Marvel's Black Panther (2018)

flazio

It gave us the character of Shuri so for that, it gets a pass from me.

I find it interesting to contrast the story here and the story in the Marvel TV show Luke Cage. Now that was a show which bashed black culture over your heads. Black Panther is nowhere near as forgettable as something like Incredible Hulk.

FunLover18

I definitely don't think BP is a top tier Marvel movie like some, but I do think it's one of their more interesting films which is definitely let down by the third act. Killmonger is definitely a top tier Marvel villain.

FunLover18

mloc123 wrote: »

Black Panther is a movie made by a committee of SJWs...

What absolute nonsense

Arcsurvivor

We shall see BP 2 and what the story is about. The Vibranium tech was cool to see in more detail and looking forward to what is next.

auspicious

So I asked the question in After hours, Do you think BP is a terrible movie? I've had no response as yet, maybe because they think it's a loaded question but I assure your it's not.
Do you think it's a terrible movie?

NIMAN

Haven't seen it yet.

With the death of its star last week I am hoping to get round to seeing it soon.

mloc123

auspicious wrote: »

So I asked the question in After hours, Do you think BP is a terrible movie? I've had no response as yet, maybe because they think it's a loaded question but I assure your it's not.
Do you think it's a terrible movie?

It isn't terrible, but it isn't the amazing film that people made out it was at the time

pixelburp

auspicious wrote: »

So I asked the question in After hours, Do you think BP is a terrible movie? I've had no response as yet, maybe because they think it's a loaded question but I assure your it's not.
Do you think it's a terrible movie?

Well you obviously foudn the main thread, so why not read it and find out Or just check out the movie anyway, if you haven't already. And if you had, did YOU think it was a bad movie?

It was one of the MCU's more character-focused films with a decent antagonist but fell apart in the action scenes.

kerplun k

I watched again recently and must say I really enjoyed it much more on second viewing, but that final fight scene was appalling.

s8n

mloc123 wrote: »

It isn't terrible, but it isn't the amazing film that people made out it was at the time

Its the poorest of the MCU.

brevity

Its definitely not the poorest imo. I would say one of the Thor movies probably takes that mantle. It's good in places and bad in others. I thought the cgi was a bit rough around the edges too.

Definitely worth a watch though.

flazio

s8n wrote: »

Its the poorest of the MCU.

Poorer than Captain Marvel or Incredible Hulk?
It is a tough one to criticise because of Black Lives Matter, so probably best to just move on.

FunLover18

flazio wrote: »

It is a tough one to criticise because of Black Lives Matter, so probably best to just move on.

No, it's not.

I don't love the film, I think it's very good but the third act is weak and the fact that it revolves around two people fighting over who should be king doesn't sit well with my republican beliefs. It wouldn't be in my top ten but it's definitely not the worst imo.

FortuneChip

auspicious wrote: »

So I asked the question in After hours, Do you think BP is a terrible movie? I've had no response as yet, maybe because they think it's a loaded question but I assure your it's not.
Do you think it's a terrible movie?

Wouldn't consider it a loaded question, but it's hardly the most auspicious line of questioning. Maybe people are wondering what your motivation is for seeking out if it's terrible when the general consensus; award nominations, big box office, and considerably favourable reviews etc would suggest that it's not. Has something led you to think it is (with or without your viewing of it?), and if so, do those things outweigh the general positive regard it's held in?
"What did you think of Black Panther?" might have yielded more/any answers.

If you're a fan of Marvel movies, it's very unlikely you'll find it terrible.
If you're not a fan of Marvel movies, I think it could likely stand up on it's own merit, but you would probably consider some parts of the climax a little detracting.

