To Coogler, Chad & Fiege: make T'Challa as ruthless as he is in comics

[semper]

I thought Chadwick was great as T'Challa in both Civil War and Black Panther. And I completely understand why they went with the noble, dignified aspect over any of his other known character traits. It makes sense as T'Challa is young, not yet cynical and only just risen to the throne. And of course, a selfless noble KIng is a great role model for the message this movie sent.

But with all that out of the way....we need to see the ruthless, ultra-prepared, willing to do almost anything to win Black Panther that's made him such a fan-favorite since Christopher Priest's first run at the character. This aspect is what makes T'Challa such a fascinating character. He's ultimately a good man, but capable of extreme moments of d/ckishness and arrogance in the pursuit of victory.

If T'Challa stays this "pure", I think the character will lose his edge. T'Challa is not a goody-two-shoes. He spies on the Avengers. He's a guy who annulled his marriage to Storm without even thinking twice about it. He's nowhere as bad as Namor, but I really hope in the sequel, you develop his better known (and less likable) personality traits, and make it clear why those traits develop.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I thought Chadwick was great as T'Challa in both Civil War and Black Panther. And I completely understand why they went with the noble, dignified aspect over any of his other known character traits. It makes sense as T'Challa is young, not yet cynical and only just risen to the throne. And of course, a selfless noble KIng is a great role model for the message this movie sent.

But with all that out of the way....we need to see the ruthless, ultra-prepared, willing to do almost anything to win Black Panther that's made him such a fan-favorite since Christopher Priest's first run at the character. This aspect is what makes T'Challa such a fascinating character. He's ultimately a good man, but capable of extreme moments of d/ckishness and arrogance in the pursuit of victory.

If T'Challa stays this "pure", I think the character will lose his edge. T'Challa is not a goody-two-shoes. He spies on the Avengers. He's a guy who annulled his marriage to Storm without even thinking twice about it. He's nowhere as bad as Namor, but I really hope in the sequel, you develop his better known (and less likable) personality traits, and make it clear why those traits develop.

I am of two minds here...

This film was WAY more overtly political than any of the pseudo Libertarian nonsense in WINTER SOLDIER or the plot of CIVIL WAR. It's more overtly political than the entire IRON MAN trilogy. That they went to that well for a Black super hero shows some courage on the part of MARVEL studios. Not just taking a risk mind you but some courage. So that's a point in the column of possibly shaping Panther into this type of strong willed pragmatist he has often been in the comics.


On the other hand I feel that the Panther franchise and Panther as a character is essentially being slid into the spot Catain America, his character and trilogy have in the MCU in general. The serious action drama slot with indeed the noble and good hearted pure hero in a cynical world. They may not want to taint the audience's perception of the character as he has been established in this first film.

 

[baerrtt]

I thought Chadwick was great as T'Challa in both Civil War and Black Panther. And I completely understand why they went with the noble, dignified aspect over any of his other known character traits. It makes sense as T'Challa is young, not yet cynical and only just risen to the throne. And of course, a selfless noble KIng is a great role model for the message this movie sent.

But with all that out of the way....we need to see the ruthless, ultra-prepared, willing to do almost anything to win Black Panther that's made him such a fan-favorite since Christopher Priest's first run at the character. This aspect is what makes T'Challa such a fascinating character. He's ultimately a good man, but capable of extreme moments of d/ckishness and arrogance in the pursuit of victory.

If T'Challa stays this "pure", I think the character will lose his edge. T'Challa is not a goody-two-shoes. He spies on the Avengers. He's a guy who annulled his marriage to Storm without even thinking twice about it. He's nowhere as bad as Namor, but I really hope in the sequel, you develop his better known (and less likable) personality traits, and make it clear why those traits develop.

If anything the BP we saw in CIVIL WAR is the character you describe until in learning Zemo's reasons for doing what he did he starts to form into the pure hero we get in his own movie.

If Evans is done after Avengers 4 I concur with Krypton Inc. in that they keep the likes of BP and Spider Man as the ones who'll never question doing the right thing for the RIGHT reasons no matter the consequences.

 

[Iceman]

I am of two minds here...

This film was WAY more overtly political than any of the pseudo Libertarian nonsense in WINTER SOLDIER or the plot of CIVIL WAR. It's more overtly political than the entire IRON MAN trilogy. That they went to that well for a Black super hero shows some courage on the part of MARVEL studios. Not just taking a risk mind you but some courage. So that's a point in the column of possibly shaping Panther into this type of strong willed pragmatist he has often been in the comics.


On the other hand I feel that the Panther franchise and Panther as a character is essentially being slid into the spot Catain America, his character and trilogy have in the MCU in general. The serious action drama slot with indeed the noble and good hearted pure hero in a cynical world. They may not want to taint the audience's perception of the character as he has been established in this first film.

