Can we talk about how incredibly tasteless the discourse around that Joker movie is?

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

...all those movies about frustrated everymen violently lashing out at society...

Most of them being at least in part wholesale indictments of the societal problems that lead to fictional -- and real -- persons violently lashing out, without idealizing said violent behavior. And, societal suppression of even the notion it has problematic elements, let alone any higher-order issue. The bilious flow of post-Nolan comic book movies provide means to have that cake and eat it too: bad guys for villains to battle, but not only is the audience expected to not think too hard about the implications of any of it, they're supposed to cheer for aforementioned societal problems.

Kind of like how Gini coefficient is the biggest predictor for violent crime, let alone violent crime involving firearms, but it'll be a cold day in hell before you ever get that admission from a talking head speaking on behalf of multi-nationals, or politicians who are bought off by multi-nationals. Yet at the same time, media corporations are more than happy to cash in on violent crime and the issues that lead to it, because if it bleeds, it leads.

The reason this would happen (emphasis mine),

...Lots of movies from that time (even the Dark Knight) would get a bunch of criticism from these people now.

has exponentially less to do with changing common sensibilities, than this:

Spoiler

One of whom is a "good guy" for being a...dystopian futurist robber baron. The other's a "bad guy" for blowing the whistle on the kinds of shit the "good guy", and others like him, are pulling. But, that's just my take on it.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I mean, we criticise Jack Thompson for thinking that video games lead to violent tendencies when that only partially true. He was worried about effecting children, not adults, and if we didn't believe that this was true, we'd get rid of the ESRB ratings. We demonised him for what we thought he said, not what he actually stood for.

We are currently criticising loot box systems for their predatory nature. While trying to change the laws so they fit the gambling paradigm. So, not only are we pretending that video games have a negative effect, we are changing our understanding of gambling legislatively, to suit our agenda.

So... we are changing laws on a political basis so we can make up fake virtue signalling concerns about politicians and gambling in order to get carte blanche to attack politicians and video game companies they already found unpalatable all along.

The ESRB is definitely useless and serving as a replacement parent because parents nowadays can't take the time to look at what their kids are into, or, better than that, explore controversial themes with their kids from an early age TOGETHER with them and provide context/explanation such that they can equip their kids to deal with challenging concepts that exist in life.

You definitely won't have any harm befall the kids no matter what games they play or films they watch if they're parented properly, including during the watching/playing. Games shouldn't be a babysitter, they should be an activity you do with your kids. Some of my fondest memories are playing the first Silent Hill with my dad and never mind him worrying about me being "traumatized" like how some parents imply kids will be affected by horror and violence, he was actively trying to scare me by randomly poking me during scary moments and making weird sounds and what have you. Which of course resulted in me trying to scare him back when he was playing. All in all, I never saw a nightmare or anything and I was like 8 when I played Silent Hill lol.

The thing with gambling is more that it tricks kids into believing they're spending ingame currency when in fact they just charged mom's card for 200 bucks and also preys on people with gambling addictions without being regulated like regular gambling. I don't have an issue with them either btw since the parent should educate the child on what's fantasy money and they should disable usage of credit cards on everything their kids play but it's kinda apples and oranges to conflate lootboxes with the esrb.

As for why not cancel the esrb, as with any protection, once it's been in place for a while people go "well, it doesn't hurt" so they keep it out of a sense of routine. It's kinda an example of the issue with bureaucracy and its tendency to bloat.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

So, al Joker movie is gonna come out pretty soon. It's not exactly something I've asked for but I was actually cautiously looking forward to seeing Joaquin Phoenix in that role. Unfortunately though, even for the low, low standards for movie marketing the whole the marketing campaign around it is, in my opinion in incredibly bad taste. Now, I won't go too much into the director, Todd Philipps, deflecting criticisms of the movie by blaming a nebulous group on the "far left" for it, though it does frustrate me very much, seeing how after Nolan DCs movie tried to present a somewhat more progressive alternative to Marvel's unapologetically conservative leaning franchise, but that's not even the main issue. What I would like to talk about is the medias weird fixation on potential violence or, god forbid, mass shootings around the movie.

