Christopher Reeve is still considered the most iconic Superman ever, but that doesn’t preclude other actors from donning the cape after his passing so the character can continue. Superhero characters are inherently bigger than one creator, filmmaker, and actor. They are an “eternal flame” that is kept lit whenever a writer, director and actor takes part in telling new stories with the character. We must not let that flame go out with the passing of one actor.
I would never say never as it could be a part of a character growth arc for shuri. But I definitely believe in recasting and allowing someone to shoulder the responsibility of bringing T'challa to life. Everytime someone gets cast as batman the new actor now has spirit of every batman before him as well, those living and passed. Black Panther is no different.
Black Panther IS different. He's been in a few films over a few years. Recently. And his actor just died mid franchise. This isn't a case where we're talking about a completly different film universe, or an actor just leaving a role.
And I'm sad about his passing, I'm sad we never knew, Im sad I won't see his BP take charge in another movie, I'm not an emotional person and I nearly cried. But I cannot imagine that the legacy of T'challa lives and dies with Chadwick, it should live on Because of the impact he left on the genre and the culture. Because this may open the door for someone else to earn the love and admiration of the fandom.
No one is advocating the character never be seen again. Just not perhaps in this franchise, or in this sequel.
There were people saying this about The Joker after Heath Ledger died.
And what happened? He wasn't recast in the sequel/franchise. In fact Nolan apparently abandoned whatever plans he had for the Joker character and started over.
Another issue with Shuri taking the mantle is it just doesn't seem organic now. She's already the smartest person in the MCU, now she's suddenly going to be a world-class brawler as well?
No, she'd be the smartest person in Wakanda. She doesn't have to be the SAME kind of Black Panther. She'd be her own person, with her own character traits.
Will she also take the throne and wrestle guys like M'Baku in hand to hand combat?
Certainly be more interesting to find out than just seeing Black Panther best someone physically again.
The way that the MCU presented this character really doesn't set up that she will take up the BP mantle down the line. In fact, they wrote her as someone who dislikes the traditions of Wakanda and wants a normal life away from her royal duties.
Which is exactly how they would set up someone who has to reluctantly take on the role of Black Panther. It's character development.
Were Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, and George Clooney playing the same Bruce Wayne? Nevermind the overall movies, they never felt like "imposters." They were actors playing the character.
They may not have felt like imposters, but even pre internet, people talked about the change in actor being "jarring".
TheBattinson - that's exactly the problem. T'Challa was a secondary, and not that interesting character in his own movie, which was already more like "Women of Wakanda" than "Black Panther".
I'd like to see a movie, which serve the character justice. The one we got, wasn't even close to it. Replace him with Shuri and we will NEVER get that.
Honestly, Black Panther was refreshing with it's take on female empowerment. It gave us strong female leads (Okoye, Nakia, Ramonda, [Shuri is debatable, but still received well]) that weren't obnoxious and actually quite likeable.
They didn't drag the male leads down to elevate the women. T'Challa and Killmonger were still the central two characters of the film and demonstrated strength in their own right. They weren't compromised to push other characters up. It was a really good balance, perhaps the perfect balance.
There's no way there will be LESS "Women of Wakanda" in a sequel. It was a wildly popular part of the first movie. If anything they were always going to double down on it in a sequel.
Black Panther is either a character, or it's just a costume anyone can wear. Others can wear the Batman suit, but only Bruce Wayne can be Batman.
Neither of these things are true.
Carol Danvers, Scott Lang and Hope Pym/Van Dyne are all legacy characters in the MCU. And coming to Disney Plus are Kamala Khan and Kate Bishop along with multiple Captain Americas. The Stargirl show features all legacy characters. Barry Allen is a legacy character. As are Hal Jordan and Johnny Storm. And the star of Into the Spiderverse.
Marvel has a pretty clear plan to pass its major franchises, or at least the character's spot in the Avengers, on to legacy characters.
So Marvel should do what DC has already essentially said they are doing with Batman? Because the actor died? How is that going to look?
I know people keep saying anyone can wear the mask, but the first Black Panther movie was not about the mantle of Black Panther. It was a story about T'Challa and how his view of the world has been challenged by the revelations of his family's past sins, and how that changes his moral compass and how he approaches the throne. Yes, the Black Panther is a mantle, but it is T'Challa's story that resonated with people. So for me, it is about the man. Not the outfit. The best superhero stories are always about the character in the costume and not the costume itself.
I think the story was actually about Wakanda, and I think it's Wakanda and its culture that resonated with audiences more than just Black Panther, even if they found the actor charismatic and the character cool. It's really pretty much everything AROUND Black Panther that was unique, the concept of the character himself was presented as a fairly generic legacy character/tech based superhero. It's the cultural and political elements that were unique and fresh. The story revolved around Wakanda's role in the world, its resources, it's failures in outreach, and its global outreach at the end.
