|
There's nothing heroic about Killmonger. He talks a good talk but he's ultimately a man out to get his. The world took from him and he's taking back. It hit him so he's hitting back. Throughout the entire film, every single thing he does, every action he takes, ends up being self serving. Is he a product of his environment? Yes. A monster created by Wakanda's abandonment and America's oppression? Yes. Is he a tragic figure? gently caress yes. But a hero? He's not the revolutionary anyone should be looking for. He uses and discards people without regret. He shoots his girlfriend the instant she puts him in a position where he might be vulnerable. He poisons a stranger as a distraction. He nearly strangles an old priestess for daring to question his orders (is it a coincidence these examples are all women? Who knows). He covers his skin in marks to show off how many people he's killed for the CIA--enough that the CIA gave him the name Killmonger. He shows up in Wakanda with the immediate intention to challenge and kill his cousin (at no point does he as for T'Challa's submission, as T'Challa does in the beginning of the movie), who he has never met and who has never actually done him personal wrong. When he talks about revolution, he makes it clear he's actually talking about conquest and empire building, and he makes it clear his targets aren't just the oppressors, but their children, and anyone else who stands in his way. He doesn't want to free people to rule themselves, he wants to free people to rule them. He's an imperialist, trained by imperialists, taking personal, bloody revenge on anyone and everyone who gets in his way, and he is completely, entirely comfortable with all of it. He's fascinating, and multilayered, but not heroic. One can argue over how he should have been written differently, but he's a fictional character, and this is how he was written, as a whole. It's part of why he's so compelling. The things he says are correct, he may well have the right ideas, but he's the wrong man to follow. The real revolutionary in the movie is Nakia, who espouses similar views early on in the movie, tries to convince T'Challa to end Wakanda's isolationist policies and help the oppressed, and is actually shown doing poo poo for other people, putting her own life on the line for others despite that being pretty explicitly not in her job description, which she apparently does all the time. She refuses to become queen because it would mean she couldn't continue that kind of work. It's not the violent overthrow of governments, but she shows more concern for actual human lives in her one major scene than Erik does in the entire movie's run time.
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
i agree about erik. his words were always about himself and his suffering. he was a young revolutionary with more training and bigger balls. he is what a lot of people imagine themselves to be, his death was a respectful repudiation of them. he was embodiment of trying to "dismantle the master's house using the master's tools." nakia was revolutionary because she refused priviledge to help and did so on the front lines. she changed the system from the inside. but people lazily call that reactionary but the key difference is she refused her privilege. i'd like to see the woke shea butter types give up the internet and do ground work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 13:44
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:There's nothing heroic about Killmonger. This just shows that you've been completely taken in by the movie's rhetoric. Movies are rhetorical things, and that Killmonger is shown as a badwrong person and Nakia as goodright does not actually make it true. Like our favourite philosopher points out: Slavoj Zizek posted:Although Bane is the official villain, there are indications that he, much more than Batman himself, is the film’s authentic hero distorted as its villain: he is ready to sacrifice his life for his love, ready to risk everything for what he perceives as injustice, and this basic fact is occluded by superficial and rather ridiculous signs of destructive evil. Like your idea is that Nakia is good because she wants to open up Wakanda, but the real evil is Wakanda itself: despite nominal opposition, the country has really no problems with the established order. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Mar 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
temple posted:he was embodiment of trying to "dismantle the master's house using the master's tools." If we’re talking about violence, I would say no. If we’re talking about installing a new form of hierarchy, then yes. But Lorde’s quote applies to T’Challa as much or more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:If we’re talking about violence, I would say no. If we’re talking about installing a new form of hierarchy, then yes. how can that quote apply to t'challa when he has no motivation to dismantle anything?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 14:12
|
|
|
