Black Panther

> because there were almost no Jews in Germany

> Less than 200,000

Anyone else taking issue with this?

Because I sure am

New theme music also a box

Yep. Especially because American Jews at the time certainly cared as did some (but obviously not enough) people. Even the Hitler apologists of the time considered the anti semitism a demerit.

But yeah, this is the first time (outside of Pat Buchanan) I’ve seen a defense of isolationism that argues “not caring about persecution of Jews was actually good”.

Oh my,your're using the 'people can;t read my posts correctly' defence ;which is why they are not agreeing with me!'

no.

edited 21st Mar '18 3:01:09 PM by Ultimatum

New theme music also a box

It's not a defense, because I don't need to make a defense and couldn't care less if people "agreed" with the historical record. I'm pointing out the objective fact that the above poster didn't understand what was actually written. Hint, it never depended on any sort of moral argument.

edited 21st Mar '18 3:07:20 PM by NogaiKhan

Anyway

Back on topic

I need to see this film as soon as,and the DVD isn't out until May but it's going to be on for long while yet

New theme music also a box

Just for the record, getting rid of all the Jews (either because they fled or were killed off) did unmeasurable damage to Germany. Especially the ones which had integrated in society were a true boon to it, working as doctors aso. A number of them were famous artists. Not to mention that a lot of free-thinkers also went because they didn't feel save anymore.

@Nogai Khan, your posts are pretty much asserting both that people who didn't care about Jewish persecutions/the Holocaust were doing so for sensible, pragmatic reasons (as opposed to being sympathetic to the Nazis, like the "America First" types were), and arguing that they were completely right not to care. Like I don't know why you also cited the popularity of intervention, because you seem to think that it was a bad idea/unjustified at any point before Pearl Harbor.

And your post came across to me as potentially denialist too in terms of downplaying the Nurenberg Laws and framing the exterminations in Eastern Europe as basically "the Nazis killed a lot of Slavs, some of whom happened to be Jews".

No, I am simply stating these four facts:

1. The Nuremberg race laws were not notable by the standards of the time, except maybe that they targeted Jews rather than Amerindians or Sub-Saharan Africans or something (even then the Russian Empire had similar policies). Thus they wouldn't have been seen as uniquely terrible and enough to galvanize people into intervention. Any more than the USA would have been galvanized into declaring war on Britain because of their policies in India, or Britain would have been galvanized into declaring war on the USA because of segregation.

2. The narrative of "everyone saw Hitler killing millions and could have stopped him but didn't because apathy" is not what actually happened. France, Britain, and the USSR would have loved to squash Germany sooner, but lacked the ability. The USA on the other hand lacked a compelling reason to intervene, not because they wouldn't care if Hitler killed tens of millions of people but because he wasn't actually doing that. Pre-Barbarossa it was just another typical European war. Despite being unwilling to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men at that moment though, American attitudes were not apathetic as Americans overwhelmingly favored Russia over Germany, sent materiel to Britain, and even favored eventual intervention against Germany if (and only if) Russia and Britain couldn't do it alone.

3. Almost everyone killed by the Nazis was in a foreign country they invaded, not minorities they persecuted in their own country. The character of the Holocaust needs to be understood. It was primarily not an internal genocide but a war of expansion in which populations of occupied lands were to be liquidated.

4. The USA in 1939 was never isolationist, it was an active world power.

It's the historian's fallacy in a nutshell.

Again, intervention at the time was favored only if it was necessary. At that time most people simply didn't think it was necessary. Our opinions are not relevant to the way they thought because we're viewing things in hindsight with all information available to us of what Hitler planned and what happened after the USA entered the war. Nazi policy towards people judged to be of "East Baltic" extraction (which included some 75-80% of Russians, east Ukrainians, and Poles) differed little from their policy towards Jews (who were judged to be of "Hither Asiatic, Oriental, and East Baltic" extraction primarily), so melding those events together makes sense.

edited 21st Mar '18 3:50:26 PM by NogaiKhan

What's everyone's favourite moment from Black Panther?

New theme music also a box

My favourite moment from Black Panther is the scene where Shuri gets him to kick the suit a second time.

We all know she didn't delete it.

One Strip! One Strip!

Okay, dropping it. The response/edit above made the poster's position clearer in terms of "benefit of hindsight". I did raise the phrasing of the Slavic issue because it's a framing popular with right wing European leaders, especially in Hungary and Poland, as a way of downplaying the Holocaust, especially in terms of actions by collaborators in those countries. But I'm persuaded that's not how the poster meant it.

Edit- not trying to stealth continue the discussion, but wanted to make my position clearer.

