EVERYTHING Black Panther - Part 3

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

No, it just doesn't work well in an expanded universe on its own. Wakanda is an isolated nation and the only way to make it relevant is by showing how they're an old society who has trouble adapting to the present and must allow outsiders to come in. In the original comics it was the FF that served as an engine for this story. The only way to adequately introduce Wakanda and the Panther is through an Avengers film, and if they're going to do that there's not much point in making solo films for the Panther unless he becomes the breakout star of the Avengers film, especially since Panther doesn't really have any notable classic stories on his own and his rogue's gallery is even weaker than Iron Man's.

And your claim that Ant-Man would be lucky to get half of that is completely unfounded and based entirely on bias. Blade is not anything close to Black Panther besides them both having black protagonists, so that comparison is largely irrelevant.

Why would Wakanda need outsiders?

and Blade showed that black superhoroes can be successes globally without Will Smith which is a major factor in getting Black Panther greenlit.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

No, it just doesn't work well in an expanded universe on its own. Wakanda is an isolated nation and the only way to make it relevant is by showing how they're an old society who has trouble adapting to the present and must allow outsiders to come in. In the original comics it was the FF that served as an engine for this story. The only way to adequately introduce Wakanda and the Panther is through an Avengers film, and if they're going to do that there's not much point in making solo films for the Panther unless he becomes the breakout star of the Avengers film, especially since Panther doesn't really have any notable classic stories on his own and his rogue's gallery is even weaker than Iron Man's.

And your claim that Ant-Man would be lucky to get half of that is completely unfounded and based entirely on bias. Blade is not anything close to Black Panther besides them both having black protagonists, so that comparison is largely irrelevant.

I agree that the comparisons to Blade are largely irrelevant, but you're limiting BP dramatically. Yes, BP works in an Avengers story, or an FF story, and he's been adapted as such in Avengers:EMH and Ultimate Avengers 2, but he also works on his own, when you realize that T'Challa comes in as a bit of an outsider in the very popular and directly cartoon adapted 'Who is the Black Panther' origin story, and in the definitely classic Panther's Rage (the first serial comics storyline, I might add), he brought along outsiders as well. He doesn't need other superheroes, but other superheroes need him to balance out and texturize their stories, to challenge and advance them in different directions. This is why BP utterly takes over those stories, and like the Ant-Man Avengers stories, all the other heroes become sidelined, almost cannon fodder. Them not prioritizing making a movie out of him is a different issue.

And while BP's rogue's gallery doesn't have as many no-name C-listers, his recurring villains are at least as serviceable as Tony's. It really sounds like part of your perception of the character and what stories can be told with him are out of unfamiliarity. Does that seem possible? Can you say you've read the critically acclaimed BP stories?

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Why would Wakanda need outsiders?

and Blade showed that black superhoroes can be successes globally without Will Smith which is a major factor in getting Black Panther greenlit.

Every story needs an outsider. Someone whom the audience identifies with, who is not already initiated into the fantastic. Usually its the hero/main character when they start out ordinary. For Blade, it was the female doctor.

[RockSP]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

And your claim that Ant-Man would be lucky to get half of that is completely unfounded and based entirely on bias. Blade is not anything close to Black Panther besides them both having black protagonists, so that comparison is largely irrelevant.

That's how I feel about your feelings toward Black Panther.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by E-Man

It was his father, T'Chaka, who met Cap up until Hudlin changed it. I'd say keep it that way because Hudlin's run was terrible and needs to be forgotten.

WWII Vets are, what, Eighty now? So T'Chaka had T'Challa in his old age?

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

So there was a relationship with the military which included providing technological weapons for the US military.

Does anyone do this outside of defense contractors?

Exactly. They had defense contracts. It wasn't what the exclusively did, but wasn't the whole point that that's where all tech goes anyway.

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Even suggesting Mandarin is similar to a Bin Laden-type who works for American defense contractors is very "deep" territory. They didn't have to go further.

It was subversive and thought provoking by itself.

I'm not asking for a thesis on imperialism, only that outside forces conspire for Wakanda's vibranium which validates Black Panther's weariness of outsiders.

I agree with all of that, but that's story, which means at the beginning of the movie, it can't be like that. And then you have to include rebuffing black outsiders so it doesn't look like it's about race. Are you willing to have Wakanda either be ********s to the audience or not so wary at first? Like with the Mandarin, being subversive requires subtlety and deception. Anything that can be taken as "We're better because we tell white folks to take a hike," would backfire.

[Mr. Dent]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Why would Wakanda need outsiders?

and Blade showed that black superhoroes can be successes globally without Will Smith which is a major factor in getting Black Panther greenlit.

