Black Panther: Wakanda Forever

[Aberzombie]

Teaser Trailer

As with most things MCU these days, I remain cautiously pessimistic. If Phase 4 has done anything, it’s show me that Disney can screw up a great thing. This teaser wasn’t all that compelling, but it did have some highlights: Namor and the Atlanteans, M’Baku (Winston Duke is a great actor).

I don’t see myself paying good money to see this in a theater, but if the right people recommend it, I might. I’ll most likely wait until it pops up on streaming.

[JoelF847]

Aberzombie wrote:

Teaser Trailer

As with most things MCU these days, I remain cautiously pessimistic. If Phase 4 has done anything, it’s show me that Disney can screw up a great thing. This teaser wasn’t all that compelling, but it did have some highlights: Namor and the Atlanteans, M’Baku (Winston Duke is a great actor).

I don’t see myself paying good money to see this in a theater, but if the right people recommend it, I might. I’ll most likely wait until it pops up on streaming.

The trailer was more focused on the loss of T'Challa and Chadwick, so that's either extremely powerful and moving to you or not interesting. I think of all Marvel movies, Wakanda Forever we'll need to wait to see the 2nd trailer to get a better sense of the movie.

[Thomas Seitz]

I will agree with Joel that a second trailer might help. (It did wonders for She-Hulk). But honestly I was very compelled by it considering I loved BP and Chadwick was a true treasure. Wakanda Forever!

[DeathQuaker]

Very good stuff. Very moving, bring your tissues. Not that it should be surprising, but truly knockout performances from all.

The nerd in me noticed some internal logic issues with the framing of certain conflicts, but the crux of the story and the journeys the characters went there.

The only issue I initially had was--is Namor supposed to be that much of an a*!~~&%? As I am not that familiar with him. But I looked it up and... yeah, yeah he is. The only downside to that is it made it harder to be sympathetic with his people in the present day, regardless of tragic backstory, and I think there needed to be a little more grey area there. Still they had a compelling story at least, and I could understand much of the motivation they had.

Okoye is my favorite. And she had some amazing moments. But man... Shuri's journey really shone.

Looking forward to more Riri in the future.

[Thomas Seitz]

To answer DQ's question (even though she got the answer) Namor has always been and always will be a dick.

[Freehold DM]

I think being a dick is his superpower.

[Thomas Seitz]

It's certain one of them...

[TriOmegaZero]

Absolutely loved it. Not the movie I wanted, but it was the movie we could have and it did a great job. Not perfect, but I can enjoy it even with some flaws.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Saw it yesterday and it was ok. The grief and moving on bit was handled well. Angela Basset owned every scene she was in and was the best thing in the movie. M'Baku is a good number two. Shuri was fine but I didn't like her as much as in the first movie.

Talokan was sorta interesting but it pales in comparison to DCEU's Atlantis. Atlantis was shown to be a vast kingdom with many realms and peoples, while what we saw of Talokan was what seemed to be a bunch of inhabited ruins and a big building off in the distance that we never got to see inside. It just seemed small and unimpressive for something that was supposed to be dangerous. And I kept wondering about the gene pool of that place, considering how few of that original tribe we saw make the transformation. Maybe they Deep One the land-dwellers or something.
Talokan's design was fine, though I wondered a bit at amount of surface things in the sea, but I kept thinking they could have done more to make it impressive. Namor was fine, I guess. Another in the line of Marvel villains.

The action was mostly terrible - what is it with Marvel movies getting worse and worse in that regard? A few passable scenes but mostly too shaky and too edited. As for the danger posed by Talokan I kept thinking, like I did in IW, that Wakanda was lucky it only faced the enemies it did instead of something more competent like the Trade Federation.

There were the usual plot holes that will probably be excused because they are Marvel. I did get a dark chuckle out of the idea that Haiti was a better place to raise a kid than Wakanda.

All in all, a middling Marvel movie, which means it was entertaining enough for a single viewing - I wasn't bored and I didn't feel it a waste of money - but not worth watching again any time soon if ever.

[Thomas Seitz]

Honestly I'm good with their interpretation of Namor being less a white dude's fantasy about underwater living and more like some different underwater culture. Also Namor isn't a true villain. Just a guy that does things that in his peoples (and some times himself)'s best interest.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Thomas Seitz wrote:

Honestly I'm good with their interpretation of Namor being less a white dude's fantasy about underwater living and more like some different underwater culture. Also Namor isn't a true villain. Just a guy that does things that in his peoples (and some times himself)'s best interest.