Now, I'm very well aware that mass shootings are about a bi-monthly ritual in the United States to the point they've more or less just become an accepted part of life there but maybe it's my european sensiblities that make me find these reports quite offputting. I won't dignify any of these by linking to them, because that's not the type of film journalism I want to promote,but it seems to be based around mostly two facts:

There was a mass shooting at the premiere of Dark Knight Rises, which I find very little reason to bring up as evidence that there's an especially big risk for another one at a Joker screening. Joker is neither the first Batman movie after these attacks (that would be Batman v Superman) nor the first movie featuring the Joker after these attacks (that would be Suicide Squad) which is why that focus on a potential shooting at one of its screenings strikes me as very arbitrary.

The movie portraying a violent super criminal with a sympathetic backstory (and who even thought the Joker, of all characters needed one in the first place) would inspire copycat violence, which again, is extremely arbitrary considering how many movies about criminals, assassins or otherwise violent and murderous characters there are.

So I find it very reasonable to assume that this has got to be some extremely tasteless marketing campaign to make the movie look more risky and provocative than it is. Now, it's hardly the first movie to have that sort of discourse around it, there were, for example, a number of reports about Kubrick's Clockwork Orange promoting teenage violence but these weren't written well before the movie even came out. For a movie that has, so far, tried to present itself as a serious drama more than typical comic book shlock relying on threats of real world violence to create pre release buzz seems not only reckless but frankly quite pathetic to me. So what I'm wondering is, is this was blockbuster marketing has become? "A movie so edgy, people might get shot over it"?

I?m sorry I?m just still kind of reeling that you?ve described Marvel?s movies as unapologetically conservative considering the amount of vitriol poured on some of their more recent fare as ?woke?.

I mean I don?t give a fuck since the DCEU has managed to produce only three good movies - and no, Batman v. Superman is not one of them - compared to their rival.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

The discourse around the film really says a lot about the society we all live in.

I mean, we criticise Jack Thompson for thinking that video games lead to violent tendencies when that only partially true. He was worried about effecting children, not adults, and if we didn't believe that this was true, we'd get rid of the ESRB ratings. We demonised him for what we thought he said, not what he actually stood for.

I could have sworn that he tried to get Bully declared to be a public nuisance in Miami Florida which would have prevented its sale to anyone, but any news reports I can find from that time are conflicted over whether or not he wanted the game not sold to minors or not sold to anyone. This is what I'm talking about [https://web.archive.org/web/20170422040621/http://www.thefreeradical.ca/videoGames/articlesOnBully.html]. And the Miami-Dade County civil court records are no help. I found the case in question, THOMPSON, JOHN B VS WAL MART STORES INC, 2006-016311-CA-01, but can't find anything on the docket except his voluntary dismissal of the action. So I have no idea what his relief demand was in the original suit. To make a long story about the law very short, your relief demand is the part of the lawsuit where the plaintiff tells the court what they want done. This can either take the form of a remedy under law (such as damages) or a remedy under equity (such as an injunction [a legal order not to do something]) or a mix. While it was clear he was asking for the latter (an injunction preventing the sale) it is unclear from the reporting if he wanted the retailers barred from stocking the game until it was rated M, barring the retailers from selling the game to minors, or barring the retailers from stocking the game all together.

That was a digression, so thank you for reading.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

So, al Joker movie is gonna come out pretty soon. It's not exactly something I've asked for but I was actually cautiously looking forward to seeing Joaquin Phoenix in that role. Unfortunately though, even for the low, low standards for movie marketing the whole the marketing campaign around it is, in my opinion in incredibly bad taste. Now, I won't go too much into the director, Todd Philipps, deflecting criticisms of the movie by blaming a nebulous group on the "far left" for it, though it does frustrate me very much, seeing how after Nolan DCs movie tried to present a somewhat more progressive alternative to Marvel's unapologetically conservative leaning franchise, but that's not even the main issue. What I would like to talk about is the medias weird fixation on potential violence or, god forbid, mass shootings around the movie.