Yeah, looks like as it is now he can do a good job in fulfilling the role that Cap has been playing in the MCU, assuming that Cap might not be around after Avengers 4.

 

[Guard82]

In Captain America: Civil War, I think we already saw a lot of Black Panther's more aggressive and ruthless side when he spent so much of the movie hunting Bucky for revenge for his father's death. By the end, he had realized the error of his ways, and I don't think the filmmakers want to risk backsliding with his character development. His growth into a noble king and hero makes sense for what we've seen of his journey.

 

[Steyin]

Funny, I feel they are setting BP up to be the Iron Man replacement, not the Cap one.

 

[eon001]

I think T'challa can grow into the ruthless leader, or he can turn the switch whenever the situation requires it.

In this movie there wasn't much time to prepare for anything. He seemed blindsided by alot of his obstacles.

I can see him naturally grow into the the ultra prepared hero. There probably going to maintain his sensitivity and nobility though.

 

[JtheDreamer]

I am of two minds here...

This film was WAY more overtly political than any of the pseudo Libertarian nonsense in WINTER SOLDIER or the plot of CIVIL WAR. It's more overtly political than the entire IRON MAN trilogy. That they went to that well for a Black super hero shows some courage on the part of MARVEL studios. Not just taking a risk mind you but some courage. So that's a point in the column of possibly shaping Panther into this type of strong willed pragmatist he has often been in the comics.


On the other hand I feel that the Panther franchise and Panther as a character is essentially being slid into the spot Catain America, his character and trilogy have in the MCU in general. The serious action drama slot with indeed the noble and good hearted pure hero in a cynical world. They may not want to taint the audience's perception of the character as he has been established in this first film.

Pseudo libertarian? What is the difference between the right to choose and invading sovereign borders vs. helping or not helping the world?

Your criticisms of TWS and Civil War are baffling to say the least. Black Panther presents some hot button issues, but it's mostly lip service and not explored/woven in the ways underlying political/social commentary was in those other two films. Civil War among them was a distinctly more "mature" film in that regard. Black Panther had to spend too much time world building Wakanda, introducing us to its characters, and following up on T'Challa transitioning from warrior to king.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I thought T'Challa was very much like his comic book counterpart.

I am of two minds here...

This film was WAY more overtly political than any of the pseudo Libertarian nonsense in WINTER SOLDIER or the plot of CIVIL WAR. It's more overtly political than the entire IRON MAN trilogy. That they went to that well for a Black super hero shows some courage on the part of MARVEL studios. Not just taking a risk mind you but some courage. So that's a point in the column of possibly shaping Panther into this type of strong willed pragmatist he has often been in the comics.


On the other hand I feel that the Panther franchise and Panther as a character is essentially being slid into the spot Catain America, his character and trilogy have in the MCU in general. The serious action drama slot with indeed the noble and good hearted pure hero in a cynical world. They may not want to taint the audience's perception of the character as he has been established in this first film.

This point confuses me. What are you referring to exactly?

 

[Aximili86]

Are you kidding? There's plenty of "libertarian" sounding ideological stuff from Cap in the two modern-set films. Worried about government getting too big & intrusive and out-of-hand with the surveillance stuff in TWS, and the whole "individual right to choose" spiel in CW.

bad place, upon release TWS was even taking some minor heat in the press for being a bit of an "anti-Obama" movie. It's not of course, I don't think Feige & Co have ever gotten too specific with their politics in any of these movies in terms of taking an actual stance against individual politicians (and they shouldn't - Civil War was great in how it basically stayed neutral with the judgement call and let the audience take what they will from it). But yeah, TWS is full of the "can't let Big Brother get a stranglehold!" stuff, a few reviewers were taking the helicarrier stuff as an analogue for the expanding drone program at the time. And Steve's position in Civil War is honestly pretty "right of center".

Which is fine though, Cap's always been this weird dual mix of sort of oldschool FDR Democrat and Reagan Republican. Best elements of both, with the bull**** of neither. The movies sort of reflect that. TFA brought all the FDR stuff in spades, as it should.

bad place, you could even take the Iron Man stuf pre-CW to be pretty "libertarian". RDJ himself has had a few accusations/rumors of being a Republican over the years (but likely more centrist than hardline crazy).