Read the stories. The debate over whether or not Wakanda should allow outsiders in and change their ways to adapt to the times and except help from others are key in BP's origins and the unique appeal of Wakanda. You can't get that across in a way that makes sense in a BP solo film in the MCU without it being Avengers 2.5 in essence.

And again, that is irrelevant. Blade and Black Panther are completely different. Yes Blade proved black superheroes can work when done right. That doesn't inherently make BP a goldmine or make it work any better itself in the MCU as a solo film. I'm not saying BP can't be a goldmine, I think most Marvel properties have potential to be, but using Blade as justification and basis for thinking that is silly to me.

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I agree that the comparisons to Blade are largely irrelevant, but you're limiting BP dramatically. Yes, BP works in an Avengers story, or an FF story, and he's been adapted as such in Avengers:EMH and Ultimate Avengers 2, but he also works on his own, when you realize that T'Challa comes in as a bit of an outsider in the very popular and directly cartoon adapted 'Who is the Black Panther' origin story, and in the definitely classic Panther's Rage (the first serial comics storyline, I might add), he brought along outsiders as well. He doesn't need other superheroes, but other superheroes need him to balance out and texturize their stories, to challenge and advance them in different directions.

And while BP's rogue's gallery doesn't have as many no-name C-listers, his recurring villains are at least as serviceable as Tony's. It really sounds like part of your perception of the character and what stories can be told with him are out of unfamiliarity?

Every story needs an outsider. Someone whom the audience identifies with, who is not already initiated into the fantastic. Usually its the hero/main character when they start out ordinary. For Blade, it was the female doctor.

I'm not saying the character itself needs other superheros, I'm saying his movie in the context of the MCU does, which people at Marvel have even specifically said is a reason BP hasn't gotten off of the ground yet. It's difficult to work a BP origin movie into the MCU because Wakanda is so isolated and the backbone of BP's origin story is Wakanda becoming more open to outsiders. How do you accomplish this in the MCU without making it irrelevant and murky continuity-wise or shoehorning other heroes into the film and making it Avengers 2.5 in essence? BP can definitely carry his own solo film if it were not for the MCU, but it's there and they can't ignore it. his origin story is better served being told in an Avengers film, and after that you have to question the point in making a solo BP film. The only reason to is if he's the breakout star from the movie, because otherwise you'd be telling this solo story of a character whose origin didn't get its own individual movie and the general audience won't care about immediately.

This has nothing to do with how well BP works on its own in a vacuum, it has to do with the context of how he would work logistically in an expanded movie universe. I just tacked those comments about his pathetic rogue's gallery and lack of classic stories as further reasons why making a solo BP film would be questionable sans him breaking out in the Avengers. And by "classic stories" I mean notable storylines that have defined the character and been lauded critically and considered classics. BP, much like Moon Knight, has a lack of them which makes it harder to make his movie since Marvel doesn't have anything immediately notable beyond his origin to pull from for his movies.

Originally Posted by RockSP

That's how I feel about your feelings toward Black Panther.

V

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

I'm starting to think Black Panther won't get a solo movie. His origin works better rolled into another movie's storyline ie Avengers in this case.

As opposed to saying Ant-Man just can't be as popular as BP because he's just not as good a property, as Messiah implied. Completely different things.

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

I disagree.

A well excuted Black Panther trilogy could be worth a billion dollars in revenue not including dvds, tv rights, toys and other merchandise.

Ant Man would be lucky to have half that value.

For proof look at the Blade trilogy and adjust it for 3D, inflation, market growth, and wider audience (PG-13).

Then add a substantial Avengers boost at the box office. Also consider black people are one of the strongest demographics for blockbusters.

Black Panther is a potential cash cow for Disney. They'd be foolish to squander it.

Please don't take this the wrong way - I agree - there's great potential here.

[E-Man]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

No, it just doesn't work well in an expanded universe on its own. Wakanda is an isolated nation and the only way to make it relevant is by showing how they're an old society who has trouble adapting to the present and must allow outsiders to come in. In the original comics it was the FF that served as an engine for this story. The only way to adequately introduce Wakanda and the Panther is through an Avengers film, and if they're going to do that there's not much point in making solo films for the Panther unless he becomes the breakout star of the Avengers film, especially since Panther doesn't really have any notable classic stories on his own and his rogue's gallery is even weaker than Iron Man's.

And your claim that Ant-Man would be lucky to get half of that is completely unfounded and based entirely on bias. Blade is not anything close to Black Panther besides them both having black protagonists, so that comparison is largely irrelevant.