Now, I'm very well aware that mass shootings are about a bi-monthly ritual in the United States to the point they've more or less just become an accepted part of life there but maybe it's my european sensiblities that make me find these reports quite offputting. I won't dignify any of these by linking to them, because that's not the type of film journalism I want to promote,but it seems to be based around mostly two facts:

There was a mass shooting at the premiere of Dark Knight Rises, which I find very little reason to bring up as evidence that there's an especially big risk for another one at a Joker screening. Joker is neither the first Batman movie after these attacks (that would be Batman v Superman) nor the first movie featuring the Joker after these attacks (that would be Suicide Squad) which is why that focus on a potential shooting at one of its screenings strikes me as very arbitrary.

The movie portraying a violent super criminal with a sympathetic backstory (and who even thought the Joker, of all characters needed one in the first place) would inspire copycat violence, which again, is extremely arbitrary considering how many movies about criminals, assassins or otherwise violent and murderous characters there are.

So I find it very reasonable to assume that this has got to be some extremely tasteless marketing campaign to make the movie look more risky and provocative than it is. Now, it's hardly the first movie to have that sort of discourse around it, there were, for example, a number of reports about Kubrick's Clockwork Orange promoting teenage violence but these weren't written well before the movie even came out. For a movie that has, so far, tried to present itself as a serious drama more than typical comic book shlock relying on threats of real world violence to create pre release buzz seems not only reckless but frankly quite pathetic to me. So what I'm wondering is, is this was blockbuster marketing has become? "A movie so edgy, people might get shot over it"?

I?m sorry I?m just still kind of reeling that you?ve described Marvel?s movies as unapologetically conservative considering the amount of vitriol poured on some of their more recent fare as ?woke?.

I mean I don?t give a fuck since the DCEU has managed to produce only three good movies - and no, Batman v. Superman is not one of them - compared to their rival.

It's entirely possible to be woke and conservative. I mean, Black Panther is held up as the most woke and progressive Marvel movie, but it's about installing a king who rules by divine right while ignoring the flaws in the system that let a mad king get in in the first place. It's peak conservatism, literal monarchism, but black.

 

[Hawki]

I mean I don?t give a fuck since the DCEU has managed to produce only three good movies

3 good movies out of 7? Unless there's a clear divide between "good" and "bad," that isn't too bad a ratio.

Personally, it's 1 good movie, 5 average movies, and 1 bad movie.

 

[Silvanus]

Personally, it's 1 good movie, 5 average movies, and 1 bad movie.

Out of interest, which out of Suicide Squad and Batman vs Superman would you consider not "bad"?

(...I mean, your "bad" one has to be one of those).

 

[Hawki]

Personally, it's 1 good movie, 5 average movies, and 1 bad movie.

Out of interest, which out of Suicide Squad and Batman vs Superman would you consider not "bad"?

(...I mean, your "bad" one has to be one of those).

Batman v Superman.

Suicide Squad is only just above that in ranking, but I still consider it "okay" rather than "bad."

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

It's entirely possible to be woke and conservative. I mean, Black Panther is held up as the most woke and progressive Marvel movie, but it's about installing a king who rules by divine right while ignoring the flaws in the system that let a mad king get in in the first place. It's peak conservatism, literal monarchism, but black.

Are... are you serious?

The ruler is literally picked via tradition and ritual open to challengers. Anyone could attempt to be the Black Panther. All you need to be in Wakandan and skilled enough to beat the current monarch.

The Crux of the movie was T'Challa being shown not only the flaws of how Wakanda interacted with the world, but how those very actions created the most dangerous situation Wakanda has felt for centuries in Killmonger. There was a scene where T'Challa tearfully yelled at the literal Ghosts of Wakandan rulers (including very much his own Father for actually making Killmonger) for the state they left Wakanda in.