As far as the standalone Marvel movies go, it's got one of the stronger ensemble casts, although I felt Daniel Kayuula was a bit wasted.

auspicious

I could read through thread but that'd take too long.
I didn't watch BP all the way through.
From what I can recall I thought there were some oversights, you could say, that in any film wouldn't sit right with me. But I may be a bit pedantic with these things.
For example in the casino the BP members are excessively violent against the unarmed attackers even going so far as to kick one off a balcony to fall supposedly to his death.
They then chase the enemies down the busy motorway causing automatic gunfire and destruction thus allowing untold threats to the public.
The king takes an artefact from a museum. I realise this conveys cultural re-appropriation as such. But it's still stealing.
What really bothered me was the waterfall scene and the special challenge-the-king day. It was nothing to do with the challenge or fight but the crowds of people singing and dancing on crowded ledges, what looks like a couple of hundred feet above the arena; highly dangerous. One slip and you'd ruin the ceremony and everyone's day! Plus how could you get a good look at what's going on below. You'd need binoculars! And I'm sure this is a traditional challenge/fighting site going back many generations. I doubt they had binoculars way back when.
And! how did he survive the fall off the waterfall? Was there a suicide net there we didn't see?
It's this kinda stuff that can ruin a film or tv program for me. I can give another such example in Picard. I was enjoying the episodes until Picard dressed up as a french man in Stardust City Rag and that particular theatrical scene was atrocious. I stopped it straight away and almost deleted my Prime account.

I know Black Panther was a great achievement and success but this was down to its place in contemporary soceity IMO and its strong themes about race and what it means to be black. But I was just wanting and expecting a great overall superhero movie.

pixelburp

Do you find yourself watching many action movies, because fretting about the public or the fate of beaten-up goons speaks to a lack of experience with the genre when it comes to collateral damage.

It's the artifice of cinema; very little about the medium is meant to be taken as literal, or even realistic. Choices are made simply for the sake of being aesthetic, not whether they conform to health & safety regulations. The death star laser control room didn't have hand-rails either

FunLover18

I think you're confusing Black Panther the character with the Black Panther movement.

auspicious

Maybe it was the mood I was in at the time and was picking at this and that because I wasn't liking the film from the start. These things annoy me the way a lack of continuity annoys other people. That doesn't annoy me.
As long as the scenario fits the tone of the film's setting I'm good.

auspicious

pixelburp wrote: »

Do you find yourself watching many action movies, because fretting about the public or the fate of beaten-up goons speaks to a lack of experience with the genre when it comes to collateral damage.

. The death star laser control room didn't have hand-rails either

I am not fretting. I don't care about their fate but the fact that the 'good guys ' allow it to happen. The complete disregard to uphold their good guy values for me is a lack of continuity in the films tone. It makes them anti-heroes.

I say the Death Star was pretty expensive to build and the project manager cut corners where necessary to keep within budget and so avoid a visit from Darth Vader.

FortuneChip

auspicious wrote: »

I could read through thread but that'd take too long.
I didn't watch BP all the way through.
From what I can recall I thought there were some oversights, you could say, that in any film wouldn't sit right with me. But I may be a bit pedantic with these things.
For example in the casino the BP members are excessively violent against the unarmed attackers even going so far as to kick one off a balcony to fall supposedly to his death.
They then chase the enemies down the busy motorway causing automatic gunfire and destruction thus allowing untold threats to the public.
The king takes an artefact from a museum. I realise this conveys cultural re-appropriation as such. But it's still stealing.
What really bothered me was the waterfall scene and the special challenge-the-king day. It was nothing to do with the challenge or fight but the crowds of people singing and dancing on crowded ledges, what looks like a couple of hundred feet above the arena; highly dangerous. One slip and you'd ruin the ceremony and everyone's day! Plus how could you get a good look at what's going on below. You'd need binoculars! And I'm sure this is a traditional challenge/fighting site going back many generations. I doubt they had binoculars way back when.
And! how did he survive the fall off the waterfall? Was there a suicide net there we didn't see?
It's this kinda stuff that can ruin a film or tv program for me. I can give another such example in Picard. I was enjoying the episodes until Picard dressed up as a french man in Stardust City Rag and that particular theatrical scene was atrocious. I stopped it straight away and almost deleted my Prime account.

I know Black Panther was a great achievement and success but this was down to its place in contemporary soceity IMO and its strong themes about race and what it means to be black. But I was just wanting and expecting a great overall superhero movie.

you'd get good mileage from this lad's content.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0MvS_NehZU

auspicious

Yep that's me.
The film's message was great. The film was not.

