Ruin Johnson has gone off the deep end—AGAIN—this time blaming Russian trolls for the attacks against him and The Last Jedi. Seriously.
Sources:
Like our videos? Help support us by subscribing!
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/WilkReport
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheWilkReport/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/michaelwilk74 | https://twitter.com/karasoth
Medium: https://medium.com/@karasoth
Ruin Johnson just can’t seem to stay off Twitter, proving once again that he is a child who has utterly failed to grow up. This time he attacked YouTuber Mike Zeroh for merely asking if rumors are true that Johnson’s trilogy has been cancelled.
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/WilkReport
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheWilkReport/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/michaelwilk74 | https://twitter.com/karasoth
Medium: https://medium.com/@karasoth
Source Links:
Tom, Larry, and I discuss a range of topics from cartoon reboots, demolition versus reconstruction, James Gunn, Teen Titans, and much more.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments below. To support us, please subscribe to our blog and YouTube channel, and become a Patron to receive exclusive content and other perks.
You have to hand it to DC-Warner Bros. Even though their half-arsed cinematic universe is has tanked, they’re still hell bent on throwing good money after bad with their announcement, as reported on polygon.com, of movies coming up over the next couple of years.
Upcoming entries in the failed ‘DC Extended Universe’ include this year’s Aquaman; 2019’s Shazam! and Wonder Woman 1984; in either 2019 or 2020, an as-yet-untitled Joker origin movie; and Cyborg, Green Lantern Corps, and Suicide Squad 2 in 2020. Other potential movies include Batgirl and Flashpoint (based on The Flash).
The problem with this is that, with the dismal performance thus far of Warner Bros.’ comic book movies since the end of the Christopher Nolan Dark Knight trilogy, no one is really asking for any of these except perhaps for the Wonder Woman sequel. Silly comparisons of the Shazam costume to the Batman costume notwithstanding, there’s really not much talk from comic fans or moviegoers in general to indicate a demand needing to be fulfilled.
That’s not stopping DC and Warner Bros., though, as they roll out their television trailer for a rebooted Superman comic under Brian Michael Bendis. With comics in serious decline in large part because of craptastic writing and seemingly endless comicversal reboots every couple of years, I won’t hold my breath until I see positive results that last. That said, DC at least listens to fan criticism and takes corrective action when it fouls up, whereas Marvel basically tells readers to f*** off. I guess we’ll be waiting a few decades for before we can finally see the awful One More Day storyline undone. Or maybe not. It seems that Marvel might finally be coming to its senses. We’ll see.
Speaking of Marvel, Sean Combs is talking smack about Marvel’s Black Panther, calling it a “cruel experiment” that isn’t the game-changer the media has hyped it as.
“‘Black Panther’ was a cruel experiment because we live in 2018,” Diddy said, “and it’s the first time that the film industry gave us a fair playing field on a worldwide blockbuster, and the hundreds of millions it takes to make it.”
Diddy views “Black Panther” more as a small baby step to inclusion than an outright game-changer. He told Variety that all industries have the same issue of letting black men and women hold top-level positions, even when black employees have been able to make their respective companies millions of dollars. For this reason, the billion-dollar success of “Black Panther” isn’t enough of a sign to Diddy that Hollywood is on its way to major change.
“For all the billions of dollars that these black executives have been able to make them, [there’s still hesitation] to put them in the top-level positions,” Diddy said of industries at large. “They’ll go and they’ll recruit cats from overseas. It makes sense to give [executives of color] a chance and embrace the evolution, instead of it being that we can only make it to president, senior VP. … There’s no black CEO of a major record company. That’s just as bad as the fact that there are no [black] majority owners in the NFL. That’s what really motivates me.”
Diddy continued by saying the success of “Black Panther” did not surprise him. He maintained that when black creators are given the proper resources in any industry, they always “over-deliver.”