temple posted:how can that quote apply to t'challa when he has no motivation to dismantle anything? If we’re settling on ‘T’Challa is not doing anything meaningful to help others’ then I agree, I suppose. I mean, he’s literally in the process of dismantling Wakandan tradition, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:If we’re settling on ‘T’Challa is not doing anything meaningful to help others’ then I agree, I suppose. i was going to say he was dismantling tradition as well. are you reading my mind?! but that doesn't make sense in terms of the quote either. edit: i'm pretty rah rah, look at my avatar, but I don't condone black people killing black people to somehow unite black people to kill white people. killmonger is a mess. temple fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Mar 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
temple posted:i was going to say he was dismantling tradition as well. are you reading my mind?! I guess I’m just trying to read it two different ways. If T’Challa is actually trying to upset the order that helps create folks like Killmonger, he’s doing it in a very ~master’s tools~ (via patchwork liberalism) kind of way. If we say he isn’t, then yeah, the quote doesn’t make much sense. That said, I don’t think the thread has dug too much into another major issue in the film, which is internal political strife among Wakandans. What happens with all those dudes who ended up fighting for Killmonger? T’Challa’s reforms, in some part, are meant to quell that kind of future resistance, but he’s still ruling as a king. He’s upsetting the old order by just being an autocrat with different ideas. quote:edit: i'm pretty rah rah, look at my avatar, but I don't condone black people killing black people to somehow unite black people to kill white people. killmonger is a mess. Right, for sure. I think it’s analysis v. methods. For me, the ‘Killmonger is right’ thing rests on his read of the world being the most correct. His solution is awful but it’s not because it’s violent, per se, but because it’s just punitive without any long term vision for a just society post-revolution (which def speaks to some e-commies).
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:I guess I’m just trying to read it two different ways. If T’Challa is actually trying to upset the order that helps create folks like Killmonger, he’s doing it in a very ~master’s tools~ (via patchwork liberalism) kind of way. If we say he isn’t, then yeah, the quote doesn’t make much sense. someone said it better that wakanda was secluded, so they did things backwards (like ritual combat). i don't see wakandans as liberal elites, i see them as like beverly hillbillies that had wealth but held sheltered opinions about the rest of the world. that's why the spies and war dogs were the most radical because they had to survive in the real world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
"Sheltered opinion?" What? Wakanda is fully aware of the world and what they are doing, as the world is the reason they are doing it. The movie is about their inaction, and many have a problem with their first real reaction being to assimilate instead of revolutionize like even the trailers advertised. And the only things even relatively radical were that one wanted to treat the symptoms instead of the problem, and the other felt the problem had to go by any means necessary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:"Sheltered opinion?" t'challa was privileged but its a chicken or egg situation. wakandans did not have lived experience in oppression, so how were they to understand? now that t'challa has engaged the world, now they can do more. you are faulting t'challa for not fixing the problem when the problem started long before him. he told his dead father to his face that he was wrong. that's a start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
temple posted:t'challa was privileged but its a chicken or egg situation. wakandans did not have lived experience in oppression, so how were they to understand? now that t'challa has engaged the world, now they can do more. you are faulting t'challa for not fixing the problem when the problem started long before him. he told his dead father to his face that he was wrong. that's a start. It's not clear that T'Challa actually understands that oppression is an issue, though. What we see him do at the end of the movie is in line with the view that people aren't oppressed, they merely lack for opportunity. T'Challa is right to reject Killmonger's program of retributory violence, but what's missing is a sign that he appreciates that people are being held down and are not merely being failed in being helped up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
temple posted:i agree about erik. his words were always about himself and his suffering. he was a young revolutionary with more training and bigger balls. he is what a lot of people imagine themselves to be, his death was a respectful repudiation of them. he was embodiment of trying to "dismantle the master's house using the master's tools." Again, we've gone back to the tactic of insulting personal individuals, because individual action is the only thing you perceive as important. That interpretation of Lorde's quote to read Kilmonger as reactionary is absurd. Warfare is somehow the tool of the master? How is Nakia refusing her privilege a revolutionary act? KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Mar 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's not clear that T'Challa actually understands that oppression is an issue, though. What we see him do at the end of the movie is in line with the view that people aren't oppressed, they merely lack for opportunity. T'Challa is right to reject Killmonger's program of retributory violence, but what's missing is a sign that he appreciates that people are being held down and are not merely being failed in being helped up. KVeezy3 posted:Warfare is somehow the tool of the master? How is Nakia refusing her privilege a revolutionary act? nakia was woke twitter actually protesting instead of retweeting it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