BP's hardly the first MCU flick delving a little into politics. They're just smart enough to sort of scratch the surface without diving full-in and taking a particular position which'd alienate half the audience.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Are you kidding? There's plenty of "libertarian" sounding ideological stuff from Cap in the two modern-set films. Worried about government getting too big & intrusive and out-of-hand with the surveillance stuff in TWS, and the whole "individual right to choose" spiel in CW.

bad place, upon release TWS was even taking some minor heat in the press for being a bit of an "anti-Obama" movie. It's not of course, I don't think Feige & Co have ever gotten too specific with their politics in any of these movies in terms of taking an actual stance against individual politicians (and they shouldn't - Civil War was great in how it basically stayed neutral with the judgement call and let the audience take what they will from it). But yeah, TWS is full of the "can't let Big Brother get a stranglehold!" stuff, a few reviewers were taking the helicarrier stuff as an analogue for the expanding drone program at the time. And Steve's position in Civil War is honestly pretty "right of center".

Which is fine though, Cap's always been this weird dual mix of sort of oldschool FDR Democrat and Reagan Republican. Best elements of both, with the bull**** of neither. The movies sort of reflect that. TFA brought all the FDR stuff in spades, as it should.

bad place, you could even take the Iron Man stuf pre-CW to be pretty "libertarian". RDJ himself has had a few accusations/rumors of being a Republican over the years (but likely more centrist than hardline crazy).

BP's hardly the first MCU flick delving a little into politics. They're just smart enough to sort of scratch the surface without diving full-in and taking a particular position which'd alienate half the audience.

I think asking how much freedom is freedom is not a whacky question though. I think that TWS asks very valid questions about maintaining a safe and secure world vs the rights of the individual, as well as showing that the people in charge of our security don't always have our interests at heart. Are we going to say that is not true? That some people are not in positions of power just to increase their own power?

I see these as valid questions to ask yourself. I don't see it as non-sense. Where you ultimately side is entirely up to you, but these are valid things to consider.

 

[pxrple]

Are you kidding? There's plenty of "libertarian" sounding ideological stuff from Cap in the two modern-set films. Worried about government getting too big & intrusive and out-of-hand with the surveillance stuff in TWS, and the whole "individual right to choose" spiel in CW.

bad place, upon release TWS was even taking some minor heat in the press for being a bit of an "anti-Obama" movie. It's not of course, I don't think Feige & Co have ever gotten too specific with their politics in any of these movies in terms of taking an actual stance against individual politicians (and they shouldn't - Civil War was great in how it basically stayed neutral with the judgement call and let the audience take what they will from it). But yeah, TWS is full of the "can't let Big Brother get a stranglehold!" stuff, a few reviewers were taking the helicarrier stuff as an analogue for the expanding drone program at the time. And Steve's position in Civil War is honestly pretty "right of center".

Which is fine though, Cap's always been this weird dual mix of sort of oldschool FDR Democrat and Reagan Republican. Best elements of both, with the bull**** of neither. The movies sort of reflect that. TFA brought all the FDR stuff in spades, as it should.

bad place, you could even take the Iron Man stuf pre-CW to be pretty "libertarian". RDJ himself has had a few accusations/rumors of being a Republican over the years (but likely more centrist than hardline crazy).

BP's hardly the first MCU flick delving a little into politics. They're just smart enough to sort of scratch the surface without diving full-in and taking a particular position which'd alienate half the audience.

EDIT: wait I just got what you meant nvm

 

[pxrple]

I thought Chadwick was great as T'Challa in both Civil War and Black Panther. And I completely understand why they went with the noble, dignified aspect over any of his other known character traits. It makes sense as T'Challa is young, not yet cynical and only just risen to the throne. And of course, a selfless noble KIng is a great role model for the message this movie sent.

But with all that out of the way....we need to see the ruthless, ultra-prepared, willing to do almost anything to win Black Panther that's made him such a fan-favorite since Christopher Priest's first run at the character. This aspect is what makes T'Challa such a fascinating character. He's ultimately a good man, but capable of extreme moments of d/ckishness and arrogance in the pursuit of victory.

If T'Challa stays this "pure", I think the character will lose his edge. T'Challa is not a goody-two-shoes. He spies on the Avengers. He's a guy who annulled his marriage to Storm without even thinking twice about it. He's nowhere as bad as Namor, but I really hope in the sequel, you develop his better known (and less likable) personality traits, and make it clear why those traits develop.

Agreed. Loved the film, didn't like how he was lowkey overshadowed by his supporting cast (as much as i enjoyed the characters)

 

[Aximili86]

I think asking how much freedom is freedom is not a whacky question though. I think that TWS asks very valid questions about maintaining a safe and secure world vs the rights of the individual, as well as showing that the people in charge of our security don't always have our interests at heart. Are we going to say that is not true? That some people are not in positions of power just to increase their own power?

I see these as valid questions to ask yourself. I don't see it as non-sense. Where you ultimately side is entirely up to you, but these are valid things to consider.

Hey, I don't disagree with Cap on that stuff. He's spurting some libertarian philosophical notions, but nothing wrong with that on principle - he doesn't take it to the "never intervene anywhere overseas we only **** things up further raaah!" crazy Ron Paul extent. He's just concerned about the government (not knowing they're Hydra at the time) wielding power over the public to such a huge extent.