“You can’t do anything without that money, without resources,” Diddy told Variety. “But when we do get the resources, we over-deliver. When Adidas invests in Kanye and it’s done properly, you have the right results. When Live Nation invests in artists and puts them in arenas the same way U2 would be, you have the right results. ‘Black Panther,’ ‘Black-ish,’ fashion; it’s all about access. If you’re blocked out of the resources, you can’t compete. And that’s my whole thing — to be able to come and compete.”
Actually, that’s pretty fair. It does remain to be seen if the success of Black Panther will lead to more opportunities for writers, directors, producers, and actors of color.
Finally, streaming service Hulu is coming out with a new series called Castle Rock, based on the fictional Maine town setting for many of Stephen King’s novels and short stories.
Andre Holland, of “The Knick” and “Moonlight,” plays Henry Deaver, an attorney who had left Castle Rock. He returns after becoming embroiled in the case of a young man (Bill Skarsgard) found being kept prisoner, seemingly outside the bounds of the law, within a secret chamber in the local penitentiary. (It’s the Shawshank State Prison, naturally.) The lawyer’s past in Castle Rock precedes him; just about everyone he meets seems to recall an infamous incident that resulted in the death of Deaver’s father when Deaver was just a child.
I have to say I’m on the fence regarding this series. On the one hand, it’s based on Stephen King’s work, and King has a well deserved reputation as a fantastic writer. On the other hand, it’s based on Stephen King’s work, and the visual media adapted from it over the decades has been hit-or-miss.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments below. If you’d like to help support this blog and the YouTube channel, please hit the subscribe button and bell icon to receive notifications whenever content is posted. And please consider becoming a Patron. Not only will it help pay the bills, it’ll help pay to improve the quality of the videos and podcasts.
The rumors are flying over the world wide web that Kathleen Kennedy may be stepping down as head of LucasFilm as early as September. According to Movie Web:
We have to caution right off the bat that this isn’t coming from any official sources, so it should be taken with a massive grain of salt. That said, there are rumors emerging that Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy may be stepping down in September. If there is any validity to this at all, it would represent a major shift not just for Kennedy, but for one of the biggest franchises on the planet.
Kennedy has been infamously divisive, and there has been much criticism over her cynical exploitation of identity politics to simultaneously pander to every possible demographic in an effort to fill as many movie theaters seats as possible, and shield the movies made under her watch from public criticism. As well, communication, or rather, lack thereof, has been a serious problem:
While the Star Wars franchise was successfully relaunched under her watch and the four movies released since Disney purchased Lucasfilm have grossed north of $4.5 billion at the box office, there have been issues. Namely, Josh Trank (Boba Fett), Phil Lord and Chris Miller (Solo) and Colin Trevorrow (Star Wars 9) have all been hired and fired on her watch. Kennedy has clearly had issues communicating with directors. The Last Jedi sailed smoothly under Rian Johnson, but that wound up being the most divisive movie in the new batch so far.
This, again, is all speculation because as of this writing Kennedy’s departure from LucasFilm is only a rumor and may ultimately prove untrue. But as I wrote in my last entry, under her watch Star Wars has gone from a record-breaking-and-making profit-generating property, to one that alienates audiences and loses money. You don’t go from one of the biggest relaunches of a franchise in movie history to seriously hurting the company’s bottom line just three years later, and not receive a pink slip. Profits have diminished to the point that it is now extremely difficult to imagine Disney’s plans for exploiting Star Wars continue in present form. Something has to change, and Disney C.E.O. Bob Iger won’t take the fall for Kennedy because none of Disney’s other divisions are experiencing these problems, only LucasFilm, and she’s the one in charge.
I’m going to engage in a bit of baseless speculation here, because right now this is only a rumor and it has yet to be confirmed publicly by Disney. I suspect that Iger has made his decision to replace Kennedy, and the company is trying to prolong the process, both to allow enough time to find a suitable replacement and to save face so that she is not humiliated as badly as she otherwise would be. No one wants to be the one who fired Kathleen Kennedy, who despite her reckless, arrogant incompetence still has a fair amount of pull in Hollywood. Also, firing her publicly would be a tacit admission that Disney screwed up by putting her in charge of LucasFilm in the first place—elites have a curious pathological aversion to admitting error.
