You missed my point. I didn't say the BP film doesn't need viewers. I'm saying having Wakanda have a defense shield won't be a deal breaker for anyone. You won't lose any viewers by including it. Black Panther has alot more in common with Captain America, Thor and Iron Man. In fact, he's a combination of all three characters. There's no reason to bring up Green Lantern or Fantastic Four. I'm using the precedent established by Marvel Studios and that is, far fetched sci-fi is perfectly acceptable in every Avenger related movie.
The Marvel Studio films work because they only change what they absolutely have to and they keep the characters as true to the source as possible.
Black Panther is not a king of an average tribe. If he was he wouldn't be able to figure out a car engine let alone the Ion Man suit. So Wakanda needs to be technologically advanced to explain why Black Panther is one of the most formidable minds on the planet.
Unless you want to change that too.
Again, this idea of a 'deal breaker.' The reason that I bring up GL and FF is so that you can understand that just because you don't have a "deal breaker" doesn't mean you won't lose viewers. That far fetched Sci Fi was acceptable too, but it didn't help those films.
In real life, savants come out of nowhere and blow away the rest of the science world without having come from advanced societies all the time. This has been depicted in movies often, even in Iron Man. So why is T'Challa the only character that needs a technologically advanced country in order to be one of the most formidable minds on the planet? That makes him look weaker than Stark and Banner, and underlines the "black people can't earn their own way" subtext you think you're working against.
When you say changes that have to happen... how do you know what those are? Why did Thor *absolutely have* to be an alien from a planet called Asgard? Why did Iron Man *absolutely have* to reveal his identity? Why did Captain America *absolutely have* to have a story revolving around the Cosmic Cube? Did Nick Fury * absolutely have* to be Black? At some point, you should probably notice comics accuracy is not priority number 1.
On a side note: BP being a combo of Thor, Iron Man and Captain America doesn't bode well for them making a film out of him, unfortunately. They want to "do things they haven't done before."
Your Inception versus Sucker Punch only proves my point.
People are willing to accept the weirdest concepts (using technology to invade dreams within dreams within other dreams) if the movie is executed properly.
Wakanda can work if it's executed well. Just like Asgard, Cosmic Cubes and Hulk (who audiences rejected in two reparate solo movies yet loved in Avengers).
You understand things have to be executed well, but when they're thought through that's "overthinking it." So how do you execute well without overthinking? What does 'executed well' mean to you? What is the proper way to execute something in a film?
What's wrong with them using a high tech defense system to protect their indigenous way of life for centuries.
It's called political and historical subtext and it's one of the rare occasions comic books ever address the misguided attempts to colonize and westernize indigenous people.
The Wakanda being advances says three important things:
1) Indigenous tribes have a form of integrity that deserves preservation
2) That African culture had legitimate reasons to resist colonization
3) Ideally if Africans had advanced technology it would be noble to use it simply to defend their way of life
There's no reason to change them to appease anyone. If people don't like Wakanda being advanced then they wouldn't like the true Black Panther anyway. He's a suspicious and distrustful character because his nation is that way. He's a brilliant yet indigenous African because his nation is that way.
I was pretty clear on the defense issue: A high tech African super power doesn't mesh with with real world history at all. To be clear: it has nothing to do with what it is, and everything to do with how it got that way. No one is saying T'Challa shouldn't be epic, but people are questioning why Stark Industries at the beginning of Iron Man relates directly to all these military contractors, and is perceived as such, why Asgard in the beginning of Thor relates directly to our Norse myths, and is perceived as such, why Captain America's SIS and Hydra relates directly to WWII military divisions, but uber-Wakanda-from-the-beginning doesn't relate to anything in the real world, but we're still supposed to perceive it as realistic?
Some try to make it like 'oh they just don't like Black people being awesome' thing, but it's not. It's a storytelling thing. It'd be different if we were saying T'Challa shouldn't be awesome, or that Wakanda shouldn't be a world super power by the end of the film. Simply: let those things be earned from the audience. That's the precedent established by Marvel studios - earning every bit of sci fi - not having uber sci fi handed to you as a history lesson. The Marvel way is with great power (having uber crazy sci fi in the film) comes great responsibility (having to build up each sci fi element based on the audiences care for a particular character), and you, good sir, are *not* using the Marvel Studios precedent.
Using superior tech to make moral statements is perceived as dumb/jerkish, whether it's done by Hudlins BP or the real life USA.