He did. The Russos could always retcon that but I'm hoping they don't.
He did. The Russos could always retcon that but I'm hoping they don't.
I looked at him as the half measure or the bar. I think the worst he could have been, Killmonger would have never reached that level.
I'm having a difficult time parsing this. Are you saying if Killmonger's father went all the way in his plan Killmonger's plan in the movie would have paled in comparison?
It's hard to say. Theoretically, he might have hated his father. The man who kept him from his fairy tale.
That is interesting. It is hard to tell how drastic of an impact N'Jobu's plan would've had if successful. And even alive he surely would have been barred from Wakanda alongside his son.
Thanos could be attacking Wakanda just to get the vibranium.
In fact, it seems increasingly likely to me that we won't see the Soul stone until Captain Marvel or Avengers 4.
My take as well. During the astral plane trip, N'Jobu seemed to express regret at the path he set Erik on, so I don't get the impression he was as bloodthisrty as his son.
Vibranium.is.good but not Thanos good.Thanos could be attacking Wakanda just to get the vibranium.
In fact, it seems increasingly likely to me that we won't see the Soul stone until Captain Marvel or Avengers 4.
I don't understand the "Killmonger sought out violence against women" take.
His hands were rated E for everybody.
Because the Avengers are holed up there, maybe with Vision?
There are plenty of reasons. Coogler already said (I think) that there's no gem in Wakanda. Or at least that it isn't the source of the HSH's power.
And judging by the trailer that doesn't work out too well for themOh shit, didn't know this.
But if Vision is there, I guess that he'd be the gem lol.
Yeah. Killmonger was ready to fight anyone. The women were just the ones who stood up to him.
I don't understand the "Killmonger sought out violence against women" take.
His hands were rated E for everybody.
So the timeline post Civil War is this right?
Civil War
Black Panther
Spider-Man Homecoming
Ant-Man and the Wasp
Thor Ragnarok
Infinity War
That's what I'm thinking, though I guess you could fit Ant-Man & the Wasp anywhere between Civil War & Thor: Ragnarök until we get more details.So the timeline post Civil War is this right?
Civil War
Black Panther
Spider-Man Homecoming
Ant-Man and the Wasp
Thor Ragnarok
Infinity War
Yep. Until recently I was under the impression that Doctor Strange took place sometime after Civil War, but I'm sure now it takes place after Ant-Man and before Civil War.So the timeline post Civil War is this right?
Civil War
Black Panther
Spider-Man Homecoming
Ant-Man and the Wasp
Thor Ragnarok
Infinity War
I don't understand the "Killmonger sought out violence against women" take.
His hands were rated E for everybody.
Yep. Until recently I was under the impression that Doctor Strange took place sometime after Civil War, but I'm sure now it takes place after Ant-Man and before Civil War.
I'm pretty sure Feige and Derrickson debunked this. The man mentioned in Doctor Strange is not Rhodey.
I would say he sought it out, the violence against women just stood out more.
But Killmonger was about even in his on screen kills. Maybe we're just not used to seeing women getting it like that.
You are basically doing what the Wakandans, do, though. You look to what's more familiar and decides that it's more "enlightened" because maybe it mostly works compared to other things.Nah, I can agree that, that part doesn't really make a lot of sense. But, I suspend my disbelief considering that Asgard doesn't seem much better. But, the idea that they've made technological progress for so many years but have made zero social progress is a little weird. Like, it's still apparently an absolute monarchy that determines its successor through ritual blood death combat. It's not completely unrealistic when you have countries like Saudi Arabia around, but it paints Wakanda is a bad light, as less "enlightened." If I could change things I'd make it so the monarchy is not absolute, the King is the figurehead and protector, but he's bound by the will of an elected Council. I'd also make the ritual blood combat a really ancient rule that most people have forgotten, but Killmonger being an expert on history knows about it and invokes the ancient right through his royal blood.
Not to mention that, both from a philosophical and practical reality standpoint, it's literally impossible to have a perfect government, no matter how "advanced" you are.You are basically doing what the Wakandans, do, though. You look to what's more familiar and decides that it's more "enlightened" because maybe it mostly works compared to other things.
Wakanda is an isolationist country that looks outward as the whole world turns chaotic while they continue to be the most prosperous and advanced. They didn't really have that much incentive and necessity to change the tradition that has been working really well for them for hundreds of years.
Should have? Why? Because it's in the comics? Where Coogler took it was infinitely better. That was some great character writing right there.
TSM said:It was a great quote, but the movie set up Killmonger as a misanthropic monster that just wanted the world to burn.
They had him kill his own girlfriend in cold blood just to demonstrate how monstrous he actually was. It was pointed out numerous times that he was trained to destabilize governments, and the first thing he did was start a civil war in Wakanda and was in the process of starting a world war. It was a moment of grandstanding and self justification. The movie then went on to have T'Challa sow the seeds of a real movement for empowerment.
