially an Afrofuturist utopia. So, here he is, convinced that this mythical place that promised peace and protection was real, and living in a reality of injustice and brutality.

Of course he was going to grow up feeling like Wakanda could have done more. Because Wakanda should have done more. Not just for him - son as he was of a prince - but for all the people he saw, searching for someone to protect them.

It wasn't just that the first Panther united all of Wakanda's tribes by force. It was that the Panther, along with Wakanda's Vibranium, promised them protection and justice. And after he grew up with the promise of both and the reality of neither, his position becomes a lot more understandable.

It's why a lot of people are pointing out that, methods aside, Killmonger's concept wasn't completely wrong. And it's what frames the central conflict of the film - not a conflict between individuals (i.e. T'challa vs. Killmonger) but a conflict between ideals (isolating Wakanda to protect it vs. opening up to the world to do what is right).

[Frozen_Feet]

No disagreement there. It's similar to what I said earlier: the villain's point had to be off, or it would be hard to see them as a villain. Yet they also couldn't be completely wrong, or the movie couldn't have the message it has.

[GloatingSwine]

Even the most continuity heavy film, Civil War, still minimizes this. While Winter Solider and Avengers 2 help greatly, Ant-man is setup in the film to avoid confusing the hefty portion of the audience that passed on his film. The numbers bear this out.

Although that does have the slight side effect that from about a third of the way in you could replace Bucky with a puppy and not a lot would change. He doesn't have a lot of agency as a character.

[Amazon]

More than implied. In Avengers: Infinity War Prelude (yeah, a comic)

Wow, things really went full circle hun?

[McStabbington]

Spoiler

Show

That's part of the wrong he's set on righting. The other part is what he experienced growing up.

Not to go into too much real-life stuff, but suffice to say this: Killmonger grew up in California in the 80s and 90s. The opening scene takes place in 1992. Stuff was happening that made a lot of people understandably upset. He was also raised on stories of what was essentially an Afrofuturist utopia. So, here he is, convinced that this mythical place that promised peace and protection was real, and living in a reality of injustice and brutality.

Of course he was going to grow up feeling like Wakanda could have done more. Because Wakanda should have done more. Not just for him - son as he was of a prince - but for all the people he saw, searching for someone to protect them.

It wasn't just that the first Panther united all of Wakanda's tribes by force. It was that the Panther, along with Wakanda's Vibranium, promised them protection and justice. And after he grew up with the promise of both and the reality of neither, his position becomes a lot more understandable.

It's why a lot of people are pointing out that, methods aside, Killmonger's concept wasn't completely wrong. And it's what frames the central conflict of the film - not a conflict between individuals (i.e. T'challa vs. Killmonger) but a conflict between ideals (isolating Wakanda to protect it vs. opening up to the world to do what is right).

Spoiler

Show

And that's precisely where the film got so interesting for me, because Killmonger's ideals are also mated to brutal, corrupt methods. Killmonger is not attempting to replace T'Challa. Killmonger has no vision for the future whatsoever. Killmonger is on a straightforward, ride-or-die mission of vengeance to burn the world down around the people that he sees as having put their boot on his neck. He may be willing to rule over the ashes when its done, but literally anything that comes out of it beyond achieving that vengeance is simply a bonus for him. It's one of the important ways in which Killmonger serves as a dark mirror for T'Challa, because in fact, neither of them have any use for or concern with the outside world beyond Wakanda's borders. At least to start, the only difference is that T'Challa wants to keep Wakanda entirely separate from the world, while Killmonger wants to leverage its technological and military superiority in service to his vengeance.

Rather, the only ones who have any positive vision of the world outside of Wakanda are Nakia and Shuri. Shuri's pretty much a pure ball of idealism, so there's not a lot of meat to it aside from "An outside world! Cool!". But it's Nakia that steps forward and says that we have a duty to all people and all the downtrodden. And she's also the one that, from the start, sees violence as a tool that might, at utmost end of need, become necessary, but it's not what you rely upon. It's telling that in her character's introduction, she's saving other African women, but doing so by infiltration rather than violence.

The speech T'Challa gives at the end? Those are his words, but it's founded as much on Nakia's wisdom as it is T'Challa's sobering experience with Killmonger. It's why T'Challa in the film is a bit of a cypher: because he's the good man that the Devil in Killmonger and the Angels in Nakia and Shuri are wagering for. And like any excellent portrayal of such a battle, Nakia and Shuri aren't exactly on the side of "Heaven", and Killmonger isn't exactly wrong about the injustice of Hell.

[Ramza00]

I think 3 different words apply to Killmonger and they are distinct concepts and some people are having a disagreement for they see 1, 2, or all 3 of these concepts while another person sees a different combination. Let's start with what I call #2 of these 3 concepts.

2) Vegenance is punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong. Vengeance is not personal, for example a neighbor A) may perform vengeance on another neighbor B for the bad actions B did to neighbor C. Almost all current "western" governments say it is only the state that should have the power to do certain forms of vengeance for example the infliction of death / murder / etc. But in Honour based cultures this is not the case, the right to perform vengeance including death / murder is not just a state function.

1) Revenge is a form of Vengeance where you do it for it was a inflicting retribution for a personal injury or wrong.

3) Domination is not about Vengeance or Revenge but is instead about "power dynamics", it is a completely separate animal. Now some domination may be necessary for a creation of a "state" / "nation state" but many people through time and history say too much domination is not good for both individuals and a society, even going so far as saying "Liberty as Non Domination" as a virtue (with Liberty here being not a synonym for Freedom).

Killmonger scars himself (crocodile scars is the term for it looks like the skin of a crocodile) for every person he kills. I do not think this is a "way of remembering the dead" and treasuring them, no to Killmonger this is more of a "Trophy," a trophy both to show off and to take personal gratification in. Furthermore Domination for the sake of creating a state is not just the only time we see Killmonger enjoying dominating others, he is a person who gets off on this.

Can such a man be a noble king if he still likes to manifest these domination desires in his personal and public life? Can he be a king for the people, and not just a hero, when this desire warps his whole perspective on the world?

[Jayngfet]

So I saw it tonight. It was decent. The first hour and a half or so are pretty cool, tightly shot, wonderfully lit, and do a lot right. Then it kind of drags on. You could probably rip half an hour out of the whole film and lose nothing.