After watching Infinity War and without any spoilers...
These guys have done an exceptional job building up the moving parts up to that movie, so much that they could just focus on telling a concise story. And what's amazing about it is how patiently they allowed character growth in ways other similar franchises didn't allow themselves to develop.
For example the common complaint about Superman is that he's boring. He's got too much power, he's a nice guy, there isn't much you can do with him.
And yet look at Thor; his power levels are off the charts, yet tracking his journey from the arrogant happy-go-lucky princeling who just wants to go have fun adventures with his trusted friends and annoying brother to the guy he was in Ragnaroc, coping with personal loss and the responsibility he's having to shoulder leading up to the fall of Asgard... that's interesting. You could take that characterization down many different paths, and the fact he can hurl lightning and punch people super-hard isn't in the way of those possibilities at all.
Or Captain America - he's the ultimate do-gooder, right? He's a walking flag, which should have limited him even further. Yet by anchoring him as a morality beacon and letting others respond to him Marvel created a really fun character. He's a badass (the elevator scene in Winter Soldier was incredible) and he has great chemistry with Iron-Man which improves on both of them immensely; either wouldn't be as cool outside of their conflict.
That's what makes something like Infinity War work. All the ground work has already been done so they can focus on telling really cool stories since the setup is already in place. And a lot of it - IMHO - comes from the fact there's one guy in charge of the whole vision, coordinating the overall arc to make sure every movie isn't just doing its own thing; Kevin Feige deserves a heap of praise.
@arkandel said in Good or New Movies Review:
Or Captain America - he's the ultimate do-gooder, right? He's a walking flag, which should have limited him even further. Yet by anchoring him as a morality beacon and letting others respond to him Marvel created a really fun character.
This could be a whole discussion topic, but I actually loathe Cap in the movieverse after Civil War, I think he was unintentionally written as incredibly selfish and basically a walking projection of not the American flag but a lot of unconscious modern jingoism, especially given how far they had to stretch to rationalize his side of the core conflict in that movie. That's not a popular opinion, I know.
(edit: Also, he just by his very nature draws the most obnoxious part of the Marvel movie fanbase to him, the "USA! USA! USAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!" crowd, at least out here anyway. Not really entirely his fault or related to the movies, but still.)
I have the opposite view to Wizz. I found Iron Man to be representative of the ultra-conservative 'control everyone's lives for profit!' while Iron Man struck me as the liberal 'freedom for the individual' type.
@admiral
Stark's argument for UN oversight had nothing to do with profit. The Avengers are a wildcard that cannot contain their own mistakes and collateral damage, both Avengers movies (and even the intro to Civil War) basically go out of their way to prove that.
Cap's counter-argument was basically "WHO ARE THESE EGGHEADS TO TELL US WHAT TO DO," which is so 'Murica it hurts.
@wizz Your argument makes sense, but the Marvel-verse (in all its many properties) paints the UN as a limp, bureaucratic nightmare that consistently trips over itself and makes things worse.
By the time they voted to send the Avengers into a situation there'd be monkeys flying out of asses already.
America used to be the land of individualism and freedom, sure, so Captain America is representative of that.
Current America, though... is all fear and control. Ever since 2001 we've been on a steady slide towards a xenophobic dystopia.
And don't even get into the whole 'registry' thing. Stark can take off his suit and walk around without anyone giving a damn, but you've got people with mutations/powers who would basically have to sign away their freedom if they agreed to it.
I dunno. I think the whole Civil War thing is great either way. But Stark is a giant flaming poopnozzle. (So is RDJ, but that's why they're a good fit.)
This is late because I don't usually go see movies but I just caught a copy of the Black Panther and I have to wonder, does no one else find it hilarious that the movie is a white supremacist dream come true, but for black people?
If you changed Wakanda into Texas and reversed the race of the actors, this movie would be every white-nationalist manifesto ever written rolled into one.
@carex said in Good or New Movies Review:
This is late because I don't usually go see movies but I just caught a copy of the Black Panther and I have to wonder, does no one else find it hilarious that the movie is a white supremacist dream come true, but for black people?
- All Wakandans are of the same people so there is no crime or social problems.
There are actually several tribes in Wakanda, one of which lives in remove from the others and actually becomes a source of internal social conflict.
- King is treated like a celebrity. No one is allowed to challenge.
Except, like. The ritual challenge? That is built in? Like -- that's a really important plot point? The fact that no one expects T'challa to be challenged is indication that the Panther Tribe is actively cultivating good relationships with the other tribes. (Except the Jabari, who have isolated themselves, and then return to challenge.)
- Wakanda intervenes militarily where ever it wants in the world.
Except -- part of the major points is that it doesn't? Like. This was the core conflict of the film. They have agents all over the world, but they work quietly at most. It was Erik who wanted to start intervening militarily.
- Leader kills his political enemies.
W -- hen? The time T'challa didn't kill M'baku? Or the time he wanted to save Erik and Erik refused?
- Black Panther is the Randian hero personified.
You either wildly didn't understand Black Panther or you super don't understand what a Randian hero is. T'challa is the opposite of an individualist hero: his duty to protect his people and the civilization around him over his own personal desires is the core of his character.
If you changed Wakanda into Texas and reversed the race of the actors, this movie would be every white-nationalist manifesto ever written rolled into one.
There's a pretty huge difference between white nationalism, which is closely connected to colonialism, which invades other territories and then conquers, pushes out, or exterminates the natives, and a fantasy about a small piece of Africa that managed to avoid colonization and thrive.
