[Studlock]

I'm sorry but the entire emotional heart is centered around Peter and the lose of his mother and finally the discover of a new family. It's why the mixtape(s) is such an important artifact(s), they represent Peter's emotional journey from scoundrel to teammate. I'm not refuting that other Guardians aren't important or entertaining but they don't have to same kind of growth as Peter from beginning to end. I thought that was pretty clear from the focus on the mixtape and the reveal of the second mixtape after the movies ordeal. That being said I think you could probably make a case for Rocket being a secondary protagonist, and for my money is the most accomplished character of the movie despite him not being the focus. The others were a bit flat for me.

While I think most of Marvel movies, save for sequels, have been very risky. Even the Avengers was incredibly risking, nothing like had ever really done before. So while Guardians was risky I sadly think Black Panther is even more so because I honestly believe an Western audience will have a much easier time believing in a talking Raccoon and a talking Tree in space (who was basically Chewie to Rockets Han Solo, Peter is a more bent Luke and Gamora is a more bent Leia) than believing in a independently wealthy African country because of the deep seeded racist believes that persist in many, many Western Countries.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 03 November 2014 - 10:17 PM

[polishgenius]

I think the point is that, whatever focus the film may have actually gone for once it's all done-and-dusted, the marketing certainly drew people in through the white guy in the middle, and the film was set up to allow that to happen.


As for Groot and Rocket- yeah, they have bigger roles in the end than Chewie and Artoo, but in terms of audience association, I'd say that's a perfectly apt comparison.

And I agree that there was lots of talk about how the film was a risk - and to a certain extent, sure, it was. Just not nearly as much as was being made out. It was only considered such because it was by far the least well-known hero/group they'd tried to bring to screen thus far, but again, lots of films/franchises have made huge money entirely from scratch on a new IP, some without any real name/brand association whatsoever which this had from Marvel.

A gamble, but not a particularly big one. DC are taking on a much bigger one making Aquaman due to his laughable reputation (and indeed Suicide Squad, I'd say, they're not particularly well known and the anti-villain angle will have to be sold hard).

[Silencer]

Just putting this out there: I know more people who are already excited for Black Panther than there were talking about Guardians this many years out.

I don't think the race of the main character is an issue here, from the perspective of the audiences desire to see it (it's obviously a huge issue socially speaking, in terms of the problems it faces/addresses, and by the way you're all arguing over it...).
I haven't heard or read a single comment on the internet yet to the tune of "I'm not interested in Black Panther because..." At all. Nothing. And certainly none based on race (though I'm sure there are plenty of internet trolls who will make such comments).

Yes, currently it's mostly fans who are even aware of most of the films and their characters, but the film universe is so large and successful now I don't think that's a small group by any means.


The issue of whether people go to see Black Panther will not be one of race unless you're going to see it because of that issue. I doubt the figures will even notice the handful of racist idiots who refuse to see a movie just because it has a black lead character.

The only real question is whether it's a good film and how well they handle the portrayal of the themes mentioned in past comments.
So far I see little reason to doubt that the film will be good - whether it's great will largely come from it's success on confronting the more complex themes, imo.

But really, it's not any more of a risk than most films so far - if it had been a phase one film? Completely different story (I'd argue that would mostly be due to the character being less well known, with the added effect of racism keeping the numbers down, whereas now that effect won't even be noticeable). But now it's got the carry-on effect of good Marvel movies to get people in the door, it's no riskier than Doctor Strange or Captain Marvel for bums on seats. Less risky, even.

[Illuyankas]

[blackzoid]

On Female driven superhero films films, I didnt think Electra was that bad. It had an interesting redemption story going on.
It wasnt great in the vein of the current crop of superhero films but I didnt feall like it insulted me to watch it like the Ghostrider films did.
And you gotta give DC some props for at least ..creating Catwoman....right?...Maybe?

Agreed on Thor conceptually being a bigger risk then GoTG what with the Odin and Thor and God stuff. Now if GOTG had ditched Peter and had Cosmo as the lead character with a tale of him trying to come to terms with his Russian Doggy Mothers death and having a canine mix-tape...that would have been hella risky.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 04 November 2014 - 12:29 AM

[Illuyankas]

Oh man I got to the part where the superassassin got effortlessly ganked by the fourteen year old girl and spontaneously started bleeding from the few orifices that weren't already oozing copious amounts of arterial fluid from the dialogue, plot, acting and every other aspect of the film.