temple posted:we have to wait until bp2 I don't think we do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I don't think we do. I mean, not necessarily, but we won't have a lot concrete to discuss about this until it gets followed up on somewhere; we have pretty much the vaguest possible idea of what T'Challa's doing as-is. It could be coding camps or it could be literally sharing Wakandan technology with the rest of the world and teaching people how to use it, and one of these is a lot more substantial than the other. (in a real life scenario, the latter option is a fantasy, but fortunately we're discussing a movie where the country doing this has a literal mountain of magic super-tech rocks.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
I'm talking about what we see in Black Panther (2018; dp Rachel Morrison). We see Killmonger talk about oppression. We then see T'Challa act not on oppression, but a lack of opportunity. It does a disservice to the film to pretend we can't read it until they put out Black Panther 2. It's not like comic book movies are unable to do summarize someone doing the former in a quick scene. Hulk ends with Banner in South America, directly facing off against soldiers attempting to steal from the poor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm talking about what we see in Black Panther (2018; dp Rachel Morrison). We see Killmonger talk about oppression. We then see T'Challa act not on oppression, but a lack of opportunity. It does a disservice to the film to pretend we can't read it until they put out Black Panther 2. except the movie's very pointedly ambiguous about what, specifically, T'Challa is doing. a lot of people are interpreting it as "STEM camps," but the movie never says that (and only sort of vaguely implies it with Shuri being left in charge). a lot of people are interpreting it as "Wakandan tech school," but the movie never says that. a lot of people are interpreting it as a Wakandan embassy with legal aid and financial assistance and etc available, but the movie never says that. all we know at the end of Black Panther (2018; dp Rachel Morrison) is that T'Challa bought some property in Oakland, is turning it into an "outreach center" of some sort, and is leaving Shuri in charge of it. we can't concretely judge T'Challa's actions unless we have a better idea of what those actions actually are, and the film left that up in the air. the reason i'm saying we need to wait for a sequel to fully interpret the original is because whatever the sequel follows up on this with will inevitably color the handling of the subject in the original; we might all have egg on our faces if we assume it's STEM camps but it turns out the "outreach center" is putting a stop to police brutality, offering food bank services to the starving, and offering free medical assistance to the residents of Oakland. quote:It's not like comic book movies are unable to do summarize someone doing the former in a quick scene. Hulk ends with Banner in South America, directly facing off against soldiers attempting to steal from the poor. I agree! Black Panther just didn't really do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
I think you're mistaking Black Panther portraying a tepid response with it being ambiguous. There's a desire for there to be more, so that possibility must be allowed. But "technology outreach" is a phrase used in the real world and it is appropriate to interpret Black Panther in light of it. The closing scenes are not ambiguous: T'Challa invests in Oakland and gives a speech. That conveys perfectly well. If Black Panther 2 goes in a different direction, that won't change Black Panther, which, barring Star Wars-style post-release editing, will always be what it is. Black Panther 2 may change our understanding of the simulated, diegetic universe of the MCU: it may retcon the first movie. But it can't change the already-released movie Black Panther and the way the ending of it sidelines the issue of oppression to instead laud investment by the upper class in the lower. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Mar 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
