Was Black Panther an Origin movie?

[kedrell]

We did see Tony building his initial suit and training himself in how to use the updated armor in Iron Man, which was an origin story. We didn't see Thor meeting the Warriors Three because that film was not an origin movie.

A origin story focuses on the character before becoming the hero and takes us through their transformation into the hero we know and love. In the MCU, Iron Man, Ant Man, Dr. Strange and Captain America:The First Avenger are origin stories. The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Spider Man: Homecoming and Black Panther are not.

I'd argue Thor was an origin movie since he wasn't really a superhero prior to it. The fact that he already had all his powers doesn't change that. In a sense Thor is an origin movie but inverted. BP isn't an origin movie IMO because he's already the hero when the movie starts. CW in a sense was BP's origin movie and the moment he truly became a hero is when he chose not to kill Zemo(I am done letting vengeance consume me).

 

[Donald Thomas]

If this is an "origin movie", than the definition has broadened to the point of being basically useless.

Aloha,
How so? If we stick to the way a character was presented in the comic, then in the case of BP we got his origin (again without the real introduction through the Fantastic Four). I get where people are coming from as far as what they see as an origin movie, but if the origin of a character starts when he is already powered, then that's where his origin starts. I'm still trying to get someone to show me what part of the 50 years plus comic book history of the Black Panther was NOT presented in this movie as far as his origin is concerned. He's not Batman with an origin that starts with his parents getting killed when he was a child. In the comic Klaw killed T'Chaka and T'Challa blasted his hand off. That was changed so that Ultron took Klaws hand. But again, what part of the comic book origin of BP was NOT shown in this movie?

Long Live the King of Wakanda

 

[BullMcGiveny]

Little bit from column a, little bit from column b.

By the nature of the character, you can't really make a typical Black Panther origin story. Ant-Man, Iron Man, CA:TFA, were typical origin movies that chart a characters progression from man to hero and the choices they had to take to get there. T'Challa was born to be Black Panther.

At the same time, the movie builds up the setting and mythology of the character, which are as crucial.

 

[Chance Jackson]

I'd argue that it's the origin of him becoming a king more than him becoming Black Panther.

^^Yes. We see his rise as king, his fall and his "resurrection", which leads to him becoming a better man, hero, and king. That alone makes it an origin film, I think.

absolutely

 

[Donald Thomas]

Aloha,
Just to follow up on this discussion.
Boxoffice Mojo lists Black Panther as an Origin movie. Ranked #1
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=superheroorigin.htm

Long Live the King of Wakanda

 

[NHawk19]

Aloha,
How so? If we stick to the way a character was presented in the comic, then in the case of BP we got his origin (again without the real introduction through the Fantastic Four). I get where people are coming from as far as what they see as an origin movie, but if the origin of a character starts when he is already powered, then that's where his origin starts. I'm still trying to get someone to show me what part of the 50 years plus comic book history of the Black Panther was NOT presented in this movie as far as his origin is concerned. He's not Batman with an origin that starts with his parents getting killed when he was a child. In the comic Klaw killed T'Chaka and T'Challa blasted his hand off. That was changed so that Ultron took Klaws hand. But again, what part of the comic book origin of BP was NOT shown in this movie?

Long Live the King of Wakanda

I get that it's an origin to the extent that this if the full formal introduction of the character, going back to the beginning of the tribes in Wakanda, rather than the short exploration we got in Civil War. However, they glance over that part and focus on T'Challa's story of transition from Prince to King. A story that started with an attempt at vengeance in a previous film. To that extent this then becomes a sequel or spin-off.

I'm not sure which part of the comic they didn't explore but they did leave a few questions. How did he have the armor and enhanced skills in CA:CW if he didn't win the title or usage of the heart shaped herb until the ceremony in Wakanda following his father's death? Shouldn't T'Chaka have been the Black Panther at the time of his death? Was there a rushed swearing in? Or was that T'Challa's "training" suit we saw in the prior film?

This movie is really only an origin in that it's the character's first stand-alone film, and it explores the history and practices of Wakanda and the character much deeper than CA:CW did. Plus you can watch it without needing much from the MCU. However if you wanted to call it a spin-off or sequel to CA:CW I don't think you'd be wrong either.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

That's my major gripe about this movie: no training montage featuring 13-year-old T'Challa gradually improving his fighting abilities to the tune of Shake It Off by Taylor Swift.

 

[daddydivine]

I get that it's an origin to the extent that this if the full formal introduction of the character, going back to the beginning of the tribes in Wakanda, rather than the short exploration we got in Civil War. However, they glance over that part and focus on T'Challa's story of transition from Prince to King. A story that started with an attempt at vengeance in a previous film. To that extent this then becomes a sequel or spin-off.

I'm not sure which part of the comic they didn't explore but they did leave a few questions. How did he have the armor and enhanced skills in CA:CW if he didn't win the title or usage of the heart shaped herb until the ceremony in Wakanda following his father's death? Shouldn't T'Chaka have been the Black Panther at the time of his death? Was there a rushed swearing in? Or was that T'Challa's "training" suit we saw in the prior film?

This movie is really only an origin in that it's the character's first stand-alone film, and it explores the history and practices of Wakanda and the character much deeper than CA:CW did. Plus you can watch it without needing much from the MCU. However if you wanted to call it a spin-off or sequel to CA:CW I don't think you'd be wrong either.

Thats reaching.

Anyway it's been explained that T'challa was the Black Panther before he was king. It also was explained that T'challa created the Civil War suit. The answer to your questions were kinda easy to point out in Civil War and Black Panther. Maybe you were unlucky and hit up the bathroom every time the subject came up in the movies.

 

[NHawk19]

Thats reaching.

Anyway it's been explained that T'challa was the Black Panther before he was king. It also was explained that T'challa created the Civil War suit. The answer to your questions were kinda easy to point out in Civil War and Black Panther. Maybe you were unlucky and hit up the bathroom every time the subject came up in the movies.

It was stated that the mantle was passed from warrior to warrior. It did not explain when the mantle was passed from father to son. Or how he could be the Black Panther without being King.

Found out after my initial post that this was addressed in the Prequel comic. T'Challa had the mantle even before Tony was Iron-man. So no I didn't hit up the bathroom and miss it.