FunLover18

auspicious wrote: »

I could read through thread but that'd take too long.
I didn't watch BP all the way through.
From what I can recall I thought there were some oversights, you could say, that in any film wouldn't sit right with me. But I may be a bit pedantic with these things.
For example in the casino the BP members are excessively violent against the unarmed attackers even going so far as to kick one off a balcony to fall supposedly to his death.
They then chase the enemies down the busy motorway causing automatic gunfire and destruction thus allowing untold threats to the public.
The king takes an artefact from a museum. I realise this conveys cultural re-appropriation as such. But it's still stealing.
What really bothered me was the waterfall scene and the special challenge-the-king day. It was nothing to do with the challenge or fight but the crowds of people singing and dancing on crowded ledges, what looks like a couple of hundred feet above the arena; highly dangerous. One slip and you'd ruin the ceremony and everyone's day! Plus how could you get a good look at what's going on below. You'd need binoculars! And I'm sure this is a traditional challenge/fighting site going back many generations. I doubt they had binoculars way back when.
And! how did he survive the fall off the waterfall? Was there a suicide net there we didn't see?
It's this kinda stuff that can ruin a film or tv program for me. I can give another such example in Picard. I was enjoying the episodes until Picard dressed up as a french man in Stardust City Rag and that particular theatrical scene was atrocious. I stopped it straight away and almost deleted my Prime account.

I know Black Panther was a great achievement and success but this was down to its place in contemporary soceity IMO and its strong themes about race and what it means to be black. But I was just wanting and expecting a great overall superhero movie.

This is ridiculously pedantic, you have to be joking. You must never enjoys movies.

Have you ever been to a football match? Do you bring binoculars?

auspicious

FunLover18 wrote: »

This is ridiculously pedantic, you have to be joking. You must never enjoys movies.

Have you ever been to a football match? Do you bring binoculars?

I love most movies. I wasn't enjoying BP so I started picking.

If you were up in the back of the Hogan stand and Bruce Lee was fighting Chun Li in the centre circle you'd miss a lot of the intricacies of the melee combat.

Foxtrol

TBH for someone that claims to be pedantic it doesn't seem like you were paying attention to the movie

auspicious wrote: »

I could read through thread but that'd take too long.
I didn't watch BP all the way through.
From what I can recall I thought there were some oversights, you could say, that in any film wouldn't sit right with me. But I may be a bit pedantic with these things.
For example in the casino the BP members are excessively violent against the unarmed attackers even going so far as to kick one off a balcony to fall supposedly to his death. - Their attackers weren't unarmed, they had guns and they even highlighted that with a shot of them each walking through the metal detector and the alarm going off
They then chase the enemies down the busy motorway causing automatic gunfire and destruction thus allowing untold threats to the public. - That was mild damage compared to most MCU movies or super hero movies that you said you enjoy (and collateral damage is actually a topic that is dealt with in MCU)
The king takes an artefact from a museum. I realise this conveys cultural re-appropriation as such. But it's still stealing. - That was 'the bad guy', they tend to do bad things like steal
What really bothered me was the waterfall scene and the special challenge-the-king day. It was nothing to do with the challenge or fight but the crowds of people singing and dancing on crowded ledges, what looks like a couple of hundred feet above the arena; highly dangerous. One slip and you'd ruin the ceremony and everyone's day! Plus how could you get a good look at what's going on below. You'd need binoculars! And I'm sure this is a traditional challenge/fighting site going back many generations. I doubt they had binoculars way back when. - same could be said for real life historical stadium etc. Didn't stop them
And! how did he survive the fall off the waterfall? Was there a suicide net there we didn't see?
It's this kinda stuff that can ruin a film or tv program for me. I can give another such example in Picard. I was enjoying the episodes until Picard dressed up as a french man in Stardust City Rag and that particular theatrical scene was atrocious. I stopped it straight away and almost deleted my Prime account.

I know Black Panther was a great achievement and success but this was down to its place in contemporary soceity IMO and its strong themes about race and what it means to be black. But I was just wanting and expecting a great overall superhero movie.

kerplun k

Jeez, I haven’t seen someone get annoyed at trivial details like this since that lad Smertrius went off on one with that Shazam film.

auspicious

Foxtrol wrote: »

TBH for someone that claims to be pedantic it doesn't seem like you were paying attention to the movie

I may at times be pedantic.
Yeah I wasn't paying attention.

pixelburp

Like I said, cinema is artifice. There's nothing real about it, bar the occasional "Kitchen Sink" drama from Ken Loach or what have you. The agreement between audience and creator is that this is all artificiality, along an ambiguous length of reason.