At the end of the movie, he promises to share all Wakanda had with the world. He brought the Projects that Killmonger grew up in to make affordable housing that actually mattered, and promised to open up Schools to share the knowledge they had. He chose to be apart of the world instead of just continuing the tradition of self interests.

That is literally the most Liberal thing there is, and completely non-conservative. They are sharing their resources, their knowledge, and their ways with people who they are not benefiting from.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I mean I don?t give a fuck since the DCEU has managed to produce only three good movies

3 good movies out of 7? Unless there's a clear divide between "good" and "bad," that isn't too bad a ratio.

Personally, it's 1 good movie, 5 average movies, and 1 bad movie.

It?s a pretty pathetic ratio since their goal is to engender the same audience engagement and recurrent attendance as the MCU.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

I?m sorry I?m just still kind of reeling that you?ve described Marvel?s movies as unapologetically conservative considering the amount of vitriol poured on some of their more recent fare as ?woke?.

I mean I don?t give a fuck since the DCEU has managed to produce only three good movies - and no, Batman v. Superman is not one of them - compared to their rival.

Actually more generous to it than I am, as far as I'm concerned it has produced two good movies (and Batman v Superman is one of them)

I actually agree that Marvel is a lot better in terms of actually making entertaining action movies overall but I think the conservative themes are very blatantly there. And I do mean "conservative" not "far right dogwhistles" or anything. I just find it hard to miss.

Take Black Panther. The only notable white character who's on the side of the good guys is, of all things, an American CIA agent. In Africa. The actual CIA supported colonialists in Africa, you know. Or take Captain Marvel which goes out of its way to point out that the galactic military force she served in was waving a genocidal imperialist war yet turns around to portray the US Air force she also served in as unambiguously positive. Or take Dr. Strange, where he travels to an ancient Himalayan monastery to learn the mystical arts from... a white British lady who just happens to be a more powerful sorcerer than any of the locals. Or Spiderman Homecoming where the bad guys are disgruntled workers who lost their livelihood. And don't forget that for a long time its central characters were a capitalist, an American soldier and a Nordic God.

I guess they're "woke" in the sense that they've gotten pretty good at representation lately, though it sure took them a while to get there, but they're still conservative movies. That doesn't make them bad or morally questionable or "problematic" but I think it's appropriate to at least acknowledge that subtext.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

It's entirely possible to be woke and conservative. I mean, Black Panther is held up as the most woke and progressive Marvel movie, but it's about installing a king who rules by divine right while ignoring the flaws in the system that let a mad king get in in the first place. It's peak conservatism, literal monarchism, but black.

Are... are you serious?

The ruler is literally picked via tradition and ritual open to challengers. Anyone could attempt to be the Black Panther. All you need to be in Wakandan and skilled enough to beat the current monarch.

The Crux of the movie was T'Challa being shown not only the flaws of how Wakanda interacted with the world, but how those very actions created the most dangerous situation Wakanda has felt for centuries in Killmonger. There was a scene where T'Challa tearfully yelled at the literal Ghosts of Wakandan rulers (including very much his own Father for actually making Killmonger) for the state they left Wakanda in.

At the end of the movie, he promises to share all Wakanda had with the world. He brought the Projects that Killmonger grew up in to make affordable housing that actually mattered, and promised to open up Schools to share the knowledge they had. He chose to be apart of the world instead of just continuing the tradition of self interests.

That is literally the most Liberal thing there is, and completely non-conservative. They are sharing their resources, their knowledge, and their ways with people who they are not benefiting from.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

I think he's saying that the process of might makes right in which the king is decided is inherently conservative old-world thinking. One could say the same thing about what the collonizers did to the native peoples of Africa. Remember, the "tradition and ritual" of the entirety of existence up until just a few centuries ago was "we make war, winner takes all, loser is enslaved/exterminated" yet we do not judge the fruits of this system as anything progressive nowadays.

All of Wakanda voting on its new king (or queen) would be the progressive thing there.