Assuming the rumors are true and Kennedy is out at LucasFilm come September, the big question is, who would replace her? Disney needs someone like Marvel’s Kevin Feige, who over ten years has guided the company’s Cinematic Universe to great success. He has the vision and discipline to right the ship if he were to move from Marvel Studios to LucasFilm, but the drawback is that absent his presence, Marvel movies may end up faltering. Gale Anne Hurd, James Cameron’s longtime producer, is another potential replacement, especially with The Walking Dead winding down, but does she want the thankless task of coming in to clean up the mess Kennedy has made of Star Wars, one that might actually be impossible given the level of damage?
So we’ll see if the rumor prove true or not. If it is, and I certainly hope so, it’ll be interesting to see what spin Disney tries to put on it and who will be chosen to take over from Kennedy. Whoever it is will have to be able to alleviate investors’ concerns and restore their confidence in the franchise. That’s a tall order at this point, so it’s important that Iger pick the right person. Otherwise, there likely won’t be another movie after Episode IX and it’ll be at least another generation before we see another attempt to resurrect Star Wars.
The numbers are in for Solo: A Star Wars Story, and they don’t look good. The movie is projected to lose fifty million dollars for Disney. The company won’t, of course, suffer terribly; its Marvel and Pixar divisions are still running strong and are as popular as ever. But LucasFilm is in trouble. To give you an idea of how bad things are, here’s a chart laying it all out:
https://www.theatlas.com/javascripts/atlas.js
The numbers cited in the graph above are not adjusted for inflation, but I found an online inflation calculator and plugged in the box office gross for the very first Star Wars film from 1977. Adjusted for inflation, A New Hope grossed $2,480,653,465.35, more than Episode VII made just three years ago. Even adjusting Episode VII’s box office gross for inflation since 2015, it still doesn’t quite match the gross take for the original film. Remember: These are global, not domestic, figures.
The much-anticipated Episode VII: The Force Awakens, was at best a mediocre retread of George Lucas’ original 1977 film, directed by an uninspired hack whose biggest claim to infamy was dumbing down Star Trek to fit his shallow imbecile’s intellect. I suspect that most of the box office success of The Force Awakens comes primarily from advance ticket sales. Audiences left theaters feeling disappointed, yet hopeful that the next installment would answer the questions set up in the movie.
Those hopes were dashed by the utterly dismal Episode VIII: The Last Jedi, which was nothing more than an exercise in deliberately insulting anyone and everyone who is a Star Wars fan. Idiot Ruin Johnson, whose only major studio credits prior to coming on board the Star Wars franchise include the awful Brick and Looper, was tasked with continuing the story plan set up by Jar Jar Abrams. Instead, he tossed it in the trash and proceeded to use The Last Jedi as a platform to express his hatred for franchise and fans alike. As a result, the movie made only about half what its predecessor took in, and caused all manner of controversy as audiences were divided into people who don’t like having their intelligence insulted, and those who don’t care if they are insulted. LucasFilm head Kathleen Kennedy, with Abrams and Johnson ever playing the part of craven suck-ups, wasted no opportunity to try and shield the movies behind a wall of accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other condescending insults, rather than acknowledge the bad decisions being made.
The troubled production of Solo: A Star Wars Story has been well documented. Co-directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller were removed from the project over creative differences, and veteran director Ron Howard was brought in to complete it. The production budget was roughly doubled as he effectively had to start over from scratch—the scenes shot previously were considered that unusable. Further, lead performer Alden Ehrenreich was reportedly so incapable of acting that a coach had to be brought in to get anything usable out of him. Why he wasn’t recast is a mystery; Anthony Ingruber, who played a young version of Harrison Ford’s character in Age of Adeline, made a demo video nailing the older actor’s lines from A New Hope’s famous cantina scene that quickly went viral. If the movie had to be almost totally reshot, the logical thing to do would have been to do it completely, replace Ehrenreich with Ingruber, and work from a new script. But this did not come to pass.