Just look at Wakanda like Asgard. They're both places that are far away with a sort of mystical aura about them. They also aren't as isolated as you may think. They have sleeper agents all over the world, and have had them throughout history. That way they're not oblivious to the outside world at all, and can take inspiration from advances outside of Wakanda at their whim if it bothers people too much that they have such capability to be so advanced.

As for the villains thing, you only need three for a trilogy, and really just one to get it started.

First movie- Klaw who is known enough from his FF days, and he's pretty damn powerful enough to make for a good looking villain.

Second movie-Killmonger: He's the one guy that Black Panther hasn't beat. There's plenty with that.

Third movie- if it makes it this far then Achebe, M'Baku, or a Panther trying to regain his throne from Killmonger would make for a good villain. They could even throw in a group like A.I.M. or Hydra since it's all in the Marvel U. There are places to go with that one.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

I'm not saying the character itself needs other superheros, I'm saying his movie in the context of the MCU does, which people at Marvel have even specifically said is a reason BP hasn't gotten off of the ground yet. It's difficult to work a BP origin movie into the MCU because Wakanda is so isolated and the backbone of BP's origin story is Wakanda becoming more open to outsiders. How do you accomplish this in the MCU without making it irrelevant and murky continuity-wise or shoehorning other heroes into the film and making it Avengers 2.5 in essence? BP can definitely carry his own solo film if it were not for the MCU, but it's there and they can't ignore it. his origin story is better served being told in an Avengers film, and after that you have to question the point in making a solo BP film. The only reason to is if he's the breakout star from the movie, because otherwise you'd be telling this solo story of a character whose origin didn't get its own individual movie and the general audience won't care about immediately.

Marvel hasn't said such a thing as far as I know, and I've pored over every statement they've made over the past 4-5 years.

BP has been and can be integrated into the MCU. If you have questions about how to accomplish this, I get that, but to say it's difficult without knowing about his critically acclaimed stories.

Connecting BP to the MCU is as easy as using a single character in the same way that Avengers or the Fantastic Four has been used. I suggest then, because this is exactly what BP has done in his origin stories to connect him to the Western World in comics, all you'd have to do is be more specific about who in the Western World we're talking about. Agent Coulson can stand in for Everett Ross or Hawkeye for Kevin Trueblood. Heck, Hulk can stand in for the Avengers, or Eric Svelwig for Reed Richards. They can play the same roles in the story, and connect BP solidly to the MCU without taking the spotlight off of T'Challa. These are not continuity snarls, these are simply what has always been done with Black Panther. You throw in a Captain America flashback, and a Vibranium storyline in Avengers and you're more than golden.

What about this seems difficult? Isn't this the same *exact* thing they did for Captain America? How do we connect it? Well, we have an object from Thor's world and a character from Iron Man's world (And technically a serum from Hulk's movie) and badda-boom. Connection. It's not difficult because these characters - Black Panther not excluded - are naturally connected to other characters. Are you sure you're not confusing his country's political stance with the way the character actually works?

Now if you are just die hard dedicated to the fact that Black Panther just cannot be told as he has been before, and he has to be in an Avengers movie, and even though the Avengers or Fantastic Four act as a unit, and not individuals in these Black Panther origin stories guest starring other heroes, it's just impossible for a single character to function as that connection in the same way - or maybe you just believe the rumors that he, and by implication his origin, will be in Avengers 2, you may want to note that every successful black superhero, that is, Hancock and Blade, have not featured their origin stories. And didn't come off a billion dollar franchise either. The idea that the audience would not care about a character whose origin they saw just because it had other heroes doesn't seem to happen in reality. The audience cares about the Hulk, the audience cares about Black Widow. These are characters with 12 minutes of screen time.

[Mr. Dent]

Originally Posted by E-Man

Just look at Wakanda like Asgard. They're both places that are far away with a sort of mystical aura about them. They also aren't as isolated as you may think. They have sleeper agents all over the world, and have had them throughout history. That way they're not oblivious to the outside world at all, and can take inspiration from advances outside of Wakanda at their whim if it bothers people too much that they have such capability to be so advanced.

As for the villains thing, you only need three for a trilogy, and really just one to get it started.

First movie- Klaw who is known enough from his FF days, and he's pretty damn powerful enough to make for a good looking villain.

Second movie-Killmonger: He's the one guy that Black Panther hasn't beat. There's plenty with that.

Third movie- if it makes it this far then Achebe, M'Baku, or a Panther trying to regain his throne from Killmonger would make for a good villain. They could even throw in a group like A.I.M. or Hydra since it's all in the Marvel U. There are places to go with that one.

