Comics Creators

Marvel Movies & TV General Discussion


Personal opinion but I think that would all work better if Klaw had stolen the item out of greed but Kilmonger turned up to take it for himself, throw in some anti-colonial rhetoric as required and then he heads straight for Wakanda.

Not really a big deal to be honest, I liked the movie just fine!


That’s pretty much what happened. Klaw had no idea about Kilmonger’s connection to Wakanda, he just wanted to steal the item.


True. But BP has enough other stuff going on that makes it worth watching.


I mean Kilmonger wouldn’t have been on Klaw’s team. Or on his tram, as my auto correct suggested.


That’s fine, but that scene was all about Erik, so it’s him interacting with the museum personnel (and getting profiled by the guards) and him giving the speech and him poisoning the curator.

Klaw comes in as a slice of villianous ham, and he’s great, but he’s just there for fun in those scenes.

Erik needs to lead and he needs to be in the spotlight, explaining how he thinks.

As I said, you could do a different scene that achieved the same thing, but it would have to do that. If Klaw steals the axe/hammer/whatever and Erik then kills him to get it, he’d still have to make a point about why it wasn’t in Wakanda in the first place.


Yeah, it’s not bad by any means, just definitely not in the top tier of Marvel movies, and it could have been way better. Like, imagine a Black Panther trilogy with all the same story beats as this one movie: say he becomes king and captures Klaw in the first film, then Killmonger rescues him and arrives in Wakanda to depose T’Challa in the second, and then T’Challa recovers and regains his kingdom in the third.

Then you’ve got space to let the characters grow and change, to give the Wakandans more time to be uneasy with T’Challa’s rule, see Killmonger as a viable alternative who turns out to be worse, to provide stakes and escalation so T’Challa doesn’t gain, lose and regain the throne in one sitting, to explain why Okoye sides with T’Challa so easily and maybe have some tension between her and W’Kabi (their relationship is so slight in the movie it’s not even mentioned in their character dios on wiki), so it’s a big deal when Zuri dies, explain why Shuri goes from openly mocking traditional Wakandan clothes to wearing a highly traditional outfit in the last battle. And so on.


Two films at most, and that risks stretching it.

You need a lot of developments to power 90-120 minutes without boring people. You’d run the risk of making this more like a Marvel Netflix show than a Marvel movie.


Whichever way you want to split it up, but I’m just talking about giving the story more time to breathe, so we get to see why the people in it do what they do.


I assume they went into this film thinking they had one shot. I’m glad they went for it instead of drawing it out. I’m tired of so many things being planned for trilogies and not making good stand alone films.


Yeah, I’m sure that was part of the thinking - but that just means they should have gone for a smaller story IMO.


Yeah, you see a lot of people say they’re making the first film or a trilogy or just that this film sets the stage for the stories to come.

Well, as much as love enthusiasm, if you don’t give the audience your best material at the start then they may not be sufficiently interested to get you the next film.

As I said, you can’t hold back if you want to win people over. The film may be over-stuffed but part of that was post-production adjustments to the story. Things were rearranged a bit and a certain amount of nuance was lost in the shuffle.


Wasn’t Killmonger acting as Klaws lackey and doing his jobs simply to get close enough to kill him and take him back to Wakanda?


Yep. I can see Lorcan’s points, but I think they did make the right decision to focus on Killmonger.

The movie’s biggest strength was that it didn’t just have a plot, but it also had themes that it actually cared about. I don’t know if it had been as successful without the issues of colonialism on the one hand and on the other isolationism vs. taking responsibility on a global scale.

Those are topics that vey much resonate with people right now, and I think it was to the movie’s advantage that it was, to some extent, about something that people recognised as real.


It was interesting how they presented it, he wasn’t set up as a lackey, I don;t think they wanted to show him as weak or in a subordinate position to anyone, even as a bluff or con.

IIRC Klaw actually trusted him and they got along, they were partners in the heist (if not actually friends)… until Erik kills him.


I don’t think these things are mutually exclusive. The issue is less that they rearranged stuff in post-production, and more the scope of the story they wanted to tell in one movie. They could have done an entirely different movie that’s still hige and exciting but not as stuffed plot-wise, has space for character development and so on. In my opinion the best Marvel movies - the first Iron Man, GotG, Winter Soldier, Ragnarok all have a really good balance of character work and action, and really strong thematic work too.


Killmonger was by far the most interesting thing about the film. Michael B. Jordan was the draw to this film for me. I don’t think focusing on anything else would have been quite as exciting.


I think ‘Black Panther’, as a character, was the draw for most people, certainly the black audience were there to see the hero not the villain.

As dramatic as it would be to two-part this story and end with Killmonger on the throne, promising T’Challa would return to reclaim it next time, I don’t believe it would be have been anywhere near as enjoyable for most people.

Killmonger is a mouthpiece for an idea, he’s played really well and gets a lot fo the more dramatic moments, but he’s there to counter-point Wakandan isolationism.

T’Challa start the film as an isolationist, albeit one with doubts, which are expressed by Nakia in their conversations.

Then Killmonger presents the extreme opposite argument; to go out aggressively and dominate others.

Finally T’Challa decides to go with middle ground; he’ll lead, but not by force.

Except when he’s heroically kicking the ass of some bad guys of course.

Since this new conversation came about because Lorcan had only just seen the film, are we not worried about anyone else who might not have seen it yet? Spoilers?

There is a Black Panther thread.


Plus, they already kind of did that ending with Thor 2.


I think the answer is to ‘why not do a smaller story? why not do two films’ is they only had the one shot - so it’s go big or go home. They went big and the world loved it.

Now, if they do a Black Panther 2 and I really can’t see why they wouldn’t, that’s where other things can be done.

The bigger deal with BP, much like WW, is that it got made at all and was then a big success. In representational terms, both films are major coups. The Q that’s left for both is: What now?


Did Killmonger know the location of Wakanda though? I thought that was the whole point of getting with Klaw (who definetly knew).