Instead, LucasFilm doubled down on the script and, unwilling to rethink its annual movie release model, held to its planned May 2018 release date. In order to try and salvage it at the box office, Avengers: Infinity War’s release was moved up so as to offer less competition. That backfired as the Marvel movie remains in cinemas and is still taking in healthy ticket sales. The release of Deadpool 2 also factors in. There is a parallel here to 1989’s Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, which Paramount released against Batman, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and Ghostbusters II, all of which were hits the popularity of which took away from Trek and combined with word of mouth to effectively end William Shatner’s directing career.
Compounding the problems for LucasFilm is that merchandise based on the Disney productions is not moving. The toys gather dust on shelves—action figures can’t be sold even at bargain bin prices. This is unprecedented, and may be a significant contributing factor in the closing of Toy ‘R’ Us.
What this means going forward is that now Disney’s plans to open up Star Wars theme parks and hotels are in jeopardy. If merchandise and box office ticket sales are meant to pay for these projects, and those sales are going down with each release in the franchise, that is a major problem for Disney. No sane investor will fund a movie on the pitch that he or she will probably be flushing money down the proverbial toilet, or that even if it comes back, there likely won’t be any interest on the investment.
It would be a different matter if the failure of Solo were a fluke, a one-time thing in an otherwise successful franchise. But it’s not. It’s part of a larger trend of diminishing returns, and this is borne out by the numbers as indicated in the graph above. This cannot be spun as “franchise fatigue”, as Disney is trying to do. If it were that, then the Marvel Cinematic Universe would be suffering a similar crisis, yet it’s not.
Disney C.E.O. Bob Iger has got to be making preparations to replace Kathleen Kennedy as head of LucasFilm as soon as someone suitable—and willing—is identified. Disney bought LucasFilm with the intention of churning out movies every year like on a factory conveyor belt. In order to do that, there must be a new movie released every year, new trilogies and spin-offs going on for as long as Disney can squeeze money out of them. That can’t happen, nor can related projects such as theme parks, hotels, casinos, and so on, as long as Kennedy remains at the helm. Her lack of direction and alienation of fans, without whom there is no Star Wars, has brought things to where they are now. The writing is clearly on the wall that Disney can’t wait to see how Episode IX will fare in theaters—its release date for December 2019 is not that far off, and if the corporation won’t push it back, then this means that Kennedy will have to go soon, so that someone who actually has a vision and a workable plan can salvage what remains of the franchise. Jar Jar Abrams cannot be counted on to fix the mess Ruin Johnson made of the present trilogy. The idea that Johnson will get to keep his announced “outer rim” trilogy is, at this point, laughable. These three have done what was unthinkable even during George Lucas’ prequel saga: they’ve made Star Wars a property that is no longer profitable.
This week Larry Bernard and I talk about the train wreck that is Solo: A Star Wars Story, and where Disney might proceed from this point on now that Star Wars is no longer a guaranteed draw.
Donate:
https://www.patreon.com/WilkReport
PayPal: ClevelandFilmPhotography@gmail.com
Audio:
Social Media:
This week Larry Bernard and I discuss Black Panther and Avengers: Infinity War and how they compare to a certain franchise-crippling sequel, and the YouTube Red series Cobra Kai.
