Welcome to the main discussion thread for the Marvel Cinematic Universe! This pinned post is here to establish some basic guidelines. All of the Media Forum rules
still apply.
- This thread is for talking about the live-action films, TV shows, animated works, and related content that use the Marvel brand, currently owned by Disney.
- While mild digressions are okay, discussion of the comic books should go in this thread
. Extended digressions may be thumped as off-topic.
- Spoilers for new releases should not be discussed without spoiler tagging for at least two weeks. Rather, each title should have a dedicated thread where that sort of conversation is held. We can mention new releases in a general sense, but please be courteous to people who don't want to be spoiled.
If you're posting tagged spoilers, make sure that the film or series is clearly identified outside the spoiler tagging. People need to know what will be spoiled before they choose to read the post.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jul 29th 2024 at 3:09:00 PM
The real reason is because of Ant-Man.
That movie did good enough that Marvel's trying to push out the sequel, Ant-Man and the Wasp, as quickly as possible. It unfortunately resulted in Captain Marvel getting pushed back even further, but Black Panther was pushed ahead to compensate, and as the title implies Wasp is supposed to have at least a co-leading role.
I don't doubt Marvel moved it to February to use Black History Month as a pushing point (from a marketing standpoint anyway), but I'd suspect it's also influenced by Deadpool, which single-handled proved to Hollywood that a February film could be massively successful.
Speaking of, Michael B. Jordan confirms his part
, says he's putting a "different spin" on the character he's playing.
Would that imply he's playing a character people in general have already seen before and would recognize (I can't think of a single Black Panther character besides T'Challa himself who has that much exposure), or simply that it's a character comic fans would assume is one way when he's actually doing something very different (like how Civil War did Zemo).
![]()
The problem isn't in whether the film will gross well, it's in whether Marvel is going to pigeonhole the movie as being their movie for black people, which is extremely patronizing even if the movie is successful and will hurt it in the long run even if it doesn't in the short run. T'Challa needs to not be perceived the MCU's designated Captain Ethnic.
edited 7th Jun '16 7:19:17 PM by KnownUnknown
Nobody said there was.
The point is the possibility of them milking it as a Black History Month release risks Unfortunate Implications and would also risk pigeonholing the movie, so we're hoping they won't do that. Not an accusation that Marvel Studios is actively plotting to do so.
edited 7th Jun '16 7:33:58 PM by KnownUnknown
It's just a speculation. They've avoided doing it with Black Panther so far so I hope they stay on that track and just continue to present him as the cool new guy who can maybe take over for when Iron Man retires. But if Reddit is any indication a surprising amount of fans think this is the coolest thing ever so I'm hoping Marvel doesn't use that as feedback for future marketing strategies.
edited 7th Jun '16 7:41:10 PM by AlleyOop
Why would there be Unfortunate Implications? Like..is it really bad for a movie to have a black demographic to market itself to?
![]()
There's nothing wrong with appealing to the fact that the character relates to a black audience, but at the same time it's unfortunate for a company to milk their characters as "the character for X ethnicity/gender/culture" in general, especially when they're supposed to be part of a larger universe. At best it can cause the audience, even the one they want to endear to, react negatively. At worst, it can severely cheapen the characters themselves.
It'd be like if DC marketed Wonder Woman and her upcoming film as "the superhero movie for girls" - or if Disney primarily spun Rey as "the girl Jedi" - which would run the risk of both making female audiences feel patronized, on top of that alienating male audiences, and making the character feel like a less universal part of the mythos in favor of looking like they're only there to satisfy one group. With non-white characters, the risk of alienation is often perceived as less important since most viewers/readers/etc are white anyway (giving the idea that the movie is only being made for that demographic in the first place), but in truth its much more potential damaging for the character for the same reason.
In short, its very similar to the problems inherent in tokenism. So it's one of the things that people get nervous about whenever non-white characters are introduced in things. T'Challa himself has had loads of problems over the years with many issues that aren't even necessarily related to that, so I've got my fingers crossed about a lot of things.
