Jump to content

Black Panther with spoilers


Bazza
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

The studio didn't want to do the old Asian guy as that is a stereotype and they wanted to move away from that. Meaning they were conscious of this.

 

I think it was mostly they just wanted that sweet, sweet Chinese market and putting an aged Tibetan monk into the film as the master wouldn't play well there at all with the government censors.

 

I found advance footage of the costume for Black Panther 2:

29386638_2070101299674246_77469963390277

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, there's a difference between breaking a promise, and failing a mission. I think W'Kabi knows the difference but was just so frustrated that he allowed himself to become petty about it. Which while understandable to some people, still bothered me. It also bugged me that T'Challa did nothing to set him straight, suggesting that he half agreed with W'Kabi, which is utter nonsense.

 

As for their challenge ritual, it isn't the ritual itself that is problematic. It is the fact that no nation is going to want to establish formal relations with a government whose leadership is decided solely on the basis of a hand-to-hand combat trial that can happen at any time. You can't build effective political, economic, and military agreements when you can't even count on the leadership (and its ideology) remaining in place from day to day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think T'Challa half agreed with W'Kabi. They were elite operatives with the best resources Wakanda could supply, they had Klaue right in front of them, and they let him slip through their fingers. Any excuses for that failure are just that, excuses.

 

I got the strong impression that the challenge ritual is usually ceremonial. When T'Challa was first at the falls for his coronation, clearly no one expected M'Baku to show up to contest his right to kingship. T'Chaka near the end of his life obviously wasn't up to a life-or-death fight. It's also implied that the king can't be challenged by just anyone. M'Baku was leader of one of the five Wakandan tribes, while Killmonger was of royal blood himself. Finally, it appears up to the king to decide if a particular challenger has the right and deserves to face him. There might be a heavy political price to pay if the king refused, but the other tribal leaders may have some say in that. None of them contested M'Baku's right to challenge, but several urged T'Challa not to extend that courtesy to Killmonger. It may be that challenges can normally only be held at a new king's coronation, or afterward at the discretion of the king.

 

Governments of nations change all the time. What matters is the track record of new administrations in keeping to the agreements established by previous ones. (One of the factors about the current regime in the United States that worries the rest of the world.) But keep in mind that until very recently, the Wakandan leadership didn't particularly care about relations with other nations. They were isolationist and largely self-sufficient. Now that he's opened Wakanda to the world more, T'Challa may be open to systemic changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

I think it was mostly they just wanted that sweet, sweet Chinese market and putting an aged Tibetan monk into the film as the master wouldn't play well there at all with the government censors.

 

I found advance footage of the costume for Black Panther 2:

29386638_2070101299674246_77469963390277

 

 

That's just his mourning clothes for the death of Ant-Man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

I do think T'Challa half agreed with W'Kabi. They were elite operatives with the best resources Wakanda could supply, they had Klaue right in front of them, and they let him slip through their fingers. Any excuses for that failure are just that, excuses.

 

I got the strong impression that the challenge ritual is usually ceremonial. When T'Challa was first at the falls for his coronation, clearly no one expected M'Baku to show up to contest his right to kingship. T'Chaka near the end of his life obviously wasn't up to a life-or-death fight. It's also implied that the king can't be challenged by just anyone. M'Baku was leader of one of the five Wakandan tribes, while Killmonger was of royal blood himself. Finally, it appears up to the king to decide if a particular challenger has the right and deserves to face him. There might be a heavy political price to pay if the king refused, but the other tribal leaders may have some say in that. None of them contested M'Baku's right to challenge, but several urged T'Challa not to extend that courtesy to Killmonger. It may be that challenges can normally only be held at a new king's coronation, or afterward at the discretion of the king.

 

Governments of nations change all the time. What matters is the track record of new administrations in keeping to the agreements established by previous ones. (One of the factors about the current regime in the United States that worries the rest of the world.) But keep in mind that until very recently, the Wakandan leadership didn't particularly care about relations with other nations. They were isolationist and largely self-sufficient. Now that he's opened Wakanda to the world more, T'Challa may be open to systemic changes.

 

There is a big difference between a reason and an excuse. T'Challa didn't have to contend that the possibility of mission failure (which always exists, I don't care how elite you or your team are) made failure "okay". All he had to do was contend that mission failure is not the same as not trying, or the same as having a policy of turning a blind eye to Klaue's crimes. W'Kabi seemed to view the mission failure as being equivalent to not even making the effort.