T'challa is a benevolent monarch but one could even make the case that that's just conservative propaganda and it definitely doesn't make the system any less prone to abuse by a future tyrant who is also very strong on top.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I?m sorry I?m just still kind of reeling that you?ve described Marvel?s movies as unapologetically conservative considering the amount of vitriol poured on some of their more recent fare as ?woke?.

I mean I don?t give a fuck since the DCEU has managed to produce only three good movies - and no, Batman v. Superman is not one of them - compared to their rival.

Actually more generous to it than I am, as far as I'm concerned it has produced two good movies (and Batman v Superman is one of them)

I actually agree that Marvel is a lot better overall but I think the conservative themes are very blatantly there. And I do mean "conservative" not "far right dogwhistles" or anything. I just find it hard to miss.

Take Black Panther. The only notable white character who's on the side of the good guys is, of all things, an American CIA agent. In Africa. The actual CIA supported colonialists in Africa, you know. Or take Captain Marvel which goes out of its way to point out that the galactic military force she served in was waving a genocidal imperialist war yet turns around to portray the US Air force she also served in as unambiguously positive. Or take Dr. Strange, where he travels to an ancient Himalayan monastery to learn the mystical arts from... a white British lady who just happens to be a more powerful sorcerer than any of the locals. Or Spiderman Homecoming where the bad guys are disgruntled workers who lost their livelihood. And don't forget that for a long time its central characters were a capitalist, an American soldier and a Nordic God.

I guess they're "woke" in the sense that they've gotten pretty good at representation lately, though it sure took them a while to get there, but they're still conservative movies. That doesn't make them bad or morally questionable or "problematic" but I think it's appropriate to at least acknowledge that subtext.

I'm sorry but I don't see it. Captain America does not engage in the prejudices of his era, while in his era. Not even in the most benevolent way. Thor bears as much resemblance to his mythical counterpart as I do to Tom Cruise, and I'll be buggered if I let skinheads co-opting bullshit they don't understand ruin the Mighty Avenger for me. Also, Tony Stark is rich: so is Bruce Wayne so that's a point you're going to have to expand on something.

 

[BrawlMan]

Can we accept this is all just media sites trading buzzwords for clicks and move on? Movie isn't even out.

That is basically what the video I posted said. Agree with you big time. But now, it's not even about Joker anymore considering everyone else has gone off topic.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Rated E for everyone

Rated PG-13 for violence

No, the ESRB is literally just there to keep the government from getting involved.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I think he's saying that the process of might makes right in which the king is decided is inherently conservative old-world thinking. One could say the same thing about what the collonizers did to the native peoples of Africa. Remember, the "tradition and ritual" of the entirety of existence up until just a few centuries ago was "we make war, winner takes all, loser is enslaved/exterminated" yet we do not judge the fruits of this system as anything progressive nowadays.

All of Wakanda voting on its new king (or queen) would be the progressive thing there.

T'challa is a benevolent monarch but one could even make the case that that's just conservative propaganda and it definitely doesn't make the system any less prone to abuse by a future tyrant who is also very strong on top.

That's a thought, but still one I can't wholly get behind. Next to Might Makes Right, There's C.R.E.A.M.

Cash Rules Everything Around Me.

Our real life elections are Billion dollar affairs. Which leads to deals under the table. We have yet to find a way for an election process that prevents Tyranny. One could easily argue that the current year is proof of that. In most countries, even.

And I wouldn't actually consider the process of choosing the next Black Panther progressive also. As I said, it is traditional. But Crimson said the king ruled by a divine right, which isn't the case. Because if it was divine right, a mortal Wakandan couldn't take the throne by challenge.

The point is that the Black Panther isn't like our president. S/He doesn't win the election and then sits behind a throne, letting others do his or her dirty work. The Black Panther is on the field. Actual fighting abilities are essential to the position. The Black Panther is the literal Defender of Wakanda. The Black Panther needs to literally be the strongest Wakandan to defend against all that would come to take their resources. And each of the Tribes can vote by creating as many challengers as they want. If they don't, it's because they have confidence.