I very much doubt that Marvel Studios is going to fall into any of those pitfalls, especially after seeing Civil War, but I'm still going to be nervous about everything until the movie actually comes out. In terms of the future of non-white superheros, I'm kind of pinning all my hopes on him.
edited 7th Jun '16 7:59:52 PM by KnownUnknown
For one, it's Marvel's problem if the audience reacts negatively to a character. Worse, it's the character's problem, because it can taint future uses of the character. And it's bad in terms of non-white characters in general, as it results in yet more public perception that they don't work or can only be done in certain ways, which trickles back up to executives.
But more importantly, if the character is presented in such a way that the audience perceives them as a token, that's not something that only comes from the audience - especially not nowadays. As we're pointing out, its also something that comes from the presentation, and can easily indicate that the people presenting the character lack interest in the character as anything other than a way to placate certain audiences. And it's something that anyone in a creative medium who's serious about representation in media needs to be aware of.
edited 7th Jun '16 8:12:03 PM by KnownUnknown
The kind of reasons you just provided for male or white audiences possibly reacting negatively to women or minority characters (which come from their own prejudices) is that audience's own problem, yes.
Like, no offense, but I'm not gonna feel any sympathy for any white person that feels threatened by the Black Panther movie coming out during Black History Month, lol. Just saying
That's actually not what any of us said.
We're talking about film studios and marketing presenting characters as token characters for ethnic audiences, rather than as full characters in the universes. Not about white audiences being threatened by non-white characters. That's a separate but no less important conversation.
edited 7th Jun '16 8:15:29 PM by KnownUnknown
Isn't it? So why would a character in a movie (especially a big franchise movie like any Star Wars movie or an MCU movie, that most people will watch anyway) being specifically marketed as a character that certain demographics can identify with cause such a negative reaction from male or white audiences?
edited 7th Jun '16 8:15:54 PM by higherbrainpattern
![]()
![]()
The advertising for a work frequently says something about how the studio itself views the character. If they're going to advertise Black Panther as some sort of Tyler Perry movie that shows the company itself doesn't see him as anything more than "their black hero to fill a quota" which is pretty disheartening when what his fans want is to push him as a character all audiences should be able to love, regardless of ethnicity.
edited 7th Jun '16 8:17:04 PM by AlleyOop
This.
Also, keep in mind that one of the big things we mentioned was how it actually comes off as patronizing to the audience they're supposed to be endearing to. People want non-white characters to stand as big as characters like Iron Man or Superman on merit of being strong and endearing characters with a lot of support from the people making them, not the appearance of being spoonfed non-white productions to make them happy to have something.
edited 7th Jun '16 8:20:14 PM by KnownUnknown
Nothing at all. That's not what we've been talking about. In fact, that's what we've been saying they should make it clear they're doing.
edited 7th Jun '16 8:22:40 PM by KnownUnknown
X11 Reminds me of when I saw Creed. Generally, previews are all of movies that are similar in genre to the movie they precede. Action movies have action movie trailers. Animated movies have animated movie trailers. Comedies have comedy trailers. Being a sports movie, I thought Creed would mostly have sports movie trailers. It had trailers for Race and Concussion (the latter of which is barely a sports movie). I don't think it had a trailer for Eddie the Eagle (a sports movie). I think I actually saw the Eddie the Eagle trailer before Deadpool. The other trailers I remember were The Perfect Guy (a romantic thriller) and Central Intelligence (a spy comedy). The only common thread I could see between all the movies that were previewed is that they started black actors. It's almost like they think black moviegoers will see any movie with a black lead and also that only black moviegoers will see a movie with a black lead.
edited 7th Jun '16 8:25:57 PM by FoxBoxKid
Make mine Marvel.

Yeah if you ask me the fact that it's in one of the Dump Months is probably to its benefit as people are likely going to show up anyway and it no longer has to deal with tough competition like Justice League, but if they intentionally placed it there because of Black History Month then it feels a little too on the nose and patronizing.
edited 7th Jun '16 6:18:46 PM by AlleyOop