Was this directed at me? Because you seem to be reading things into my post I didn't say. In any case, doing stuff in your best interest doesn't mean you're not a villain.

[Thomas Seitz]

It wasn't directed it at you. Merely a response in something you wrote. Also, no but it doesn't make you the villain automatically either. He's an antagonist, not a villain. Kang is a villain. Gorr (the comic version) is a villain. Namor is just Namor.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Not directed at me but a response 'in' something I wrote..., I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say. Did you respond to points I made or did something I say remind you of something someone else said and that is what you commented on?

Anyway, Namor wanted to declare war on the surface world and basically wants to wipe them out; sounds like a villain to me.

[Thomas Seitz]

He's not a villain. He's just a guy that is a dick. Not all dicks are villains.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Someone who wishes to commit genocide isn't a villain?
It seems we have different definitions of the word.

[JoelF847]

Just watched it streaming finally, and would add that Namor is an antagonist, but not really a villain. Your mileage may vary, but they aren't the same thing, and generally antagonists are more nuanced and shades of grey, which tends to make them more interesting.

[Thomas Seitz]

Thanks for backing me up Joel. I appreciate it.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Villains can be nuanced and sympathetic.

[TriOmegaZero]

Yeah, I can't get behind him not being a villain, with all the murder.

[DeathQuaker]

Some narrative analysis nerdery:
An antagonist is an entity in a narrative that is creating conflict for the protagonist, which is the primary character on the narrative journey. An antagonist can be a person, group, or concept, and a protagonist can even be their own antagonist.

A "villain" by dictionary definition is either a wicked or evil person, or a dramatic character who is at odds with a hero. As "hero" is classically defined as a character who is striving toward a noble purpose (possibly divinely empowered in the oldest myths), villains invariably are some degree of not-noble and often, indeed, evil even in this second definition. Of course heros can--and arguably should--have flaws (and overcoming those flaws are often part of a heroic narrative), villains can also have sympathetic traits and/or even from certain perspectives doing something completely reasonable (see also the "Thanos Was Right" theory). This doesn't make them not a villain, it just makes them well rounded ones.

Importantly, in a serial narrative or set of narratives (e.g., comic books and serial movies), a character who may be either a villain or an antagonist (often both) in one story may become the protagonist and/or hero in another. For example, Catwoman first appeared as both a villain and antagonist in Batman comics. But she is also clearly the protagonist of her own title. She has performed both heroic and villainous deeds through her long and storied past in the DC Universe.

I agree that in Wakanda Forever, Namor is both antagonist and villain (although he is only one of several antagonists; Shuri's grief is another major antagonist). He is also a villain in that he is countering the heroes of the story, and moreover causing a lot of wanton destruction and murder; his ethics and morals are definitely lacking. The fact that his motivations come from being victimized by colonialization and related losses, and a desire to protect his people at all costs, makes him a well-rounded villain---and importantly gives him the potential to be a hero in a future story.

In short, Namor is the villain in this movie but it doesn't make him a villain for all time.

[TriOmegaZero]

Now that I heartily agree with!

[Thomas Seitz]

Works for me.

[CallanCruz]

I finally watched it. And I honestly liked it.

[ShinHakkaider]

I saw it once in the theaters opening weekend and enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would.

I'm waiting for my 4k disc to show up before watching it again even though I have Disney+. I primarily have it for the shows that are not or won't ever be on physical media.

My biggest issue (which is not really at all fair since I knew this would be a thing going into the film) was the final conflict between Wakanda and Talokan. I was glad that it didn't end with Namor's death but part of me wishes that they didn't have to fight each other at all. Their mutual enemies ARE the outside/surface world. They should have been fighting THEM. And I think that Coogler agrees as he depicts the final fight in a way where it's almost tragic that it's come to this much violence between peoples who are so very similar in terms of their dealings with the outside/surface world.

I can't even legitimately re-watch the first Black Panther movie anymore because I have a hard time siding with T'challa over Killmonger because as bad as he was (and he WAS a Bad Guy), he wasn't wrong. The real world, especially post-Black Panther, has shown that over and over again.

I understand the reality of big-budget Hollywood movie-making and how getting back to the status quo is a necessary evil. But more and more superhero movies are leaving a bad taste in my mouth because of it. And I LOVE superhero movies. Anyway despite my admittedly unfair gripe, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. The redesign of the Ironheart armor was fine even though it looks closer to the Motoslave from Bubble Gum Crisis than Stark armor. But I liked it so much that I bought the Marvel Legends figure of it so there's that.

[danielhirsch]

I watched the movie and was satisfied, maybe because I didn't get my hopes up