Donate: https://www.patreon.com/WilkReport
PayPal: ClevelandFilmPhotography@gmail.com
Audio: https://soundcloud.com/thewilkreport
Social Media: https://www.facebook.com/TheWilkReport/ https://twitter.com/MichaelWilk74
Assuming my Internet gets connected at my new digs, I’m going to try to do an episode of The Wilk Report focusing on ‘Black Panther’ and ‘Avengers: Infinity War’. I’ll also be doing an episode reviewing ‘Cobra Kai’, which I finished watching on my thirty-day YouTube Red free subscription. Interested parties wanting to participate in the discussion, hit up my inbox.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few months, you know how big a hit Marvel’s Black Panther has been, both with audiences and with identity-politics-obsessed activists. The story focuses on T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman), king of the fictional African nation of Wakanda, and how he is forced to confront his family’s past evils and his country’s isolationist policies. The movie is a brilliant, if flawed entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and I’ll get to the reasons why it is flawed, and what it gets right, in this blog post.
Director Ryan Coogler has basically scored a huge win for Marvel and for Disney, not only for a box office success but for deftly pandering to Black identity politics in a way that may be cynical and exploitative, but doesn’t quite feel like it is. The production budget is estimated at about $200 million (roughly $25 million under what it cost to produce Captain America: Civil War), with an estimated box office gross of about $1.325 billion as of this writing (which may change as the movie is still playing in some theaters). Marketing and advertising costs are typically about the same amount as the production budget, sometimes double that, but let’s assume for a moment that $200 million was spent on marketing and advertising because Disney really wanted this to do well and so put in a bigger effort to sell it to moviegoers, for example, plopping down $8.28 million for TV ads on opening weekend alone. Even accounting for merchandising licenses and the cut taken by theaters, Marvel and Disney still made a pretty nice profit here.
So clearly the movie was a hit with audiences, exactly as Disney hoped. I certainly enjoyed it when I went to see it in late February. But I’d be lying if I didn’t spot a number of deficiencies in the story and characters. They aren’t all that many, and what one critic took to task as a deeply conservative depiction of Wakanda and its natives, I think could actually be misinterpreted for reasons I’ll explain. So I’ll start with what I thought the movie got wrong, and then go into what I thought it got right, and why.
What Was Wrong
I’m not a fan of today’s trend of over-saturating every major production with CGI, and Black Panther is as guilty as any other of over-indulging in computer-generated imagery. Especially in the third act, it looked too fake and unbelievable, taking me out of the story somewhat, though not enough to completely spoil my experience. I’m not the only one to have noticed this problem. Today’s big-budget movie-making is far too obsessed with CGI, to the detriment of the final product. CGI is best used to enhance practical effects, as was the case with Spielberg’s adaptation of Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park in 1993, and in James Cameron’s Terminator 2: Judgment Day. And really, considering how much went into making Black Panther, there’s simply no excuse for getting lazy with the visual elements.
To be fair, there was a lot of CGI that wasn’t rushed or skimped on, such as when we are treated to the initial views of Wakanda from the viewpoint of the hover UFO used by T’Challa to trek across the globe. And the sight of Wakanda’s capital city, with its blend of African and Art Deco aesthetics, was impressive to say the least. But in far too many instances, the movie looks like it was a green-screen job and that detracted from the movie.
Eric Killmonger, played by Michael B. Jordan, is arguably the real hero of the story, or more accurately, the anti-hero. His backstory is crucial to the crisis within the larger narrative, because without it there is no larger narrative. So why do we only get to see a glimpse of him early on, in the first act, then have him disappear until almost the second half of the movie, when he suddenly reappears to escalate things?
What’s more, for all Killmonger is supposed to embody the chickens of Wakanda’s isolationism coming home to roost, we don’t get to actually see much of what made Killmonger become this monster. His motives are in conflict: revenge competing with a crusade for the African diaspora, with the result being that the latter is subsumed by the former. So much of the action in the first half of Black Panther is taken up by the hunt for Andy Serkis’ character, Ulysses Klaue, that by the time Killmonger pops back up, the tonal shift is just too jarring and feels too contrived and insincere.