[blackzoid]

Well, you DO have to be a little forgiving of the flaws in the film. To be fair to Electra she had recently risen from the dead, somehow (I think) and so she was probably a little rusty.

And that girl was somewhat special and had magic super powers or something if I recall correctly.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 04 November 2014 - 12:36 AM

[Cause]

Studlock, on 03 November 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

While I think most of Marvel movies, save for sequels, have been very risky. Even the Avengers was incredibly risking, nothing like had ever really done before. So while Guardians was risky I sadly think Black Panther is even more so because I honestly believe an Western audience will have a much easier time believing in a talking Raccoon and a talking Tree in space (who was basically Chewie to Rockets Han Solo, Peter is a more bent Luke and Gamora is a more bent Leia) than believing in a independently wealthy African country because of the deep seeded racist believes that persist in many, many Western Countries.

Im torn between telling you that your underestimating people and telling you that an independently wealthy African country does in fact not exist. I'm not sure what that means. Still I think there is a difference between the fantastical, a wizard did it and the real life fantastical of an imaginary African country that exists only within the comic is amazing. The one you either accept and the enjoy and the other intentionally or not is driven by or drives a political or social commentary/agenda.

[amphibian]

Silencer, buddy, the Americans had slavery baked into our system for so long that we can't have more than one good tv show with a black cast in it per decade.

How do you think the Hollywood eggheads with the purse strings look at a hundreds of millions investment in a black action movie - of which Will Smith is the only bankable star ever in that narrow genre? And then how do you think the movie does overseas in places like China?

The people who won't see it are the people who got mad over the black hunger games character. They won't kick up a fuss until the trailers come out.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 04 November 2014 - 01:50 PM

[WinterPhoenix]

Honestly assuming no dip in quality for Ant Man and Dr. Strange as compared to GotG and the other MCU firsts, I see no reason in the slightest to worry about Black Panther or Captain Marvel. Perhaps it is a naive clinging to a better world than we actually have, but I honestly believe that the numbers of racist idiots who will refuse to see Black Panther on nothing but the grounds of his race, will have such a tiny effect it's eventual gross (and no effect whatsoever on the films actual quality) that it will be unnoticeable by anyone who doesn't inhabit the sort of internet forums that attract both trolls and the kind of excuse for a human being that would refuse to see it based on race alone - the brand that is the MCU will ensure that this is not an issue. That having been said what will affect this film is the manner in which it approaches the character, as has been stated by others above. If it attempts to address the social issues that a good Black Panther movie should and does so badly then it will justly be lambasted for said attempts. That having been said I believe that the MCU have done so well so far that we have no reason not to afford them the benefit of the doubt on the matter, even though it will be a completely different prospect to any film the comes before it. The above applies to Captain Marvel, just a different kettle of social issues, in fact if I was to be worried about any of these films it would be Captain Marvel and not Black Panther, however I honestly do not believe that any of these films will be a commercial flop, assuming Ant-Man and Dr. Srange both continue the current trend - an assumption in itself based on unknown ground as of now :/

In point of fact if anything will sour the box-office takings it will not be the concept of serious social issues, but merely the saturation of the market, just look at 2016-2017. Though perhaps there I have endeavored to misrepresent the level of intellectualism present amongst the general cinema-going public.

[worry]

I think it's a bit of rose-colored glasses that narrows the potential dip down to a conscious overt decision to avoid a black lead rather than the more pervasive and insidious passive disinterest in black characters' stories generally. If it's still a blockbuster but lower performing than surrounding MCU movies (it's all relative, hey), then I'd still say studlock and amph's predictions were seen out.

That said I share your hope that BP and CM tackle sensitive issues rather than avoid them. If Joss Whedon has at least a few fingers, let alone a hand, in the overarching narrative then I'm actually on the hopeful side in terms of storytelling.