It's a visual medium and puts importance on the arresting quality of a striking image, regardless of how feasible it might be within the real world. Can't believe that needs clarifying for Black Panther of all films, but that "coronation by battle" scene was exactly the kind of aesthetic you'd expect from a piece of cinema and one of the reasons why BP made the impact it did (shoddy CGI notwithstanding); it had a visual language beyond the staid, formulaic mediocrity that denotes much of the MCU. A scena almost framed like a stage play or sports match, the crowd surrounding an immeadiate, full of vibrant colour.

Even how a simple scene is lit isn't ever realistic; night time isn't blue, sunsets not often golden but the understanding of the medium says we accept that lighting is entirely artificial - even within ostensibly organic landscapes. I bet Ken Loach isn't averse to the occasional three-point lighting just to ensure his subjects are framed in the right - but entirely realistic - kind of light.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Like I said, cinema is artifice. There's nothing real about it, bar the occasional "Kitchen Sink" drama from Ken Loach or what have you. The agreement between audience and creator is that this is all artificiality, along an ambiguous length of reason.

It's a visual medium and puts importance on the arresting quality of a striking image, regardless of how feasible it might be within the real world. Can't believe that needs clarifying for Black Panther of all films, but that "coronation by battle" scene was exactly the kind of aesthetic you'd expect from a piece of cinema and one of the reasons why BP made the impact it did (shoddy CGI notwithstanding); it had a visual language beyond the staid, formulaic mediocrity that denotes much of the MCU. A scena almost framed like a stage play or sports match, the crowd surrounding an immeadiate, full of vibrant colour.

Even how a simple scene is lit isn't ever realistic; night time isn't blue, sunsets not often golden but the understanding of the medium says we accept that lighting is entirely artificial - even within ostensibly organic landscapes. I bet Ken Loach isn't averse to the occasional three-point lighting just to ensure his subjects are framed in the right - but entirely realistic - kind of light.

I just hated the CG elements of that fight scene. How on earth they were given the go-ahead is beyond me.


Also the same for the mess of a final fight between two panther suited CG floating models

pixelburp

Deleted User wrote: »

I just hated the CG elements of that fight scene. How on earth they were given the go-ahead is beyond me.


Also the same for the mess of a final fight between two panther suited CG floating models

One imagines it was the usual problem of being able to do the CGI fast, good or cheap, but that the production could only choose 2 of those things. This was Ryan Coogler's first "big" film and it wouldn't surprise if he simply didn't have the experience or nous to handle the scheduling of the CGI.

Then again, I've heard rumour that the MCU producers take hands-on control of post-production; with many directors simply present on-set to shoot the live-action stuff without much creative control. Probably depends on the production, but perhaps being a rank newbie Coogler had no control over all those idiotic fight scenes.

Full_Circle_81

pixelburp wrote: »

One imagines it was the usual problem of being able to do the CGI fast, good or cheap, but that the production could only choose 2 of those things. This was Ryan Coogler's first "big" film and it wouldn't surprise if he simply didn't have the experience or nous to handle the scheduling of the CGI.

Then again, I've heard rumour that the MCU producers take hands-on control of post-production; with many directors simply present on-set to shoot the live-action stuff without much creative control. Probably depends on the production, but perhaps being a rank newbie Coogler had no control over all those idiotic fight scenes.

What I keep hearing over and over again is that a lot of the action/fight scenes are pre-vized far in advance and that the directors coming on board don't have as much say in those shots. It seems madness that a director doesn't have full control over what would be climactic scenes in their own films, but with these MCU movies being on such a tight/locked schedule, I suppose a lot of them are planned out *way* in advance. And CGI shots are usually what takes the longest to complete, so they have to get cracking on planning those first.

But I really do feel that with a lot of Marvel movies (or blockbusters in general) the CGI has suffered in recent years due to time constraints. You can throw all the money you want at the FX crews, but they can only get so much done in so many months/years. And when you see the staggering number of artists and technicians names that whizz by during the endless credit scenes, its not for lack of effort on the part of the crew either.