In the Marvel comics, Black Panther is the sixth smartest person in the world, at times outwitting Tony Stark. In the movie, however, he relies too much on the high tech devices crafted by his sister Shuri (Letitia Wright), who channel’s James Bond’s ‘Q’ as the resident gadget-maker. It is this over-reliance on technology and his inner circle of family and friends, that diminishes the character. In Spider-Man: Homecoming, Tony Stark lectures Peter Parker telling him that if he can’t be a hero without his superhero suit, he doesn’t deserve to wear it. Well, T’Challa has a similar conundrum, with the difference being that being a king, no one is going to tell him this. So even though T’Challa displays a fair amount of physical strength and fighting prowess, more often than not he is in the high tech suit instead of using his wits to win.
T’Challa is undeniably a fleshed out character who experiences a crisis of faith and ethics, and is challenged over the course of the narrative to grow and learn as a person. In that regard he is no Gary Stu concept. But he really ought to have doubted himself more, and the central conflict of the story should have put him in a far more vulnerable position spiritually and ethically than we got to see on the screen. His confrontation with the spirit of his father feels insincere, resolved far too quickly. For a movie that clocked in at around two and a half hours, there’s really no excuse for not devoting sufficient time to character development and growth. The movie spent far too much time with big stunt scenes and flashy SFX, that could have been better spent fleshing out the characters more and showing us their flaws and how those flaws are overcome.
Much of the story could—and probably should—have been dealt with over two films instead of being crammed into one, and as a result a lot of what worked best ended up being subsumed by the visual effects, thus heightening the visibility of the flaws within the narrative. I don’t know and can only speculate, but I got the impression watching Black Panther that maybe director Coogler wasn’t sure when or if he’d be able to direct a second movie, and so felt compelled to jam as much in as he could. I’m only guessing here. I could be wrong. But being analytical, it’s often that impressions I get when I watch a film or movie, an instinct or “gut feeling” if you will, come across in the viewing. I know when I’m being entertained or not, when the storyteller is laughing with or at me, when I’m being insulted. So, if your instinct when watching a movie is that there seems to be too much going on, it’s probably because there is.
What Was Right
Now, the above-listed items are not a comprehensive summary of the things I noticed that were wrong with the movie, and later viewings may add to or perhaps even alter my perception. But having mentioned what I thought was gotten wrong with Black Panther, it’s only fair that I now go into what I thought it got right, and I think it got more right than it got wrong. I should also point out that, this being a comic book movie and geared toward families with children than to adults exclusively, there’s only so deep it can be expected to go and still retain a wider audience. In that case, I can forgive the poorer elements of the narrative more easily than I would movies in other genres.
But I digress. Here’s a list of what I felt were Black Panther’s biggest strengths and why.
In my entry on The Last Jedi, I pointed out how there are no characters in it, only concepts, and poorly executed ones at that. This is by no means the case with Black Panther. Here we see fleshed out characters with backstories, flaws, doubts, conflicts, and arcs of evolution. They start off at one level and end up having grown as individuals learning a valuable lesson. This more than anything else is what makes a film or movie work. If your characters are one-dimensional concepts without flaws or anything to learn, they’re not believable or sympathetic, and so you’re unable to invest emotionally in them. So it was refreshing, after being insulted by TLJ, to see actual characters in Black Panther, even if they are under-developed with flawed executions.
Whereas Disney Star Wars, CBS’ STD, Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters reboot, and other of today’s movies engage in shameless, cynical Mary-Sue-ism, Black Panther treats its female characters with a measure of respect, portraying them as strong, smart, intelligent, and compassionate, and we know this because the movie shows them having and expressing these qualities. Women hold high positions within Wakanda’s military, and we can believe the things they do in the movie because their society and training require that they have the qualities necessary to be proper warriors capable of defending their nation from outside threats. They’ve been fighting from an early age, and so their skills and intelligence never feel artificial, but earned. THIS is how you write strong female characters. Granted, in Black Panther they are basically butt-kicking eye candy, as opposed to the rude, plainer-looking Ellen Ripley or the plain-looking-and-dressing, pathologically shy Laurie Strode; they certainly are not the stars of this movie, and so they’re basically tropes. But they’re well-executed tropes, and we believe them because they were written as believable.