I just can't look at it like Asgard. Yes, Asgard is removed from the rest of the MCU like Wakanda would be, but the difference is that they were able to surcumvent that through the Donald Blake portion of the story, not to mention Asgard opening up is not exactly a big part of the Thor mythos. With Black Panther and Wadanda, T'Challa would HAVE to be in Wakanda for most of the film to keep it in-line with the mythos, sans him going out and searching for other heroes, which again, would turn the move into Avengers 2.5. There's just no way to get around it.

[bubbadoom]

double post

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

No, it just doesn't work well in an expanded universe on its own. Wakanda is an isolated nation and the only way to make it relevant is by showing how they're an old society who has trouble adapting to the present and must allow outsiders to come in. In the original comics it was the FF that served as an engine for this story. The only way to adequately introduce Wakanda and the Panther is through an Avengers film, and if they're going to do that there's not much point in making solo films for the Panther unless he becomes the breakout star of the Avengers film, especially since Panther doesn't really have any notable classic stories on his own and his rogue's gallery is even weaker than Iron Man's.

And your claim that Ant-Man would be lucky to get half of that is completely unfounded and based entirely on bias. Blade is not anything close to Black Panther besides them both having black protagonists, so that comparison is largely irrelevant.

They never had trouble "adapting" to the present - their tech is on par if not slightly ahead of most of the rest of the worlds.

[Mr. Dent]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

Marvel hasn't said such a thing as far as I know, and I've pored over every statement they've made over the past 4-5 years.

Well here's one:

"He has a lot of the same characteristics of a Captain America: great character, good values," said the Marvel exec. "But it's a little more difficult, maybe, creating [a world like Wakanda]. It's always easier basing it here. For instance, 'Iron Man 3' is rooted right here in Los Angeles and New York. When you bring in other worlds, you're always faced with those difficulties."

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/168...medium=twitter

I also remember an interview going more into this and explaining that it's difficult to bring Wakanda to the MCU because of how it's isolated and set up.

BP has been and can be integrated into the MCU. If you have questions about how to accomplish this, I get that, but to say it's difficult without knowing about his critically acclaimed stories.

Has been?

Connecting BP to the MCU is as easy as using a single character in the same way that Avengers or the Fantastic Four has been used. I suggest then, because this is exactly what BP has done in his origin stories to connect him to the Western World in comics, all you'd have to do is be more specific about who in the Western World we're talking about. Agent Coulson can stand in for Everett Ross or Hawkeye for Kevin Trueblood. Heck, Hulk can stand in for the Avengers, or Eric Svelwig for Reed Richards. They can play the same roles in the story, and connect BP solidly to the MCU without taking the spotlight off of T'Challa. These are not continuity snarls, these are simply what has always been done with Black Panther. You throw in a Captain America flashback, and a Vibranium storyline in Avengers and you're more than golden.

What about this seems difficult? Isn't this the same *exact* thing they did for Captain America? How do we connect it? Well, we have an object from Thor's world and a character from Iron Man's world (And technically a serum from Hulk's movie) and badda-boom. Connection. It's not difficult because these characters - Black Panther not excluded - are naturally connected to other characters.

I understand what you're saying, but here's the thing: You bring in Hulk or some other heroes and then the movie becomes Avengers. That's just the way it is to me. If the movie can't work without other heroes being needed then it should be told in the Avengers. Using SHIELD to connect him at this point doesn't make complete sense to me because if it was something that was so dire that BP needed to go to SHIELD for help then he would have tried to get the Avengers as well. And it's not like you can go any less than those because it doesn't make sense for BP to have some Jane Foster, Eric Selvig, type characters to help connect Wakanda to the Western World, as we're talking about an entire country and again, the situation would have to be dire for T'Challa to go out for help and he would aim for the best he could get. It just doesn't work.

Are you sure you're not confusing his country's political stance with the way the character actually works?

I'm saying that his country's political stance would inherently effect how the character works in the movie because it's tied to his origin story. To me you're oversimplifying the situation and are looking at it from the perspective of it just being a Black Panther solo film, not a Black Panther origin film that has to work in the MCU, and all the logistics that comes with.

Now if you are just die hard dedicated to the fact that Black Panther just cannot be told as he has been before, and he has to be in an Avengers movie, and even though the Avengers or Fantastic Four act as a unit, and not individuals in these Black Panther origin stories guest starring other heroes, it's just impossible for a single character to function as that connection in the same way - or maybe you just believe the rumors that he, and by implication his origin, will be in Avengers 2, you may want to note that every successful black superhero, that is, Hancock and Blade, have not featured their origin stories. And didn't come off a billion dollar franchise either.