Before T'Challa's decision, they had no allies and no recourse if someone decided to take the mountain by force... other than fighting. Because remember, we've seen what has happened over Vibranium. Captain America's shield, Klaue blowing up a bomb and killing Wakandans for a quarter ton of the stuff (which easily made him a billionaire), Ultron. Vibranium is a highly sought after material for obvious reasons.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It's entirely possible to be woke and conservative. I mean, Black Panther is held up as the most woke and progressive Marvel movie, but it's about installing a king who rules by divine right while ignoring the flaws in the system that let a mad king get in in the first place. It's peak conservatism, literal monarchism, but black.

Are... are you serious?

The ruler is literally picked via tradition and ritual open to challengers. Anyone could attempt to be the Black Panther. All you need to be in Wakandan and skilled enough to beat the current monarch.

The Crux of the movie was T'Challa being shown not only the flaws of how Wakanda interacted with the world, but how those very actions created the most dangerous situation Wakanda has felt for centuries in Killmonger. There was a scene where T'Challa tearfully yelled at the literal Ghosts of Wakandan rulers (including very much his own Father for actually making Killmonger) for the state they left Wakanda in.

At the end of the movie, he promises to share all Wakanda had with the world. He brought the Projects that Killmonger grew up in to make affordable housing that actually mattered, and promised to open up Schools to share the knowledge they had. He chose to be apart of the world instead of just continuing the tradition of self interests.

That is literally the most Liberal thing there is, and completely non-conservative. They are sharing their resources, their knowledge, and their ways with people who they are not benefiting from.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

There's a whole lot of spiritual talk for it not to be divine right. I know it loses it's impact a bit when there is a spirit world where you can talk to your predecessors, but still. And it is absolute monarchism. Here's a question, why could only the Black Panther use the herb? They had plenty of it before Killmonger burnt it all.

As to the sharing their stuff, how nice of the elite to open a few schools and enact other acts of charity. But it's still a relatively closed off nation as we see by the later movies, so it's a few feel good reforms rather than enacting any real change to the system that let Killmonger take control in the first place.

Black Panther is a movie about a monarchy rotting as monarchies do, and when somebody complains about it, he's killed and the monarchy makes some feel good measures rather than truly reform. The problem isn't that Wakanda was a closed nation, the problem is it was a closed nation by tradition and the word of one man. The one man blessed by the spirits of the land and their ancestors.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

There's a whole lot of spiritual talk for it not to be divine right. I know it loses it's impact a bit when there is a spirit world where you can talk to your predecessors, but still. And it is absolute monarchism. Here's a question, why could only the Black Panther use the herb? They had plenty of it before Killmonger burnt it all.

As to the sharing their stuff, how nice of the elite to open a few schools and enact other acts of charity. But it's still a relatively closed off nation as we see by the later movies, so it's a few feel good reforms rather than enacting any real change to the system that let Killmonger take control in the first place.

Black Panther is a movie about a monarchy rotting as monarchies do, and when somebody complains about it, he's killed and the monarchy makes some feel good measures rather than truly reform. The problem isn't that Wakanda was a closed nation, the problem is it was a closed nation by tradition and the word of one man. The one man blessed by the spirits of the land and their ancestors.

No one said it wasn't a monarchy. I called them monarchs. You quoted me doing so.

I'll ask you a question right back. Why does Trump give out the nuclear codes to every citizen? That De Facto makes him one of the most powerful people on this planet. But we live in a Republic, shouldn't we all get access to those codes just because? Oh, and a few Fighter Jets. I mean, it's our tax money that pays for them.

When "someone complains about it" as you put it was an angry member of the royal line that had half of the story. His actions were inspired by contempt and almost lead to a world war that would only have Wakanda as the victor.