I also didn't stay for the credits scenes, I should note, and am taking the movie without them in mind (I totally missed whatever speech T'Challa gave). if they're important and not just teasers for the next chapter of the Marvel Saga, they can put them in the actual drat movie. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:This just shows that you've been completely taken in by the movie's rhetoric. Movies are rhetorical things, and that Killmonger is shown as a badwrong person and Nakia as goodright does not actually make it true. Like our favourite philosopher points out: Killmonger is a character that only exists within the movie. He is not a real person, even if he espouses real world ideologies. What the movie shows of him is what he is. You can argue that having Killmonger be the main voice for those ideologies is a big problem and I won't disagree with you, but you can't say the movie is portraying Killmonger the person badly--the movie is portraying Killmonger, period. And I did not say that Killmonger is a badwrong person, the end. I said he is a very complicated person, and very interesting because of that, but that does not make him heroic, and in fact he is decidedly unheroic in spite of what he espouses because of every single action he undertakes being ultimately and entirely about himself and his personal wants and needs. Nakia does not get a lot of development (unfortunately), but I doubt that if she was, she would be portrayed as entirely unselfish and without flaws either--she is, after all, a product of Wakanda herself, a nation that is extremely flawed itself, and for all that she wants to help people and puts herself into harms way to do so, she is far from perfect and doesn't have all the solutions either. My point is, she has very similar views to Erik, and she advocates for those without, you know, all the casual murder, while also demonstrably doing selfless things, which is something Erik is never once shown doing. In fact, early on, Erik's actions would have killed Nakia if Ross didn't get in the way, for no reason other than she happened to be present when he was freeing Klaue (a means to his personal end of taking power, aka, she would have been just more collateral damage, another disposable person along the path). Killmonger says (mostly) all the right things, but at no point does he walk his talk, and none of his history that we get suggests he ever has, nor do the glimpses we see of him using his power once he gets it suggest that he actually will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:Killmonger is a character that only exists within the movie. He is not a real person, even if he espouses real world ideologies. What the movie shows of him is what he is. You can argue that having Killmonger be the main voice for those ideologies is a big problem and I won't disagree with you, but you can't say the movie is portraying Killmonger the person badly--the movie is portraying Killmonger, period. This movie is not a documentary. There is no Killmonger to evaluate "objectively" as you try to do, only a rhetorical device to analyse. Killmonger is the only really heroic character in the movie, and probably in the entire MCU. His ruthlessness, despite being portrayed as badwrong, is ultimately just revolutionary fervour being demonized in the context of the movie. His final act of choosing to die rather than live in a false paradise is really the first expression of heroic will and freedom shown in a Marvel movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:This movie is not a documentary. There is no Killmonger to evaluate "objectively" as you try to do, only a rhetorical device to analyse. What the gently caress are you even talking about here? That's what I said. Killmonger isn't real. And because he isn't real, the movie can't 'demonize' him. He doesn't exist outside of the movie. You can't seem to separate the ideology from the character, which is really, really weird. Killmonger isn't literally the black liberation movement. He's a dude with ideas that echo ideas from that movement, who uses those ideas to get what he wants (and what he wants isn't the same, he wants imperial conquest, he makes that really really clear). That you're idolizing him and want to take away all his flaws (and put him above literally everyone else in the MCU, what?) is both really creepy and entirely undermining what makes him a great and complex character.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:You can't seem to separate the ideology from the character, which is really, really weird. Ideology is one form of characterization. Killmonger isn't the black liberation movement, yet he still represent black liberation. The equation of black liberation with black supremacism is just cheap. It's the kind of accusation you'd find flung at, say, the Black Panther Party. "Taking away all his flaws" is simply recognizing that the movie is rhetorical. Conversely, you can take out the hero's virtues and notice that he's an African despot who seizes power with help from a CIA agent. kartikeya posted:(and put him above literally everyone else in the MCU, what?) The MCU, despite featuring hours and hours of superman heroes, has produced little in the way of genuine heroism. For example, the movies Iron Man 1 and 2 are essentially about a superhero protecting his copyright. The Guardians of the Galaxy series is about a bunch of self-pitying mercenaries. Killmonger's choice to die is genuine heroism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
temple posted:someone said it better that wakanda was secluded, so they did things backwards (like ritual combat). i don't see wakandans as liberal elites, i see them as like beverly hillbillies that had wealth but held sheltered opinions about the rest of the world. that's why the spies and war dogs were the most radical because they had to survive in the real world. I think you less mean sheltered in the way people thought and more the fact Wakana took NO imports from the rest of the world, including cultural ones. Definitely could see that limiting the exposure to the world outside of their borders with their people beyond "huh, that's interesting I guess."