On topic, I can't really see how the Ancestral Plane doesn't have something to do with the Soul Stone.

edited 21st Mar '18 4:06:44 PM by Hodor2

I don't think it does

Since it involves putting yourself in a near death state and also because magic does exist separate from the stones

Forever liveblogging the Avengers

It'd be an issue if not for the fact magic has been established in other movies and mediums.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

There is strong precedent for the power of an infinity stone to be infused in other objects. Hydra's tech from TFA was based on doing just that. So the idea that the mystical aspects of Wakanda is a result of the Soul Gem's power being infused into the heart-shaped herb isn't a crazy one.

Having said that, I think there's a possibility that the Soul Gem isn't in Infinity War at all. Since I think Thanos is going to obtain 4 out of the 5 stones in the movie, with final movie being a race to find the last stone.

If the Soul Stone is in Wakanda, then I believe that the Reality Stone will remain lost in the movie (minus any CGI shenanigans, Thanos lacks it when he reaches Earth).

edited 21st Mar '18 5:09:47 PM by Falrinn

My Review

So is the Black Panther any good?

[sarcasm] Yes, this movie needs my approval to become a success *sarcasm*. Really, I don't feel like reviewing this movie at all because everyone who is going to have seen it has probably done so already. It's a movie which has surpassed Titanic and the Avengers or will soon enough. It's certainly changed the dynamic of a lot of people's perceptions regarding black-led superhero films (which I respond to with: wait, did just forget Blade existed?). Still, I feel like I'd be denying my fanbase if I didn't do a review of the film. So, what did I think?

It was okay. Not great. Better than Doctor Strange. Not as entertaining as Thor: Ragnarok. It's kind of a bizarre situation as Black Panther is now a cultural icon with ludicrous things like the movie being attacked by Forbes magazine for taking away viewers from white-driven movies. Yet, really, I think my biggest objection to the movie comes from the fact I'm a Black Panther fan. Yes, of the comic book character.

I was a big fan of the interpretation by Reginald Hudlin and Christopher Priest. That version of the Black Panther heavily influenced this version but this is just different enough to be not quite as interesting as me. Again, nobody in the world is going to care what my blog has to say on the subject and I'm glad everyone else in the world mostly seems to like this story. It's a phenomenon and, like Avatar, if you like it then you like it. Still, I'm not afraid of critiquing something that's popular and if you're interested in hearing my thoughts then read on.

The premise of the movie is T'Challa is ascending to the throne of Wakanda in the aftermath of his father's death in Captain America: Civil War. He manages to deal with early challenges well but things go completely off the rails when his unknown cousin, Eric Stephens a.k.a Killmonger, comes to Wakanda in order to claim the throne via Necromonger-esque challenge. T'Challa survives, barely, and must make a Rocky-style comeback to reclaim his throne before Killmonger unleashes Wakandan technology on the world in an attempt to create a global revolution.

Like the comic (and Avatar for that matter), Black Panther is fundamentally an anti-colonialist movie but actually stars real people. Killmonger has the plan of creating black liberation throughout the world by arming oppressed peoples with advanced Wakandan technology. He believes it will create a Wakandan empire, which basically is a very intelligent and well-thought out jab at American foreign policy where plenty of groups were given weapons by the USA that turned out to not want to be our friends.

However, I had a lot of issues with the story because Killmonger's plans are so poorly thought out and driven by his rage that it contrasted against a lot of points which the movie is trying to bring up. The film chastises Wakanda for being a nation that remained in isolation for centuries when the slave trade as well as other criseses were occurring but portrays it as a utopian nation otherwise. There's a lot of really good moments, like the fact Wakandans don't see other Africans as their problem, but these are hurt by the fact the movie is forced to gloss over the larger issues in order to get to the next action scene.

Still, I have to give Michael B. Jordan credit for creating a character where the shortsightedness and lack of planning for a supposed genius is entirely justified. Killmonger came to Wakanda in hopes of finding a home and a sympathetic ear for his pan-African crusade as well as wars of liberation. Instead, like many revolutionaries throughout history, his one-dimensional black and white view of history as well as politics meets deaf ears. Rather than try to see the perspective of his opponents, he simply dismisses them as evil.

Much of the comic Black Panther's story is driven by the dramatic irony of the fact T'Challa is a reformer and man with slightly more respect for the outside world than your average Wakandan (which is to say any at all). While the story touches on the idea T'Challa is going to bring Wakanda into the greater global community, this occurs at the end of a longer character arc that I think would have been a better focus of a movie than the existing story where he finds out his country is not as picturesque as he thought.

I also admit I wasn't a big fan of the changes to existing Black Panther supporting characters. The transformation of Everett Ross from a somewhat bumbling bureaucrat who is, fundamentally, a good man to a very competant CIA agent somewhat warps the narrative around him. Sort of like turning Jimmy Olsen into a CIA agent in Batman vs. Superman. I also am probably the only person who prefers the Dora Milaje plot as unwanted fiances of Black Panther to maintain a peace. The movie versions are certainly badass and awesome but I'm a sucker for stories about unrequited love. What did I think about Shuri? I had no complaints about her and actually prefer her to the comic version—T'Challa should totally give the kingdom to her.