Michael B. Jordan is obviously quite the Urban Otaku, and nowhere is this more evident than in the design of his mercenary duds.
Michael B. Jordan as Eric Killmonger
Vegeta from Dragon Ball Z
This was an awesome bit of anime fan service, subtly thrown in for kicks, and it actually complemented the character.
T’Challa is forced within the narrative to confront the evils of the past, in this instance, his father’s past. Steven Thrasher, writing for Esquire.com, complains that, “its ending political message [is] far more conservative than the revolutionary possibilities teased by anything with “Black” and “Panther” in the title.” This opinion is shared by Daryl M. Scott, who writes:
Relatively speaking, the conservatism of Wakanda is natural. Black Panther, T’Challa, got his power the old-fashioned way — aristocratic inheritance. His superpower and weaponry derive from the country’s unique heart-shaped herb and the metal vibranium. His powers would hardly be needed for protection against the African tribes surrounding Wakanda. They are for warding off the colonizers, who prey on other Africans and peoples of African descent. Rarely have subjects been so well protected.
The king’s subjects are well treated, too. In Hollywood’s Wakanda, women hold positions of power — the king’s sister, Shuri (Letitia Wright), controls the scientific and technological apparatus, and the fierce and stunningly beautiful female warriors, the Dora Milaje, protect and fight with their king. His male subjects are largely ornamental and ceremonial, leaving them to nurse their desire for one of their tribesmen to become the Black Panther.
This conservative utopia where only one is free could easily be revolutionized into the world’s most powerful democracy. Wakanda possesses the magical metal vibranium and the knowledge of how to grow enough of a heart-shaped herb to transform the king’s subjects into soldier citizens. The Black Panther is brilliant but only so enlightened; he cannot imagine a nation of black panthers to defend all of Africa from earthly and galactic enemies. The power is conserved for one king and one people.
It takes one who grew up in the belly of the colonizer, Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan), to grasp the true revolutionary power of Wakanda. The offspring of a slave descendant and an unconquered Wakandan prince, Erik grew up nurturing two things: the right he had to claim the throne and his father’s belief that vibranium could be used to aid the struggles of blacks in the African diaspora against global white supremacy. Yet to realize his dreams, he becomes a killer in the army of the colonizers. He becomes known as Killmonger, a testimonial to his rapacious ability and desire to take human life.
This is arguably an accurate interpretation of how T’Challa and Wakanda are depicted in the story, but I think these and similar analyses miss the surprisingly subtle point of that depiction: Killmonger is actually right, though his methods are extreme, and T’Challa is forced to come to acknowledge that Wakanda can no longer hide its technology or its society from the rest of humanity or ignore the plight of Africans in other parts of the world. Wakanda is indeed a highly conservative nation full of contradictions: for all its advanced tech and social progressivism—women hold high positions of power and even lead entire armies—in many ways it is still a fundamentally backward society in which monarchs are often chosen, or defend their power, through fights that devolve into tap-out-or-die; that maintains patriarchal power dynamics; that expresses its greed in jealously guarding its wealth and technology to the point where not even members of the royal family are protected from the death sentence for daring to share any of it with outsiders; and that ignores the colonial predation of white nations against the rest of Africa, with any assistance being given by individuals such as Nakia, T’Challa’s love interest played by Lupita Nyong’o, taking the place of organized national efforts.
These inherent contradictions are not meant to proudly extol the virtues of political “centrism”, or the sort of false liberalism that generally is made to stand in for far right policies of oppression and exploitation hidden behind a mask of sane civility. No, that conservative Wakanda and its power dynamics are the cause of the conflict and misery, and Killmonger is the inevitable consequence of that conservatism. T’Challa is forced to realize that if he does not change and grow, if Wakanda does not change and grow, then there will be more and worse Killmongers down the line. Black Panther’s message is as much a damning critique of conservative/centrist ideology as it is of violent response thereto. T’Challa has to learn a vital lesson here, that Wakanda and its people are part of the world whether they like it or not, and the problems of the world and especially the African diaspora are also Wakanda’s problems, and they will no longer be ignored or allowed to go unaddressed.