Also, did you miss how the answer to the core conflict of the film -- "Should Wakanda be opening itself up to help other nations" -- was that, yes, they in fact should be opening up? Like. The whole conclusion was that their isolationist policy was a mistake and that they had a responsibility to use their power to help better those in need elsewhere.
@admiral said in Good or New Movies Review:
Your argument makes sense, but the Marvel-verse (in all its many properties) paints the UN as a limp, bureaucratic nightmare that consistently trips over itself and makes things worse.
I honestly don't think the UN is portrayed before Civil War in the movieverse (which is what we're discussing, the Civil War arc in the comics is a completely different story IMHO)?
I could be wrong. But Cap's distrust comes from his experience with SHIELD, which is...apples and oranges and not fair.
By the time they voted to send the Avengers into a situation there'd be monkeys flying out of asses already
Yeah, bureaucracy can be a hassle. Then again, Cap decides his best friend's "freedom" is more important than the lives of dozens if not hundreds of other people, purely because he's his best friend. His judgment is suspect.
(Seriously, I could write a paper on this, haha.)
@arkandel Our local theatre is nothing but heated recliners. They jacked the prices 5 bucks, but it means we just don't get popcorn. So nice.
Yes there are several tribes, of the same genetic stock who are separated and defined by their jobs. River Tribe, Mining Tribe so forth and so on, but it would be like saying white people aren't all white because some of them work in factories and some of them work in fast-food.
That happens once in his entire life time in which he can only be challenged by other members of the Oligarchy/Royalty? What are sheep farmers suppose to do if they want more out of life? The only people who can create social change of any kind are the ones in power and have no reason to change anything.
He has strike teams of warriors with high tech weapons, spies planted across the globe, and flies his stealth jet around hunting down people who piss him off and trying to kill them or capture them to bring back as prisoners with no due process, no extradition and no respect for international law.
Imagine if any other nation in the world did that.
Yeah, that spear in the chest was just a friendly love-tap? When his own General scolded him for not letting the token American die I'm sure she was just mouthing off to the King for fun.
Bullshit. Most of his people live like they are a third world nation in order to protect his secrets.
He spends the entire movie trying to convince the woman he wants to give up her silly dream of stopping human trafficking so he can hit that hot, lonely pussy every night.
The entire movie was literally about him and how great a king he was. He never, for one second, stopped thinking about his control over his nation and his legacy.
When he found out about Killmonger he could have sent people to bring him back and welcomed him as a brother. They could have reached out to help the world together but his first reaction was to banish him from the kingdom and protect his own power.
That is why Killmonger was yelling, "Ask me my name!" and T'chala refused. He was going to keep the truth from the council to protect himself and his control. His actions are selfishness cloaked in nobility. His every action is to secure his power and nothing more.
The ending of the movie was him finally learning to not be a selfish asshole and he still didn't actually open his borders. He started outreach programs and was willing to share his technology but Wakanda, that stays firmly under his control and isolated so he keeps his power.
He knew the world was going to find out about Wakanda, it had been too exposed. It was only a matter of time. Now everything happens his way, on his terms, and he looks like the great big hero coming to save the world with is generosity but he never, ever, gives up control.
Jesus. That's a hell of a series of takes on Black Panther, I guess.
maximum craveability
@carex hot take
I'm not saying it was a bad movie. It was good and I enjoyed it. I'm just saying, objectively, it's not a movie people should be pointing at as a liberal ideal just because it's got black people in it. It's suuuper racist and the character of Black Panther is a shit person who has to learn basic human empathy through the course of the movie.
@carex said in Good or New Movies Review:
I'm not saying it was a bad movie. It was good and I enjoyed it. I'm just saying, objectively, it's not a movie people should be pointing at as a liberal ideal just because it's got black people in it. It's suuuper racist and the character of Black Panther is a shit person who has to learn basic human empathy through the course of the movie.
It's not racist.
Even Wakanda isn't racist.
It may be isolationist and even xenophobic, but it is not racist. There is a difference there.
I can't say I disagree with every point you make, though--I also can't say I didn't think about it before, though. It just seems like something entirely superfluous to argue about given the MCU also has stars like Tony Stark, who literally begins his story being a war profiteer.
I actually don't think that we've really seen a clear example of the daily life of Wakandan citizens; we've only seen the upper echelons of their society. I don't think that the rest of their people are considered third world citizens. I do think that this assumption is due to a lack of understanding when it comes to Afrofuturism and how tribal societies entertwine with modern technologies.
Likewise, the tribes aren't just work groups, and even if they were, they'd still be micro-cultures in their own right, with their own hierarchies and representation, as indicated in the movie.
Yeah, I'mma gonna see dat.
@cupcake said in Good or New Movies Review:
I actually don't think that we've really seen a clear example of the daily life of Wakandan citizens;
Not in the move that i recall though it should be noted in comics when they have been shown it has been depicted as very rural, though we have never seen much so it could still be first world rural.
@thatguythere said in Good or New Movies Review:
first world rural
So...Trump rallies? GPS-driven tractors? Corporations suing independent farmers for GMO use because they managed to convince the courts to overlook how pollination works?
Or maybe utopian rural.
Well, Wakandan history was always 'Wakanda First!' so I guess you could consider the previous king 'Wakandan Trump'.
..or is the current one Trump? Make Wakanda Great Again?
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY SPOILERS FLOATING AROUND?!
@admiral
Stark's argument for UN oversight had nothing to do with profit. The Avengers are a wildcard that cannot contain their own mistakes and collateral damage, both Avengers movies (and even the intro to Civil War) basically go out of their way to prove that.
Cap's counter-argument was basically "WHO ARE THESE EGGHEADS TO TELL US WHAT TO DO," which is so 'Murica it hurts.