 

You make good points about the challenge trial. Let's hope that T'Challa has the good sense not to let challenges like Killmonger's lead him to poor judgment again in the future. Otherwise his rule may not be as enduring and prosperous as his father's was. If he thought ruling Wakanda was tricky before, it's only going to get trickier as all kinds of outside influences start to have their effect on Wakandan society.

 

Governments of nations change all the time, but usually the change is slow and gradual. When a coup d'état occurs, it becomes a potentially serious international problem. That's what happened to Wakanda. Luckily for them, it happened (and then un-happened) before they opened up and decided to create formal diplomatic, economic, and (presumably) military ties to other First World nations. If it happens again merely because their sitting king is goaded into accepting a challenge for his throne, a challenge which is decided "in the octagon", so to speak, where the ability to govern takes a back seat to the ability to fight a single opponent to the death (or submission), it will be difficult for any nation to see the value in forming and maintaining their international relationships with them.

 

Yes, Wakanda is "opening up" now, but they seem to hold on to their ancient traditions very dearly, despite the more modern demeanor of people like Shuri. It remains to be seen just how many of their old ways they are willing to set aside and let die in order to have any credibility on the world stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Ditto. I also got the impression from W'kabi's remarks that the late King T'chaka hadn't made capturing or killing Klaue a priority. But in this instance the Wakandans knew in advance when and where Klaue was going to be. They sent the Black Panther, their best spy, and their finest warrior to retrieve him. T'challa promised W'kabi personally that he would bring Klaue back. Then had to tell him that they still failed. Again.

It wasn't explicitly said, but I think a big part of the problem was them choosing to concentrate on saving an outsider's life (in gratitude for him rescuing Nakia) rather than continuing the pursuit of Klaue at all costs. If W'kabi was aware that they came back with Ross in tow for medical treatment, it may have been a big sticking point for him that the new king was yet again prioritizing some other agenda over justice for his parents. If T'Challa had sent Nakia back to save Ross while he and Okoye continued trying to bring Klaue to heel, things might have played out very differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zslane said:

Governments of nations change all the time, but usually the change is slow and gradual. When a coup d'état occurs, it becomes a potentially serious international problem. That's what happened to Wakanda. Luckily for them, it happened (and then un-happened) before they opened up and decided to create formal diplomatic, economic, and (presumably) military ties to other First World nations. If it happens again merely because their sitting king is goaded into accepting a challenge for his throne, a challenge which is decided "in the octagon", so to speak, where the ability to govern takes a back seat to the ability to fight a single opponent to the death (or submission), it will be difficult for any nation to see the value in forming and maintaining their international relationships with them.

 

If the king actually can simply be goaded into accepting a challenge for his throne, he may deserve to be booted out of it. ;)  Again, for all the reasons I cited previously, I believe the circumstances depicted in the movie were very exceptional. But Killmonger's ascension to the throne was definitely not a coup d'etat. It was fully according to Wakandan law, as all witnesses agreed. Lawful transitions of power don't always lead to smooth and gradual changes in domestic or foreign policy -- I hate to keep bringing up the latest American election, but it is a pertinent recent example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T'Challa understood that when a mission goes sideways, you still have opportunities to bring in (or kill) a fugitive of the state, but you only get one chance to save a man's life after he suffers a mortal wound. It is a grave matter of ethical priority-setting, and T'Challa had to make a very quick decision on the spot. It's what leaders do. W'Kabi, presumably having never faced such tough decisions, was in no position to judge IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, zslane said:

T'Challa understood that when a mission goes sideways, you still have opportunities to bring in (or kill) a fugitive of the state, but you only get one chance to save a man's life after he suffers a mortal wound. It is a grave matter of ethical priority-setting, and T'Challa had to make a very quick decision on the spot. It's what leaders do. W'Kabi, presumably having never faced such tough decisions, was in no position to judge IMO.

 

I agree, and I personally agree with T'Challa's decision. But I also understand why W'Kabi would consider the ethics of letting one man guilty of many terrible crimes, including against his family personally, get away to commit more crimes, while saving the life of a stranger for one selfless act, was the wrong ethical choice. Besides, I can't remember an occasion when being in no position to judge kept someone from doing it. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put. However, I still feel W'Kabi's reaction, indeed his entire perspective, was a bit contrived, for the primary purpose of making it easier for us to swallow the idea that he would side with Killmonger in the ensuing inter-tribal conflict, even after watching Killmonger kill his best friend (regardless of the fact that it was "legal").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember two things:

-- Eric presented Klaue to W'Kabi thus giving him the justice the State was unable to provide

-- He, like most, presubled T'Challa was dead after he fell over that cliff. 