Uhh this is a super run on sentence, I don't really understand what you're saying here.

As for Hancock and Blade, to me those lend themselves more to not having origin stories than Black Panther. T'Challa's inheriting his father's will and becoming leader of Wakanda is something you just can't skim over. Blade is a vampire hunter, not hard to just start of there and maybe tell his backstory in flashbacks. And Hancock is and original movie with Will Smith so that's a completely different thing than either BP or Blade.

The idea that the audience would not care about a character whose origin they saw just because it had other heroes doesn't seem to happen in reality. The audience cares about the Hulk, the audience cares about Black Widow. These are characters with 12 minutes of screen time.

That's not what I'm saying. I specifically said that it doesn't make sense unless Black Panther is a breakout star in Avengers 2, like a Hulk was in Avengers. Otherwise you're making a movie based on a character that may have gotten a lukewarm response in Avengers 2 and just assuming people will buy into jumping into his own solo franchise without a strong individual origin movie.

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

They never had trouble "adapting" to the present - their tech is on par if not slightly ahead of most of the rest of the worlds.

I'm not talking about their tech I'm talking about their customs, which are similar to the Inhumans in that they are isolated and don't except any outside help. BP leading them into the future and being more open is a big part of his origin story and tale in general, and it's hard to do that in his own solo films without making them Avengers films with a focus on BP.

[bubbadoom]

Marvel may have a slight time line issue that they will need to address:

We have seen Vibranium in WWII - Stark made Cap's shield of it, so this suggests he became aware of the metal some time before the war [1940?], so perhaps he had a brief adventure in or near Wakanda and encountered the Panther - maybe Zemo and Hydra are the villains - this might be all the link to the MU the Panther needs.

A young Ulysses Klaw could have encountered Vibranium while working along side Stark in WWII, maybe even show Steve Rogers getting his shield at this time.

Years after the war, Klaw has tracked down the source of Vibranium in Wakanda and goes there, encounters and kills the Panther T'Chaka, a young T'Challa destroys Klaw's hand, and hopefully Klaw falls victim to his sonic machine.

In the present day, KLAW, the mutated Master of Sound - the classic Kirby villain - returns to cause an older T'Challa grief.

I think the real trick will be making T'Challa old enough [say 40] to have encountered Klaw long enough ago [30 years?] that Klaw is not too old to have been around in WWII [about 65 years old]. His age is not that important since he should be the Sonic version in the present day.

Marvel better get this in the works fast while the numbers still work...

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

Well here's one:


http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/168...medium=twitter

I also remember an interview going more into this and explaining that it's difficult to bring Wakanda to the MCU because of how it's isolated and set up.

They're saying it's harder to film on location (or create a location) when it's not in the USA. That's true, this has nothing to do with integrating him into the MCU story, but doing the BP movie has physical logistical issues. And it's not even like Thor or Guardians of the Galaxy, where you sort of CGI up a world... no Africa has to be solid and real because it's not a fantasy world. It's also a set of problems that will seem to disappear as soon as they have a story they're excited about.

Has been?

Technically, yeah. Vibranium in Cap. Wakanda on the map in IM2.

I understand what you're saying, but here's the thing: You bring in Hulk or some other heroes and then the movie becomes Avengers. That's just the way it is to me. If the movie can't work without other heroes being needed then it should be told in the Avengers. Using SHIELD to connect him at this point doesn't make complete sense to me because if it was something that was so dire that BP needed to go to SHIELD for help then he would have tried to get the Avengers as well. And it's not like you can go any less than those because it doesn't make sense for BP to have some Jane Foster, Eric Selvig, type characters to help connect Wakanda to the Western World, as we're talking about an entire country and again, the situation would have to be dire for T'Challa to go out for help and he would aim for the best he could get. It just doesn't work.

So... when Black Widow was in Iron Man 2, did that become Avengers to you? When Captain America was connected to the MCU did that become Avengers to you? SHIELD can't even contact "The Avengers" why should Black Panther? Heck, Iron Man can't even contact The Avengers in IM3. That works just fine. I can bet that the Avengers won't be showing up in Captain America 2 either. Direness doesn't give you the universe on speed dial and standby. The world ending... that's what draws the Avengers together. Any given one is capable of saving a country, as history shows. Now this, the mysterious way in which all the heroes' adventures occur at the same time so no one is available to help anyone is my least favorite part of the MCU... but you can't say it doesn't work unless you're willing to say the other MCU films don't work.