Granted, because so much of Black Panther’s story was taken up with dazzling (and unacceptably unsatisfying) special effects and stunt sequences, the handling of this surprisingly potent political message came across as ham-handed, patronizing, and ultimately shallower than it should have been. But it’s there nonetheless, and it’s worth taking to heart, for doesn’t Wakanda also represent the United States under the regime of deeply conservative Democrat and status-quo-supporter Barry Obama? For a comic book movie, this was something I found refreshing, and while some might complain about the presence of politics in cinema, the fact is that cinema has often only ever been about politics in one form or another, with only levels of subtlety differentiating the more obvious ones from the sneakier political morality tales.
The movie’s political messaging, flawed as it is, serves as its biggest strength. I don’t know about you, but considering how utterly shallow far too many of today’s blockbuster movies and TV shows are, Black Panther’s message is a much-needed break and a satisfyingly complex narrative that aspired to greatness but fell short—but NOT for lack of trying.
If you compare the Marvel Cinematic Universe to date to Jar Jar Abrams’ Star Trek reboots, his and Ruin Johnson’s Star Wars demolition derby, Paul Feig’s trashing of Ghostbusters, Steven Moffat’s tenure running Doctor Who, CBS’ STD, and pretty much anything by Michael Bay, you get the sense that Marvel Studios under Kevin Feige has a genuine respect for its source material. Whatever you think of how the movie adaptations have been executed, it comes across on the screen that there is a real love for the comics on which their big screen versions are based. The others I mentioned only display unveiled contempt for the material, and open hostility toward fans thereof.
In Black Panther, you can tell how much love there is for the comic and the movie itself. The actors and actresses were clearly having a great time, and this comes across on the screen. There’s real chemistry there that obviously isn’t faked, or at least it doesn’t feel fake. In The Last Jedi, people are simply showing up and reciting their lines, and the only ones who actually had chemistry were Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher in their one and only reunion scene. Everyone else was basically just phoning it in, watching the clock, going through the motions.
Final Analysis
Much of the credit for the success of Black Panther lies with writer-director Ryan Coogler and co-writer Joe Robert Cole, both of whom made an honest effort to create something truly great even if that effort came up short in many ways. But a fair degree of credit must be given to producer Kevin Feige, who at the helm of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has demonstrated that he has a clear vision for what he wants to do with the larger narrative, what direction he wants it to go in, and a likely end destination that will wrap everything up in a satisfying manner.
For all its shortcomings, Black Panther had far more positives than negatives, and so for that reason I give the movie a score of six-and-a-half to seven out of ten (half point for Killmonger’s Vegeta costume, heh heh). It definitely could have been better, but I think a sequel by Coolger and Cole can be expected to be better written and more developed—IF they learn from critical analyses like this. Time will tell if they iron out the narrative wrinkles.
If you haven’t gone to see Black Panther on the big screen yet and want to enjoy it in the theaters, go now while you still can. It’s not the same on a TV monitor.
Writer and journalist.
or The Search for a Polite Specific Gender-Neutral Third-Person Singular Pronoun
Social trends, economics, health and other depressing topics!
Writer of things that go bump in the night
Stacey Wilk - Books about family, home, and second chances
Entertainment, News, and Opinion
To promote non-propaganda news and analysis to the public.
Law | Internet Policy | Digital Rights
Natalie. Writer. Photographer. Etc.
MAKING A DIFFERENCE, ONE STEP AT A TIME
Freelance Film Critic
A mad scientist's views on other mad scientists
Photoblog of Joshi Daniel
Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks
Born a Yaad | Adventuring Abroad™
Because we’re all recovering from something.
The Wilk Report 