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Ideology is one form of characterization. This is a whooole lot of nonsense and I'm not sure you actually understand what the word 'rhetorical' means.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The MCU, despite featuring hours and hours of superman heroes, has produced little in the way of genuine heroism. Captain-loving-America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:This is a whooole lot of nonsense and I'm not sure you actually understand what the word 'rhetorical' means. The movie is not an objective depiction of reality. It's from a certain point of view, it has morals to convey. Killmonger's flaws are a justification - rhetoric - for why he must be defeated. Iron Man 2 is very much a story of a lethal copyright struggle where a rich man fights a struggling convict. Blazing Ownager posted:Captain-loving-America. Captain America was told the absurd, cynical lie that post-World War II history was created by Nazi Illuminati, and he accepted it. Then forgot about it apparently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Captain America died in The First Avenger. As with Superman, the guy who was resurrected has been a bit off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The movie is not an objective depiction of reality. It's from a certain point of view, it has morals to convey. Yeah, like I said, a bunch of nonsense. Looking at your rap sheet isn't a surprise though. Also lol, I guess Whiplash is also the hero of his movie. Nevermind all the people he murdered, that was clearly just the movie being mean to him and Tony Stark is an evil capitalist so it's justified to cut apart a racetrack, blow up a convention, and build a bunch of murderbots to shoot at hundreds of people because Tony's daddy did a bad to his daddy. Maybe. I'm starting to sense a pattern here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:Also lol, I guess Whiplash is also the hero of his movie. Nevermind all the people he murdered, that was clearly just the movie being mean to him and Tony Stark is an evil capitalist so it's justified to cut apart a racetrack, blow up a convention, and build a bunch of murderbots to shoot at hundreds of people because Tony's daddy did a bad to his daddy. Maybe. He's trying to kill Tony Stark, history's greatest monster, so yes. (Tony Stark is a superhero with the power of being a murderbot who shoots people, and also builds more murderbots) BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:He's trying to kill Tony Stark, history's greatest monster, so yes. Tony Stark being bad or not does not justify murdering a bunch of OTHER people. So no. Also, he, you know, shot a bunch of people who were trying to uh...shoot women and children and unarmed men? Is that bad now? I mean, yes, I gathered just from reading this thread that Tony Stark is really hated in this forum but this is really stupid. Of course, being mad about Ant-Man saving a five year old is also a thing that happened in this thread. (History's greatest monster, seriously? gently caress off with that trollbait.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:Tony Stark being bad or not does not justify murdering a bunch of OTHER people. So no. Also, he, you know, shot a bunch of people who were trying to uh...shoot women and children and unarmed men? Is that bad now? The scene of a vigilante flying into Afghanistan to kill vastly outmatched insurgents is kind of an appalling fantasy scenario, to be honest. Black Panther is also a fantasy, in which a moderate hero overcomes a monstrous revolutionary. That movies might be inherently manipulative is neither a controversial nor an outlandish idea, but you seem really opposed to it. Everything you're describing is fiction. Just because a hero is shown as goodright and a villain as badwrong doesn't actually make it credible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The scene of a vigilante flying into Afghanistan to kill vastly outmatched insurgents is kind of an appalling fantasy scenario, to be honest. Black Panther is also a fantasy, in which a moderate hero overcomes a monstrous revolutionary. So he...shouldn't have killed them? What are you even arguing here? It's bad for Stark to kill insurgents who were outright massacring people, because he outmatched them, but it's okay for the villains in these movies to massacre people because they have a beef with the hero? All media is manipulative, by definition. All you're doing is arguing we should just side with the guy who matches your politics best regardless of what that guy actually does (and regardless of...whether he actually matches those politics, apparently paying lip service is enough) and regardless of any context whatsoever. That's not reading a movie, that's just going 'I like this guy because I believe X and therefore X must always be true'. Killmonger could have apparently walked on screen, gone 