Pretty reasonable, absolutely. It's still pretty right-of-center though, which is probably what causes a few of those raised-eyebrows among a reviewer or two at the time.

Civil War could be argued he takes it to a bit of a problem level with his individualism stuff, but guess that's all subjective and debatable too.

 

[Web-Head]

In Captain America: Civil War, I think we already saw a lot of Black Panther's more aggressive and ruthless side when he spent so much of the movie hunting Bucky for revenge for his father's death. By the end, he had realized the error of his ways, and I don't think the filmmakers want to risk backsliding with his character development. His growth into a noble king and hero makes sense for what we've seen of his journey.

Yep, this

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I thought T'Challa was very much like his comic book counterpart.



This point confuses me. What are you referring to exactly?

Let's just say that there is a reason why we hear so much about the "deep state" from one corner of the political spectrum. The belief in an evil shadow government as was presented in TWS is a common and foolish belief in Libertarian circles.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Let's just say that there is a reason why we hear so much about the "deep state" from one corner of the political spectrum. The belief in an evil shadow government as was presented in TWS is a common and foolish belief in Libertarian circles.

I don't want to derail the thread really much further as TWS as little to nothing to do ultimately with Black Panther. But, let's just say I think calling the movie Libertarian non-sense is kind of dismissive and seems based more on personal political ideaology than the film's actual merit or questions/themes.

But again, I don't want to keep derailing the thread.

 

[Boy Scout]

Unless a family member - or [BLACKOUT]Nakia[/BLACKOUT] - dies or is very seriously injured by some lunatic, I don’t ever see him becoming quite that ruthless.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I don't want to derail the thread really much further as TWS as little to nothing to do ultimately with Black Panther. But, let's just say I think calling the movie Libertarian non-sense is kind of dismissive and seems based more on personal political ideaology than the film's actual merit or questions/themes.

But again, I don't want to keep derailing the thread.

Who said I am dismissing the whole film? But in my view you can see the influence of that kind of thinking just as a lot of people saw 9/11 Truther influence in elements of STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS. And... I enjoy both films but I also in my view again (and it's not just me) see the influence of the conspiracy mindset on display in the Libertarian and 9/11 Truther circles.


But they as elements in those films are to me half baked. Where as in BP because they took the idea of an African country with fantasy high technology and resources seriously and no matter how that might make some in the audience feel, they went down a path of including the implications of that if it were real in the world. That's what Kilmonger is all about. Is this a film about politics only? No. But what is there is far more explicit and clearer in its presentation than the surface level supposed complexity of both TWS and CW as I see it.

 

[MahvelBaby!]

I love movie panther, they showed his vengeful side in Civil War, I'm sure we will get lother sides in future films, I trust Marvel.

 

[Neptune]

I thought Chadwick was great as T'Challa in both Civil War and Black Panther. And I completely understand why they went with the noble, dignified aspect over any of his other known character traits. It makes sense as T'Challa is young, not yet cynical and only just risen to the throne. And of course, a selfless noble KIng is a great role model for the message this movie sent.

But with all that out of the way....we need to see the ruthless, ultra-prepared, willing to do almost anything to win Black Panther that's made him such a fan-favorite since Christopher Priest's first run at the character. This aspect is what makes T'Challa such a fascinating character. He's ultimately a good man, but capable of extreme moments of d/ckishness and arrogance in the pursuit of victory.

If T'Challa stays this "pure", I think the character will lose his edge. T'Challa is not a goody-two-shoes. He spies on the Avengers. He's a guy who annulled his marriage to Storm without even thinking twice about it. He's nowhere as bad as Namor, but I really hope in the sequel, you develop his better known (and less likable) personality traits, and make it clear why those traits develop.

AGREED! I thought T'Çhalla was way better in Civil war than in his own movie. Chadwick's acting was fine but the character felt boring at times. Shuri also has that ruthlessness and brashness to her in the comics but they changed her whole personality. Sadly, she is now the witty tech girl.

 

[Pink Ranger]

Not sure about everyone's definition of ruthless, but maybe this is the kind of thing I can see T'Challa doing, except with futuristic weapons.

 

[Abudefduf]

Eh, MCU heroes are always nicer than their comic book counterparts. It's not just T'Challa.

 

[The Batman]

I don't necessarily need to see him be ruthless, but I do want the "five steps ahead of you" T'Challa in future movies.

In his first appearance in Fantastic Four, T'Challa isn't this ruthless guy, but he does have that Prep Time element to him.

 

[Flint Marko]

I think calling the movie Libertarian non-sense is kind of dismissive and seems based more on personal political ideaology than the film's actual merit or questions/themes.

Bingo.