Besides TWS killing the Starks, what MCU movie was based around white people killing each other over power and resources?
None of The Avengers are out for power or resources. The enemies have been aliens, or individuals.
Thor and Loki don't even kill each other and eventually come togethet. Loki kills Odin, but that's not even his biological father and it's offscreen. Not to mention this takes place in a completely fictional alien world. Black Panther is a fictional country but set in the real world.
I am definitely overthinking it, but movies have a HUGE impact on our conscious and subconscious minds, and IMO this is putting forth a longheld false and negative notion that Africa's problems are Africa's fault and not due to the Western world raping the entire continent for its people and resources.
My beef is that the first major black superhero movie in the MCU shouldn't have made the main conflict of the film a Wakandan civil war over the right to the throne and vibranium. Wakanda should have come together to fight an outside threat, not have been divided and temporarily conquered by one of its own, whose father was also killed by his own brother for trying to steal vibranium to help blacks in America. The ending set the scene for the sequel to move in the right direction, I just don't believe the series should've began with a Wakandan civil war.
Then why have Ross shoot down the planes at all? The writers knew T'Challa would emerge victorious, why make a white CIA agent play any role in it? Think it was just to slightly appease the white audience?
While I respect your opinion I fundamentally disagree. I like seeing black people have conflict with each other and not act as a monolith. There are fully realized characters in Wakanda, like Nakia and Okoye. They aren't just black women in Wakanda, they have strong motivations and opinions that don't always align perfectly, and watching those things collide was compelling. Same with M'Baku and T'Challa. You lose that nuance and interesting characterization by suggesting that a temporary divide was a bad thing, or that them "coming together" as a single entity at the beginning of the film is better.
While there has been infighting before in MCU movies, I can acknowledge that it went to a greater degree in BP. But where you see it as a sin, I see it as storytelling that elevates it beyond what came before it from the brand.
There is a little of that, sure. But I also think it's a funny take on the token minority friend trope, where they get to help, but in this instance Ross was being talked down to like an idiot the entire time by a black genius. So even if it "appeased" the white audience, they still had to live with him being a called-out colonizer that had to be walked through each step of his heroism like a baby.
Excluding the final fight.... what Wakandians did we see fight each other? And even in the final fight it wasnt like it was mad bloodshed, hell it ultimately ended in peace.... but where was this huge war in the present time where we saw this violent conflict? Like were there some extra scenes show at different theaters from the one I saw it at? Cuz I missed that
Martha
I know I'm remembering it now and it wasn't ruthless bloodshed like I registered it in my mind initially. I need to see it again with no expectations just an open mind.
Breh's.... If Marvel's deal with Fox is finalized.... maybe they should keep the current Storm....
She sounds like T'CHalla in this scene. Same rhetoric, same philosophy
she gotta work on that accent, but she will do.
Storm and T'Challa actually align politically. Only difference is T'Challa obviously having a Wakandan slant in his POV.
Hell, Storm does influence T'Challa's decision making in the comics. Not just in Hudlin run when they were married, but in the Priest run as well.
Kilmonger is the most interesting character in the film by far and is also the most problematic. His backstory jumps out for a variety of reasons: He is an American military asset gone rogue with a mission to attain weapons of mass destruction and rally the support of his homeland against America and other Western powers. Sound familiar? I find it curious that no one I'm aware of has directly compared his character to Osama Bin Laden as of writing nor framed the plot in the context of 20th/21st century political upheaval. Kilmonger's character all but personifies Western fears about the manufactured monsters of Western oppression: he is a tragic broken shell of a human who is beyond "reason" and therefore can only be "neutralized" before he does the same to us. The plethoric kill-count he bears on his skin is perceived as tragic insomuch that it's "common sense" that the outcomes of his circumstances (abandoned ghetto child from Oakland) were inescapable. His character presents a false dichotomy that the only "logical" course of action for oppressed people to take when they are militarized is to react to oppressive forces with violence.