But the truth is... as much as others might want to be blind to it, T'Chaka was right (GET IT ON A T-SHIRT). N'Jobu's actions got Wakandans killed. And Klaue sold the ill-gotten Vibranium to Ultron under distress, as it were. We all remember who Ultron is, right? So we know how bad it is. One misstep by one Prince almost destroyed the world. And his misstep was almost rectified by his son who deliberately sought war with the world. Massive Amounts of Deaths were assured.

And one Man? That one man who yelled at everyone that they were all wrong [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikky7ZvpKLk]? The man who counseled with his best friend who told T'Challa that the borders were there to keep Wakanda from being everywhere else? The man who decided to do your 'feel good efforts' despite seemingly a majority of Wakandans still wanting to be isolated? Yeah, that's right. T'Challa actually acted against the wishes of a good deal of Wakandans exposing themselves to the world. He did it because he thought it was the right thing to do.

But that doesn't mean the rest of the country has wholly embraced the idea. Any efforts would have be to be marginal. Oh, and let's not forget the real issue. Time frame. We all know how long Black Panther and Infinity War took place in real time. A matter of months. It escapes me how long it was in MCU time, but I think it was comparable. And you talk about it being relatively closed off? What would you expect to happen in a few months to a year in real world politics?

Seriously, all you're showing is your disdain for the picture and story. Or possibly the idea of monarchy. Or hell, even mysticism. And that's fine. Hate those things. But you're actively ignoring actual details of the film and twisting the subject matter to justify your dislike. That's a little off.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

There's a whole lot of spiritual talk for it not to be divine right. I know it loses it's impact a bit when there is a spirit world where you can talk to your predecessors, but still. And it is absolute monarchism. Here's a question, why could only the Black Panther use the herb? They had plenty of it before Killmonger burnt it all.

As to the sharing their stuff, how nice of the elite to open a few schools and enact other acts of charity. But it's still a relatively closed off nation as we see by the later movies, so it's a few feel good reforms rather than enacting any real change to the system that let Killmonger take control in the first place.

Black Panther is a movie about a monarchy rotting as monarchies do, and when somebody complains about it, he's killed and the monarchy makes some feel good measures rather than truly reform. The problem isn't that Wakanda was a closed nation, the problem is it was a closed nation by tradition and the word of one man. The one man blessed by the spirits of the land and their ancestors.

No one said it wasn't a monarchy. I called them monarchs. You quoted me doing so.

I know, I'm just pointing out your liberal bastion movie is about supporting an absolute monarchy, which is about as conservative as it gets.

I'll ask you a question right back. Why does Trump give out the nuclear codes to every citizen? That De Facto makes him one of the most powerful people on this planet. But we live in a Republic, shouldn't we all get access to those codes just because? Oh, and a few Fighter Jets. I mean, it's our tax money that pays for them.

I think there's a minor difference between a strengthening serum and WMDs. Remember that a lot of BP's power comes from his suit.

When "someone complains about it" as you put it was an angry member of the royal line that had half of the story. His actions were inspired by contempt and almost lead to a world war that would only have Wakanda as the victor.

Yes, but he did have salient points and more importantly, was allowed to take the throne and impose his will on the nation (and the world if he wasn't stopped).

But the truth is... as much as others might want to be blind to it, T'Chaka was right (GET IT ON A T-SHIRT). N'Jobu's actions got Wakandans killed. And Klaue sold the ill-gotten Vibranium to Ultron under distress, as it were. We all remember who Ultron is, right? So we know how bad it is. One misstep by one Prince almost destroyed the world. And his misstep was almost rectified by his son who deliberately sought war with the world. Massive Amounts of Deaths were assured.

Yeah, that's what happens when a lot of power is concentrated in the hands of a few people at the top. It's why the rest of the world has generally moved away from monarchies. Not that an oligarchy is much of an improvement, but it is better than Wakanda.

And one Man? That one man who yelled at everyone that they were all wrong [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikky7ZvpKLk]? The man who counseled with his best friend who told T'Challa that the borders were there to keep Wakanda from being everywhere else? The man who decided to do your 'feel good efforts' despite seemingly a majority of Wakandans still wanting to be isolated? Yeah, that's right. T'Challa actually acted against the wishes of a good deal of Wakandans exposing themselves to the world. He did it because he thought it was the right thing to do.