The movie is beautiful from start to finish and does an excellent job of making a fantastical place real. Wakanda is not so much believable (when it starts with a cloaking field to keep it hidden—you've already left the realm of that description) but it is authentic. The choice of attire, architecture, and statements give a sense of how this nation might have been created. My view being that it was once a much more cosmopolitan culture with influences from all of Africa but which turned inward centuries ago.

In a real way, I think my biggest issue with the movie is T'Challa is the straight man for more interesting characters to bounce off of. I say that with all respect to Chadwick's Boseman, who does an immensely good job in every scene he's in. Still, I can't help but think Black Panther is a character who works better as an older more proactive character than one who is just starting his career as here. Still, T'Challa is on an arc throughout the story and completes it in a way which is both interesting and not at all superficial.

Sill, the action in the movie is tremendous and visually stunning from beginning to end. Black Panther easily sells that he might be the single greatest fighter in the MCU and that's before Killmonger manages to one-up him. I just prefer genius chessmaster T'Challa to the one in the movie.

8/10

edited 23rd Mar '18 5:55:17 AM by CharlesPhipps

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

T'Challa the Xanatos Hero King will come soon enough, I'm sure.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Nice write up. This is one of those times where I'm glad that I have zero attachment to T'Challa's comic book counterpart. I absolutely love MCU!T'Challa. For what it's worth, I'm a huge of benevolent kings but T'Challa is such an honorable hero in this film. I almost feel sad when people say he's the least interesting character in the movie.

As far as adapting the character, though, I sympathize with you. I had the exact same problem with Spider-Man: Homecoming. I just...didn't see the Spider-Man I grew up with, even though Tom Holland did a fantastic job.

One nitpick I have for this film is T'challa accepting Killmonger's combat challenge. He should have simply refused and had Killmonger taken away, especially since he was just told by Ross how dangerous this guy is and how he was trained to destabilize countries. Sure Killmonger may have had a right to challenge for the throne since he is from royal blood, but challenge day already happened and the transition of power had already occurred. It didn't really seem like a smart move on T'challa's part to potentially jeopardize Wakanda by entertaining any requests from a man like Killmonger.

Tis the great art of life to manage well The restless mind

Eh, it’s the MCU people just make horrible decisions.

Also he was emotionally compromised on this exact subject

Forever liveblogging the Avengers

Refusing the challenge could have made T'Challa look weak, which is not a great way to start off a monarch's reign. Wakanda values the strength of its king pretty highly, as demonstrated by the fact that the challenge exists in the first place. Rejecting such a challenge right in front of his nation's nobility would empower Killmonger's claim, because it would suggest to those leaders that T'Challa is a coward and thus unsuited to rule.

Killmonger would have had his coup one way or the other. T'Challa chose the option that ultimately provided an avenue to remaining in power.

edited 24th Mar '18 7:35:41 AM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.

Keeping in mind the Border Tribe's faith in the King was already waning.

T'challa's fault was less accepting the challenge and more going soft on him during the challenge itself. He consistently refuses to kill him several times. Early on the fight, T'challa has Killmonger dead to rights, fallen on the ground, with his blade to his throat and could have just ended him right there. Instead he goes "YIELD!". T'challa's only starts fighting full-on after Zuri dies, and by then it's too little too late.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."

Obviously he misjudged Killmonger.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

A typical superhero trait presented in an atypical way, T'Challa wrestles with mercy. It doesn't come naturally to him, but since seeing Stark and Rogers fall apart in Civil War, it's something he believes that he should carry himself with and so he makes the effort.

He doesn't kill Klaue when other Wakandan Kings would. Even all the way up to Klaue's interrogation, Okoye's like, "We should just kill this asshole before he reveals our secret. If the foreigners get in our way, well, sucks to be them."

He shows mercy to M'Baku and permits him to surrender rather than trying to force him over the waterfall, even though it's clear that M'Baku's giving everything he has to trying to kill him.

And he tries to do the same with Killmonger, forcing a surrender so that he can end the challenge while still accepting him into Wakanda.

One thing I really like about the film that certain - ahem- other MCU works fail at is that we see the results of T'Challa's mercy ultimately pay off. That M'Baku saves his life and the Jabari rally to his side is a direct consequence of the mercy he showed on Challenge Day. That Ross is present and able to lend a helping hand in the climax is another direct consequences of his mercy.

While Killmonger's burning bridges, T'Challa's forging new ones through a radical shift in approach from his predecessors' "Well, I'm king, so f*ck you," style.

My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.