Neither does the size of the affected area dictate what type of help is needed. So what if we are talking about a whole country? If Black Panther just needs to defeat a superhero, as in the original FF appearance, Hulk does just fine. If BP needs someone to infiltrate Klaw's operation, Black Widow or Hawkeye works out much better than Thor and Iron Man and Captain America. If BP just needs bodies, which would be far more politically interesting, Coulson and SHIELD are superior. The story you tell dictates those things, and if you don't tell a story where massive amounts of brute force solves the problem, then calling in the Avengers is not only not available, but doesn't make any sense. What threat is Klaw bringing? Now if you only know one BP story, the one created in Ultimate Avengers 2, then yeah, I guess you might feel like that story wouldn't work with just one Avenger or a couple established support characters.

But that's not the quintessential BP story, not by a long shot.

I'm saying that his country's political stance would inherently effect how the character works in the movie because it's tied to his origin story. To me you're oversimplifying the situation and are looking at it from the perspective of it just being a Black Panther solo film, not a Black Panther origin film that has to work in the MCU, and all the logistics that comes with.

No, the country's political stance inherently causes conflict when the character works differently than the country. This is a big feature of every single adaptation of the character. It doesn't prevent him from engaging outsiders at all, in fact, as you suggest, the story requires that he engage outsiders. All of the best stories deal with how much of an outsider he is with his own people. So, what exactly have I oversimplified? I've addressed each of your concerns in great detail with historical examples and comparisons.

Uhh this is a super run on sentence, I don't really understand what you're saying here.

As for Hancock and Blade, to me those lend themselves more to not having origin stories than Black Panther. T'Challa's inheriting his father's will and becoming leader of Wakanda is something you just can't skim over. Blade is a vampire hunter, not hard to just start of there and maybe tell his backstory in flashbacks. And Hancock is and original movie with Will Smith so that's a completely different thing than either BP or Blade.

The run on sentence was referring to the concept where BP, and thus his origin being introduced Avengers is unavoidable for whatever reason. In such case, no skim over problem exists, see?

That's not what I'm saying. I specifically said that it doesn't make sense unless Black Panther is a breakout star in Avengers 2, like a Hulk was in Avengers. Otherwise you're making a movie based on a character that may have gotten a lukewarm response in Avengers 2 and just assuming people will buy into jumping into his own solo franchise without a strong individual origin movie.

Which one of the Avengers got a lukewarm response? You can't even say that about Hawkeye and he spent 6 minutes - half of his screen time - as a mindless drone. If they can do at least that much with BP, a lukewarm response is out of the question.

I'm not talking about their tech I'm talking about their customs, which are similar to the Inhumans in that they are isolated and don't except any outside help. BP leading them into the future and being more open is a big part of his origin story and tale in general, and it's hard to do that in his own solo films without making them Avengers films with a focus on BP.

What is hard about using one Avenger, or heck, non Avengers character in the place of the Avengers or Fantastic Four or Everett Ross? That's what I don't get. What, specifically, is the difficulty?

Originally Posted by Mr. Dent

I just can't look at it like Asgard. Yes, Asgard is removed from the rest of the MCU like Wakanda would be, but the difference is that they were able to surcumvent that through the Donald Blake portion of the story, not to mention Asgard opening up is not exactly a big part of the Thor mythos. With Black Panther and Wadanda, T'Challa would HAVE to be in Wakanda for most of the film to keep it in-line with the mythos, sans him going out and searching for other heroes, which again, would turn the move into Avengers 2.5. There's just no way to get around it.

If Thor doesn't have to be Donald Blake, If Tony Stark doesn't have to have a secret identity, if Steve Rogers can lead the Howling Commandos, T'Challa definitely doesn't have to be in Wakanda for most of the film.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

Marvel may have a slight time line issue that they will need to address:

We have seen Vibranium in WWII - Stark made Cap's shield of it, so this suggests he became aware of the metal some time before the war [1940?], so perhaps he had a brief adventure in or near Wakanda and encountered the Panther - maybe Zemo and Hydra are the villains - this might be all the link to the MU the Panther needs.

A young Ulysses Klaw could have encountered Vibranium while working along side Stark in WWII, maybe even show Steve Rogers getting his shield at this time.

Years after the war, Klaw has tracked down the source of Vibranium in Wakanda and goes there, encounters and kills the Panther T'Chaka, a young T'Challa destroys Klaw's hand, and hopefully Klaw falls victim to his sonic machine.

In the present day, KLAW, the mutated Master of Sound - the classic Kirby villain - returns to cause an older T'Challa grief.