 

That is pretty convincing to me for someone to "switch sides". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And rather than T'Challa's death making him angry (and maybe even a little vengeful?), like it did everyone else who was close to T'Challa, W'Kabi just thought, "Good riddance"? Look at how Killmonger's rise to the throne tore at Okoye's heart. It even forced to her completely re-evaluate her notions of duty and loyalty. W'Kabi exhibited no such conflict within him. I guess I'm just placing far too much weight on T'Challa's (misguided) understanding of his "best friend's" regard for him.

 

If the movie intended to paint W'Kabi as a co-villain, then I'd say it surely succeeded. But if it intended to make W'Kabi's actions sympathetic and "understandable" then the movie failed for me in this respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also consider that the direction Killmonger was taking Wakanda toward -- conquest and dominance in the world -- was essentially the same course W'Kabi had been urging T'Challa to take before Killmonger ever arrived. Between that and killing Klaue, Killmonger must have looked to W'Kabi like a king who has finally doing what the king of Wakanda should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Also consider that the direction Killmonger was taking Wakanda toward -- conquest and dominance in the world -- was essentially the same course W'Kabi had been urging T'Challa to take before Killmonger ever arrived. Between that and killing Klaue, Killmonger must have looked to W'Kabi like a king who has finally doing what the king of Wakanda should.

 

I can see both sides of the W'Kabi issue. On one hand, he was politically and personally at odds with the established rule from the beginning. OTOH, he never SEEMED angry enough to openly fight and kill his own people. I found W'Kabi completely believable in so much as he argued very logically and reasonably for Wakandan aggression both before and after Killmonger showed up. What we didn't see was his reason for being willing to sacrifice Wakanda for his revenge.

 

First, Killmonger gives him his revenge, and gets him to present him to the court. All on the up & up. They make their argument to the court. T'Challa accepted the challenge from Killmonger and died... unfortunate, but them's the rules. Now, Killmonger was never intending to lead Wakanda in any kind of reasonable way... he was out for the power to enact his revenge, no matter what he destroyed along the way... but W'Kabi was willing to get him into power for his own agenda. BUT.. once KM started burning the sacred herb and when T'Challa showed back up alive, and said "The challenge is not over..." then W'Kabi had a choice to make.

 

This is where I think the movie wasn't wrong, but could have given us a much more emotional scene. When W'Kabi chose to fight with Killmonger in the final battle... let us, the audiene, see some kind of conflict. He knows that now, the rules ARE being broken. Killmonger is no longer the accepted King by law. W'Kabi has to decide to fight with him and sacrifice his country, love and friend/King... or he can decide to say, "Ok... hold on. As much as I want you to kick the world's ass, the law of Wakanda is paramount, so we have to resolve that first."  


This is W'Kabi's true thematic moment... and we don't get to see more than a minor hesitation.

 

It is completely logical that, having gone as far as he has, W'Kabi couldn't back down at that moment... but we never got to see or really feel (as the audience) any personal struggle. If this was a Shakespearean play (which it resembled in some ways in structure) that moment would have had a long monologue from W'Kabi of anguish and introspection, so we could have known his internal thoughts on betrayal and vengeance, etc.


I'm wondering how much of that was just left on the cutting room floor, since there is supposedly a four hour version of this movie out there that I hope we get to see, one day.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the need to stand up a bit for MCU's King T'Chaka. Yes, he made a  big and tragic mistake in his youth in how he dealt with Killmonger; OTOH we saw him declare in Civil War that Wakanda would become more involved in world affairs after the Lagos incident, and backed up that claim by spearheading the diplomatic drive to institute the Sokovia Accords. T'Challa is really carrying forward what his father started, albeit taking it farther than T'Chaka probably intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

I feel the need to stand up a bit for MCU's King T'Chaka. Yes, he made a  big and tragic mistake in his youth in how he dealt with Killmonger; OTOH we saw him declare in Civil War that Wakanda would become more involved in world affairs after the Lagos incident, and backed up that claim by spearheading the diplomatic drive to institute the Sokovia Accords. T'Challa is really carrying forward what his father started, albeit taking it farther than T'Chaka probably intended.

 

Totally agree on these accounts. When it comes to the tragedy begun by killing his brother and mostly by leaving Killmonger behind, if you just accept the "we couldn't let anyone find out" deal, that seams a bit lame. Taking the body and the kid WITH you seems more likely to keep your secret, right?

 

But there is a not so subtle undertone of "outsider wouldn't be accepted in Wakanda" theme here. That even Eric's father knew he would not be considered part of the people, let alone accepted into the royal family. It wasn't emphasized, but Wakanda's own elitists/isolationist tendencies really probably do consider non-Wakandans inferior, etc.