Sho_Nuff said:It was what he was taught (by the US, no less) as the only way to bring about real change. Regime instability and violence via overwhelming physical force. He saw Wakanda as a tool for African revenge on the world, with himself as the potential new ruler. If he's wrong (and most would agree he is), it means most nations of the world have been wrong at one or more times in their history, many more recent than others.
TSM said:Absolutely, but it robbed the statement of some of the power it could have had if spoken by someone more worthy. In this context it essentially is just another way of saying "I regret nothing I have done." Having said that it's still great that someone is rubbing American's noses in our terrible past during a blockbuster movie.
Equating himself with the slaves shipped to the Americas for any punishment he received is extremely self serving and arrogant. Though his claimed motivations might have been worthy, Killmonger himself was a monstrous sociopath. In the end he was a coward that would rather die than to face the consequences for what he had done.
Sho Nuff said:In the context of this fictional universe, what would make him more worthy? He took over Wakanda legally in less than a week by dropping three bodies, one of whom totally had it coming and the hero was heartbeats away from killing himself. Aside from his brief period as a mercenary, which he admitted were a means to an end, his character genuinely believed he had done nothing wrong.
The central theme of the movie is that we as a society create new Killmongers every day, all over the world. Many of them by locking up or killing their fathers. Most of them don't have the discipline or the means to take over a sovereign nation, but people fed up with being tread upon by the world will eventually lash out. That is why Lupita's character repeatedly says she's not just going to sit at home, that's why in the end T'Challa finally decides to open Wakandas borders. Erik is wrong because his solution for uplifting blacks is shitting on everyone else. Throwing him in jail would be no different from what he would have been faced with as an angry youth in his own neighborhood. Is that making the black community a better place?
TSM said:I'm saying Erik didn't actually care about uplifting blacks. He said he did, but at no point in the movie did he act like he actually cared about any other human on the planet. He killed his girlfriend point blank and showed no regrets whatsoever. He gloried in killing people to the point that he covered his body in celebratory scarification. His sole motivation appeared to purely be revenge. From what we saw he just wanted to watch the world burn down around him so everyone could feel the pain he felt. When he died there was no plea for T'Challa to use Wakanda's power to make life better for black people.
That's what I think it is. If we are going to have women in positions of power within a narrative, then they are naturally going to be involved in the conflicts when the antagonistic agent comes to try and wrestle power away. It's....literally just the necessary part of an action movie. The only way to really avoid this is to take power out of their hands, so women's suffering could only be a matter of villainous targeting rather than incidental to the conflict of the narrative.I would say he sought it out, the violence against women just stood out more.
But Killmonger was about even in his on screen kills. Maybe we're just not used to seeing women getting it like that.
There's nothing subpar about Black Panther.
They literally never call Erik Killmonger. The closest they get is Ross saying it the one time when explaining his backstory "he racked up so many kills they started calling him Killmonger."
Not that I'd have minded if they had used the name a few times. Shit, it's a live title lol. Villain names are an art form. Don't wanna fuck around and end up being Taserface.
Not that it affects anything, but I do recall T'Challa referring to him as Killmonger once.
I wouldn't say that. There was some awful editing in Civil War.
That's what I think it is. If we are going to have women in positions of power within a narrative, then they are naturally going to be involved in the conflicts when the antagonistic agent comes to try and wrestle power away. It's....literally just the necessary part of an action movie. The only way to really avoid this is to take power out of their hands, so women's suffering could only be a matter of villainous targeting rather than incidental to the conflict of the narrative.[/QUOTE]
He might have.
Which means the name is said a grand total of two times, and never by the villain himself. *shrug*
except that's exactly what happens with the garden burning scene and him shooting his taken-hostage girlfriend.
I don't agree. "Choke out the dissenting authority figure" is a trope as old as time, with the most infamous example being Darth Vader choking out a rando admiral for casually shit talking him. Holding someone up by the throat is just a very evokative imagine of dominance and malice that is used almost any time there is a superpowered encounter with a villain. There is nothing notable about it itself, it's just we rarely see it happen to a woman.except that's exactly what happens with the garden burning scene and him shooting his taken-hostage girlfriend.
Game showAnd again; that'd matter if he wouldn't have done the exact same thing to a man in that position. Hell, he kills the man the old woman is replacing and kills two men at the same time as his girlfriend, only really taking any joy out of Klaw's death.
He even claims he'll kill the children of anyone who dares oppose him while speaking in the throne room.
His response to anyone in his way is violence. It's not at all gendered.
Holy shit.
Clear hack....right?
"I want to hit that ass again."