I think the real trick will be making T'Challa old enough [say 40] to have encountered Klaw long enough ago [30 years?] that Klaw is not too old to have been around in WWII [about 65 years old]. His age is not that important since he should be the Sonic version in the present day.

Marvel better get this in the works fast while the numbers still work...

I think that's an interesting take. I prefer a young T'Challa, and just use his granddad in WWII and put Klaw/T'Chaka in the Cold War Era, but this wouldn't bother me too much.

But thinking about the timeline, and this is for you too MessiahDecoy... you guys know how much I'm against making Wakanda superior at the beginning of the film, how it belittles T'Challa's accomplishments and challenges, and limits the audiences ability to care about these people that came out of nowhere and has it all together...

But, still, I think it might be very interesting to do a sort of history montage to introduce Wakanda, much like at the beginning of X-Men Wolverine Origins and Watchmen. I know, horrible examples, but the concept is sound. You subtly without words, show the story and history of Wakanda in montages, so the audience can identify with the plight. It still might come off a bit too 'Black History Month' but I think inserting Howard Stark or Peggy Carter in there to get the SHIELD, or just straight up Captain America in the WWII part, might be a great thing. It doesn't need to be a thing. You see Stark and T'Chaka exchanging tech for vibranium, then Nazi's fighting, then dead Nazis and Captain America and T'Chaka shaking hands, and then into a technological expansion, the country hiding its true nature in varoius tech means, then we find ourselves in near modern day, a few other scenes... and then boom... T'Challa as a child training with his father before a big meeting.

[Blackman]

So Fast & Furious 6 came out this weekend. Reports are, as expected, that it's gonna be a box office smash. I havent seen it yet, but it does remind me of a point that i read in an article 2 years ago when Fast Five came out.

I can't find it right now but basically it was saying that the Fast & Furious franchise is very successful despite having a predominately minority cast of characters and having a soundtrack of mostly Hip hop and Reggaeton music (music genres that are enjoyed by all but more synonymous with African Americans and Hispanics)

So i guess Im asking: Do you guys still think that race is a HUGE factor when it comes to Box office? I bring it up here because a lot of people think that one of the reasons that Black Panther is taking so long is because of the fact that the higher ups are afraid of having a tentpole with a black lead.


I honestly don't think it is, especially in America. I mean I think movies that are directed toward the "urban" audience like: Takers, Barbershop, and potentially a Luke Cage movie wont make the really big $100 mill+; but I still think you can have a black/minority cast and have a high grossing movie.

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by Blackman

So Fast & Furious 6 came out this weekend. Reports are, as expected, that it's gonna be a box office smash. I havent seen it yet, but it does remind me of a point that i read in an article 2 years ago when Fast Five came out.

I can't find it right now but basically it was saying that the Fast & Furious franchise is very successful despite having a predominately minority cast of characters and having a soundtrack of mostly Hip hop and Reggaeton music (music genres that are enjoyed by all but more synonymous with African Americans and Hispanics)

So i guess Im asking: Do you guys still think that race is a HUGE factor when it comes to Box office? I bring it up here because a lot of people think that one of the reasons that Black Panther is taking so long is because of the fact that the higher ups are afraid of having a tentpole with a black lead.


I honestly don't think it is, especially in America. I mean I think movies that are directed toward the "urban" audience like: Takers, Barbershop, and potentially a Luke Cage movie wont make the really big $100 mill+; but I still think you can have a black/minority cast and have a high grossing movie.

I don't know that they are afraid of having a black lead - I think they want to make sure its done "right" because of this.

When you have certain vocal groups complaining about a movie like LION KING - saying things like the minority casts were only playing villains, when the chief villain was played by a white guy and the Lion King was a black guy - you can not blame them for wanting to proceed with caution.

FAST FIVE did better b.o. than THOR or CAPTAIN AMERICA and I am sure Marvel is taking this into consideration.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

I don't know that they are afraid of having a black lead - I think they want to make sure its done "right" because of this.

When you have certain vocal groups complaining about a movie like LION KING - saying things like the minority casts were only playing villains, when the chief villain was played by a white guy and the Lion King was a black guy - you can not blame them for wanting to proceed with caution.

FAST FIVE did better b.o. than THOR or CAPTAIN AMERICA and I am sure Marvel is taking this into consideration.

I don't know how many people consider Vin Diesel a black lead.

and Thor 2 should beat Fast Five by a sizable margin.

Fast Six will be a much harder battle for Thor 2.

[DrCosmic]

Q: Do you guys still think that race is a HUGE factor when it comes to Box office?