But that doesn't mean the rest of the country has wholly embraced the idea. Any efforts would have be to be marginal. Oh, and let's not forget the real issue. Time frame. We all know how long Black Panther and Infinity War took place in real time. A matter of months. It escapes me how long it was in MCU time, but I think it was comparable. And you talk about it being relatively closed off? What would you expect to happen in a few months to a year in real world politics?

Seriously, all you're showing is your disdain for the picture and story. Or possibly the idea of monarchy. Or hell, even mysticism. And that's fine. Hate those things. But you're actively ignoring actual details of the film and twisting the subject matter to justify your dislike. That's a little off.

Tradition is a hard thing to overcome in an ultra-conservative nation. But is that implying that we should have a strong autocrat to override the will of the people when it's to the people's benefit?

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I know, I'm just pointing out your liberal bastion movie is about supporting an absolute monarchy, which is about as conservative as it gets.

Ok, things like this are sending off klaxons that this will be a fruitless conversation. It is not my movie. It is not my liberal bastion. I saw it as a movie.

I think there's a minor difference between a strengthening serum and WMDs. Remember that a lot of BP's power comes from his suit.

You're right. A Strengthening Serum would be used more often. Soldiers that literally couldn't be hit by conventional soldiers can overtake a country in a frightful small time frame. And with the added bonus of keeping the resources pristine for the taking.

And, you're actually wrong.

The Heart-Shaped Herb [https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Black_Panther] gives the Black Panther power to lift a car, outrun a car, withstand an blast right next to him without his habit, enhanced reflexes and agility where he could catch one of Hawkeye's arrows out of the air barehanded, and he has a healing factor.

The Habit is impact proof, has communication, and has claws. Oh, and the restored energy blast.

Yes, but he did have salient points and more importantly, was allowed to take the throne and impose his will on the nation (and the world if he wasn't stopped)

.

Ok. You're going to make me invoke Godwin's Law. One Powerful Nation should have used its power to instill it's will to the rest of the world. That is the point he was making. That Wakanda should have used its might to rule as THEY see fit. And since you and I are not from Wakanda, that means ruling us without our say so. For someone who seems to be against absolute rule, it's very weird that you're siding with someone who wants to absolutely rule via mysticism and technological might.

And yes, Killmonger was allowed to sit on the throne. Because there was an electoral process that the Nation must adhere to.

Like, this is exactly why this argument feels like it's pointless. You're arguing both sides like they both prove your point. One man was given divine right to have complete rule over one powerful nation. And even though T'Challa was a just ruler, weird traditions allowed his position to be challenged.

You can't have both. Either T'Challa was installed by divine right, therefore no one can challenge his complete rule which is too much power. Or that the system allowed crappy people to be the monarch. Which is how all politics work. Sometimes, we will have crappy rulers. Whether elected or by birth. This world is rife with people who were elected who are doing horrible jobs.

But the truth is... as much as others might want to be blind to it, T'Chaka was right (GET IT ON A T-SHIRT). N'Jobu's actions got Wakandans killed. And Klaue sold the ill-gotten Vibranium to Ultron under distress, as it were. We all remember who Ultron is, right? So we know how bad it is. One misstep by one Prince almost destroyed the world. And his misstep was almost rectified by his son who deliberately sought war with the world. Massive Amounts of Deaths were assured.

Yeah, that's what happens when a lot of power is concentrated in the hands of a few people at the top. It's why the rest of the world has generally moved away from monarchies. Not that an oligarchy is much of an improvement, but it is better than Wakanda.

Tradition is a hard thing to overcome in an ultra-conservative nation. But is that implying that we should have a strong autocrat to override the will of the people when it's to the people's benefit?

Ask yourself that question, when you side with a man named Killmonger who you believe has salient points and who 'complained about it'. His war with the world was against the will of the people. Of all people.