'Oppression is bad!' and walked off, and you would have enjoyed Black Panther more, because it cuts out all that unimportant plot and character and nuance poo poo that gets in the way. You're bad at movies, is what I'm saying. And possibly fiction in general. Or like, stories, at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:So he...shouldn't have killed them? What are you even arguing here? It's bad for Stark to kill insurgents who were outright massacring people, because he outmatched them, but it's okay for the villains in these movies to massacre people because they have a beef with the hero? It doesn't matter what "should" have happened. What matters is that the story that exists, and what purpose it serves. That Tony Stark had no choice but to kill the insurgents is not really an argument, because the real question is why this story with a billionaire heroically killing outmatched insurgents was made in the first place. Recognizing Killmonger as the true hero is not a product of blindly agreeing with a character that represents a certain ideology, but recognizing the truth buried under the movie's rhetoric. It's not really any different from, say, the tradition of reading Caliban or Shylock as acting out on genuine grievances no matter how villainous their presentation in the text. The pains taken to paint Killmonger as flawed and misguided seem pathological, as if the film-makers realized that Killmonger is too righteous for a villain, and decided to balance it out with superficial evil. Embracing Killmonger as the true hero is thus not simple ideological lockstep, it's challenging the value system of the movie. Also, Tony Stark killed several disabled war veterans in the third Iron Man movie. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Mar 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:So he...shouldn't have killed them? What are you even arguing here? It's bad for Stark to kill insurgents who were outright massacring people, because he outmatched them, but it's okay for the villains in these movies to massacre people because they have a beef with the hero? All media is manipulative, by definition. All you're doing is arguing we should just side with the guy who matches your politics best regardless of what that guy actually does (and regardless of...whether he actually matches those politics, apparently paying lip service is enough) and regardless of any context whatsoever. That's not reading a movie, that's just going 'I like this guy because I believe X and therefore X must always be true'. Killmonger could have apparently walked on screen, gone 'Oppression is bad!' and walked off, and you would have enjoyed Black Panther more, because it cuts out all that unimportant plot and character and nuance poo poo that gets in the way. He didn't kill the insurgents because they were killing people. He killed them because his weapons were being used to do it. This is the explicit reason he does it. It's about alleviating his guilt and protecting his copyright. Also, the idea that people would like Black Panther better if they ignored character and nuance is amusing, since there are almost no characters, and the nuance is the problem. It's a movie that does not benefit from analysis, because it perpetually undercuts its own points.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
He also kills them because, IIRC, they are blowing up his cave friend Yinsin's village. That's the fun thing about Stark, he doesn't give a poo poo about anything until it effects him personally, this is the well they keep going back to over and over again. You have to be in Stark's inner circle and earn his trust/respect for him to give a poo poo about you. It's meritocracy all the way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Doesn't give a poo poo about the outside world until he's personally effected, you say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 09:53
|
|
|
Am I the only one who thought it was kind of hosed up that they never addressed the whole monarchy thing? Like even this super advanced techno-nation is still an absolute monarchy where trial by combat decides whose in charge? Complete with a chanting tribal ceremony. That poo poo seemed pretty racist, in a ‘noble savage’ kind of way, to me. Like, they could have easily made Wakanda a consitutional monarchy, and have the trial by combat stuff just for the mantle of black panther.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 11:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
themrguy posted:Am I the only one who thought it was kind of hosed up that they never addressed the whole monarchy thing? Like even this super advanced techno-nation is still an absolute monarchy where trial by combat decides whose in charge? Complete with a chanting tribal ceremony. That poo poo seemed pretty racist, in a ‘noble savage’ kind of way, to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 12:15
|
|