[Nicodimas]

Quote

How do you think the Hollywood eggheads with the purse strings look at a hundreds of millions investment in a black action movie - of which Will Smith is the only bankable star ever in that narrow genre? And then how do you think the movie does overseas in places like China?

Wow..I don't think anyone will give a Flying F about the context of this argument. People will see the movie cause its a bad-ass marvel movie.

I'm still in the camp that wants Idris Elba to be James Bond.

[amphibian]

Nicodimas, on 04 November 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

Quote

How do you think the Hollywood eggheads with the purse strings look at a hundreds of millions investment in a black action movie - of which Will Smith is the only bankable star ever in that narrow genre? And then how do you think the movie does overseas in places like China?

Wow..I don't think anyone will give a Flying F about the context of this argument. People will see the movie cause its a bad-ass marvel movie.

I do not think you get what I am saying above.

There are essentially three tiers of comic book movies in terms of budget allocated.

The full on blockbuster that floats the studios into the coming years (Iron Mans, Avengers, Hulks, X Men, Spiderman, Batman etc) that cost $150 million or even above 200 million.

The "two big scenes, a good story and make ok money" tier that's between 80 to 130 million.

The "cheap yet hopefully successful on tv and dvd" tier that goes from 30 to 60 million.

Which do you think Captain Marvel, Wonder Woman and Black Panther will fall into?

That's what I'm talking about and it affects the audience expectations as well. DC has gone 185+ for the Batmans and last two Super man's were over 200 million. Marvel has secured 130+ for each of their movies since Iron Man, but does that hold for Ant Man and the others?

The production budgets are only half or so of the actual cost, so that needs to be accounted for as well.

[Nicodimas]

Oh ok gotcha.

Here is a cool spreadsheet showing how they do there thing.

http://dydyn.files.w...ith-budgets.jpg

Holy shit at those marketing budgets!!

[Nicodimas]

If GotG and Ghost rider can get 170 and 110 million...I wouldn't be surprised if they get 100+ million each.

[Morgoth]

amphibian, on 04 November 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

Silencer, buddy, the Americans had slavery baked into our system for so long that we can't have more than one good tv show with a black cast in it per decade.

How do you think the Hollywood eggheads with the purse strings look at a hundreds of millions investment in a black action movie - of which Will Smith is the only bankable star ever in that narrow genre? And then how do you think the movie does overseas in places like China?

The people who won't see it are the people who got mad over the black hunger games character. They won't kick up a fuss until the trailers come out.

To be fair, you could probably place Denzel Washington up there too. So Hollywood does in fact have two bankable stars that are black. That's, like, a 100% increas!

[Cause]

Morgan freeman! Laurence Fishburne. Samuel L Jackson. Cuba Gooding Jnr. Danny Glover.

This is my point, every time you feel the need to point out OMG it's a black actor you making the ordinary special. It does not improve the lot of the black man it worsens it. Your brain switches of for a minute and thinks actually yeah besides Will Smith who is there, even though there are many.

The first African in space was a white guy, so my country started asking when will the first black African go into space all the while over thirty years ago a black man from America had been to space already. These accolades are meaningless.

[Illuyankas]

Literally none of those men are anywhere near Pitt/Cruise/Hanks/Depp/Clooney etc leads.

[Cause]

Clooney, seriously?

Morgan Freeman is an Icon. For a period Cuba Gooding was a sensation. There are many Black actors in Hollywood that are doing well. They appeal to an audience well beyond the 10% of America that is black.

Ill be watching the Black Panther and hoping that they don't use Will Smith as the actor.

[QuickTidal]

@Cause: Not to worry, Chadiwck Boseman (from 42) was cast as Black Panther...he was at the Marvel presser with Downey Jr and Chris Evans.

I'd just like to point out that Welsey Snipes played a superhero in three BLADE films, two of which are rather well regarded and made lots of money. (Boseman just pointed this out in an interview)

And yeah, I think we are selling things short in this conversation if we devalue actors like Morgan Freeman, or Sam Jackson, or Denzel Washington who are all prolific, award-winning, Hollywood bankable black actors.

Yes, there are many more white lead actors, but saying that the ONLY one who is bankable is Will Smith is devaluing the others in the industry who have made their mark...and they are largely BETTER than Smith in the acting category.