Back in the day, effects shots were much more limited, so far more time could be spent on perfecting them. But these days practically every scene is swamped with effects (both obvious and subtle). Its absolutely mind-boggling how films these days even get completed.
Obviously the advantages of this is that it allows comic-book movies to finally be realised. But unfortunately the quality of the shots often suffer from the production being too ambitious and just not having enough time to do the shots justice.....

But just to tie this back into the recent chat on Black Panther. I thought the movie itself was fine, but nothing amazing. I do appreciate the significance of such a large black-led superhero movie though, and am glad it had such a positive effect and means so much to so many. Once again, its such an awful tragedy that the lead left us so soon.

MOH

auspicious wrote: »

I love most movies. I wasn't enjoying BP so I started picking.

If you were up in the back of the Hogan stand and Bruce Lee was fighting Chun Li in the centre circle you'd miss a lot of the intricacies of the melee combat.

Yeah, that's a fair point. Sure look at the colosseum, they tried to do that kind of thing but the views were so bad nobody ever bothered turning up and now it's in ruins.

auspicious

MOH wrote: »

Yeah, that's a fair point. Sure look at the colosseum, they tried to do that kind of thing but the views were so bad nobody ever bothered turning up and now it's in ruins.

Good retort. Yeah I suppose those at the back don't really care about the intricacies and just cheer when everyone else cheers.
I won't double down .I have been tongue-in-cheek.

pixelburp

Full_Circle_81 wrote: »

What I keep hearing over and over again is that a lot of the action/fight scenes are pre-vized far in advance and that the directors coming on board don't have as much say in those shots. It seems madness that a director doesn't have full control over what would be climactic scenes in their own films, but with these MCU movies being on such a tight/locked schedule, I suppose a lot of them are planned out *way* in advance. And CGI shots are usually what takes the longest to complete, so they have to get cracking on planning those first.

I think if you look at the roster of directors, bar James Gunn they're not auteurs by any stretch; with Gunn possibly being the outlier by dint of his success on GoTG (with that fake controversy over Gunn's sense of humour only highlighting how his presence was a dealbreaker with the cast). Otherwise the directors are all young, with small CVs amounting to a few indie films. I get a sense they might just be happy to be there, paying their due to Hollywood on a huge project, with the eye to more open doors for their passion projects in future. I'm sure are also Marvel fans from childhood so there's possibly also an element of it being a dream come true.

It's funny 'cos the initial "Phase 1" directorship was an impressive if workaday set of Hollywood pros: Jon Favreau, Kenneth Branagh, Louis Letterier, Joe Johnston; all of them experienced but with just the right degree of creative authorship to stamp their identities. Now it's a who's who of 'who'? But by being younger, more inexperienced Marvel Studios can dictate the schedules and logistics far easier than if it were some headstrong, experienced head determined to do things "their way"

Full_Circle_81

pixelburp, very good points!

"impressive if workaday" is a great way of describing them too

I think we can also see how directors who had more definite visions or specific styles were subsequently replaced during the production process, like Edgar Wright, Patti Jenkins and Scott Derrickson on the latest Strange flick. Even Whedon, who you imagine would have been given carte blanche after the success of the first Avengers seemed to have an awful time of it on AOU. Its actually a miracle that Gunn (who has such a distinctive style/tone) was allowed put so much of himself into an MCU vehicle.

While I appreciate the coherent look/feel/tone that Feige and co were going for initially in order to bring all the movies together in the same "universe" (the whole experiment has been quite a revelation for the cinematic format), I think for future phases they should allow directors to approach certain properties with a bit more discretion. Barring a few outliers, a certain blandness has settled into the MCU. Even if they were to mix it up by allowing directors free reign with some of the smaller properties (Daredevil for example), it could allow Marvel to venture into other genres and even age-brackets, if the movie doesn't have to rigidly stick to their usual 4 quadrant appeal design.

MOH

auspicious wrote: »

Good retort. Yeah I suppose those at the back don't really care about the intricacies and just cheer when everyone else cheers.
I won't double down .I have been tongue-in-cheek.

To be honest, apart from that point I actually agree with you.
I thought Black Panther was one of the worst of the Marvel films.
And the fight was bad enough the first time around, without the need to repeat it.