A: No, I don't think race was ever a huge factor when it comes to actual Box Office. It's not like Will Smith movies would make twice as much money if he were white. Race is a much bigger factor when it comes to making the movie, from the creation of great villains to adapt in the first palce, to writing storylines that aren't colored by a writer's perception of that race, to finding filmmakers who believe in and love the character, to executives who are willing to put big money down despite the relatively minor factor that race plays on the box office and the major factor it plays in actually getting a good movie in the can.

Fast and Furious, in addition to being an ensemble with strong characters of virtually every ethnicity (which is part of why it makes more WW than it does in NA), is a relatively cheap action movie, and grew to get to the place it is now. Few sfx needed. No genre to turn off people who think they like realistic things. I mean, it's cars. Who honestly doesn't like hot cars?

But with Black Panther, when you add the race issue, and the stuff that comes with it, and add that to the normal genre challenge... you have an issue, primarily one of perception, but an issue nonetheless.

[baerrtt]

Originally Posted by Blackman

So Fast & Furious 6 came out this weekend. Reports are, as expected, that it's gonna be a box office smash. I havent seen it yet, but it does remind me of a point that i read in an article 2 years ago when Fast Five came out.

I can't find it right now but basically it was saying that the Fast & Furious franchise is very successful despite having a predominately minority cast of characters and having a soundtrack of mostly Hip hop and Reggaeton music (music genres that are enjoyed by all but more synonymous with African Americans and Hispanics)

So i guess Im asking: Do you guys still think that race is a HUGE factor when it comes to Box office? I bring it up here because a lot of people think that one of the reasons that Black Panther is taking so long is because of the fact that the higher ups are afraid of having a tentpole with a black lead.


I honestly don't think it is, especially in America. I mean I think movies that are directed toward the "urban" audience like: Takers, Barbershop, and potentially a Luke Cage movie wont make the really big $100 mill+; but I still think you can have a black/minority cast and have a high grossing movie.

Firstly race hasn't been a factor in box office success, despite what some biased execs may say, since the 1980s.

Secondly if anything the success of DJANGO UNCHAINED with a black lead who isn't Will Smith or Denzel Washington combined with it's far from comfortable subject matter and content should have convinced people that race shouldn't definitely play any role in a black super or action hero movie.

[chamber-music]

Many people don't even know Vin Diesel or The Rock are part black.

I don't think the ethnicity of lead characters harms the box office. Its a BS myth Hollywood likes to chat as an excuse to cover their racist asses. They have similar views about women as leads in action films or having an Asian man as a lead in anything that doesn't involve martial arts.

[steve999]

yes the black panther is amazing

[def28]

Originally Posted by Blackman

I can't find it right now but basically it was saying that the Fast & Furious franchise is very successful despite having a predominately minority cast of characters and having a soundtrack of mostly Hip hop and Reggaeton music (music genres that are enjoyed by all but more synonymous with African Americans and Hispanics)

The Fast Films are a success because they are extremely crowd pleasing films, but part of the fun is that they go all over the world and bring in more characters from other locations. So I do think the diversity plays into it, but in a positive way. They have characters that are Asian, Israeli, White, Black, Brazilian etc. It's not just targeting a certain demo, it's extremely Universal. Especially starting with pt 4. Which is when the series really kicked off with audiences.

Make an entertaining crowd pleasing film and people will show regardless of who's the lead. Just don't cast a dip**** actor and your all good.... even then you can still be a hit.

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by def28

The Fast Films are a success because they are extremely crowd pleasing films, but part of the fun is that they go all over the world and bring in more characters from other locations. So I do think the diversity plays into it, but in a positive way. They have characters that are Asian, Israeli, White, Black, Brazilian etc. It's not just targeting a certain demo, it's extremely Universal. Especially starting with pt 4. Which is when the series really kicked off with audiences.

Make an entertaining crowd pleasing film and people will show regardless of who's the lead. Just don't cast a dip**** actor and your all good.... even then you can still be a hit.

really took off with FAST FIVE - and ya got the Rock to thank for that!

[def28]

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

really took off with FAST FIVE - and ya got the Rock to thank for that!

Pt 4 brought the interest up and the crew back. Audiences responded really well to it. No doubt Fast 5 increased everything and made a **** more money but that happened cause of 4 and the audiences reaction. They continued to add and make more money from then on out. Without Diesel and crew it wouldn't have gone down like that. Fast 5 increased the Rocks status as well. It's by far his most successful film, that didn't happen only cause of him. He def brought alot and added to the mayhem though, that Rock VS Diesel fight was just as entertaining as a superhero brawl imo.

Justin Lin is the real one responsible. All his films are better then the first 2.