 

Probably not a fun movie, but I'd be totally up for the internal politics that explode in Wakanda as it is opened to the world, as the common person is much more likely to be conservative and fearful of big change, rather than open an excited by it.

 

It will be a long while before, or if, we get a chance to see that, as we have to deal with Thanos blowing stuff up for the next year and half, but... maybe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

That even Eric's father knew he would not be considered part of the people, let alone accepted into the royal family. It wasn't emphasized, but Wakanda's own elitists/isolationist tendencies really probably do consider non-Wakandans inferior, etc.

 

But what about half-Wakandans? Eric's father should have known that his son's claim to the throne--or at least the right to challenge for it--would be recognized by all the tribes. I mean, Eric clearly believed he would be allowed to challenge the sitting king. Where did that belief come from? Moreover, his challenge was recognized as legitimate, and accepted by its king.

 

As for T'Chaka, he didn't have to kill Eric's father. He could have taken him in for Wakandan trial without harming him (much), taking Eric along with them. If Eric is Wakandan enough to (one day) challenge for the throne (as Wakandan law clearly allows), then he is Wakandan enough to bring him there and properly introduce/indoctrinate him to the culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, zslane said:

 

But what about half-Wakandans? Eric's father should have known that his son's claim to the throne--or at least the right to challenge for it--would be recognized by all the tribes. I mean, Eric clearly believed he would be allowed to challenge the sitting king. Where did that belief come from? Moreover, his challenge was recognized as legitimate, and accepted by its king.

 

As for T'Chaka, he didn't have to kill Eric's father. He could have taken him in for Wakandan trial without harming him (much), taking Eric along with them. If Eric is Wakandan enough to (one day) challenge for the throne (as Wakandan law clearly allows), then he is Wakandan enough to bring him there and properly introduce/indoctrinate him to the culture.

 

I agree that this was a divisive point. Why did T'Chaka kill him and not just take him in? We don't really know. I'm just saying that the implication is more than just "don't get found out" which as I stated, would have been better resolved by taking Eric with them.

 

I also felt it was clear that there were those who would have summarily dismissed Eric's claim, royal or not... and it was only because T'Challa felt guilty and was goaded into allowing it (past the due date as it were) that it went as far as it did. Sure there would have been much of an action movie to say, "Nope... not gonna. Put this guy in jail and we'll hash this out in the court." Probably more of a R.R. Martin version of Black Panther at that point, with way more court intrigue, assassinations, overthrows, etc.

 

I still feel that Killmonger never intended any kind of long term rule... just getting in there and sending out the weapons and starting a war, before any kind of resistance or revolt could form. The inevitable revolt would have been horrible an bloody, but too late, once world governments were being toppled. "Sun never sets on Wakanda" was just a line... not something he realistically expected to happen. He just wanted his vengeance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T'Chaka killed his brother (N'Jobu) because he was about to kill the man who reported him. Who grew up to be Forest Whitaker's character, Zuri.  T'Chaka saved his life. (I'm going to link to the IMDB page with the cast list so we can all refer to the characters' names): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1825683/fullcredits

 

I'm struck by the fact the Wakandan court didn't know the truth about N'Jobu's death, nor that he had a son. I think T'Chaka may have covered it up to keep them from learning of N'Jobu's betrayal of their law by helping Klaue steal vibranium. With his brother dead he may have wanted to avoid sullying N'Jobu's memory. Bringing Eric back would have made that impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

I also felt it was clear that there were those who would have summarily dismissed Eric's claim, royal or not... and it was only because T'Challa felt guilty and was goaded into allowing it (past the due date as it were) that it went as far as it did. Sure there would have been much of an action movie to say, "Nope... not gonna. Put this guy in jail and we'll hash this out in the court." Probably more of a R.R. Martin version of Black Panther at that point, with way more court intrigue, assassinations, overthrows, etc.

 

I still feel that Killmonger never intended any kind of long term rule... just getting in there and sending out the weapons and starting a war, before any kind of resistance or revolt could form. The inevitable revolt would have been horrible an bloody, but too late, once world governments were being toppled. "Sun never sets on Wakanda" was just a line... not something he realistically expected to happen. He just wanted his vengeance.

Pretty much my take on things. As technologically advanced and prosperous as Wakanda is, it appears to be a small nation with a single sizeable city. I don't believe it would be possible for it to conquer the world, though it could destabilize a lot of world governments before all the new enemies it made managed to turn it into a wasteland. Which was probably Eric's endgame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...