Black Panther, Thor Ragnarok and Marvel shit.

Come, you are invited to call me a sellout. I just did the most appealing shit possible, to write about a marvel movie. Seriously in what way, making the 10 thousand one review for those, could add literally anything to the discussion? Besides everyone knows the only reason why I am doing this. Because of the fact more than 5 people read or watched the thing I am talking this time, maybe someone will actually see this horseshit I have to say(what, I can have hopes right?). So in order not to increase the painful pointless thought exercise any longer, this will be a comparative analysis between the movies Black Panther and Thor Ragnarok. So you have that to look forward, in the worst case scenario, where you are still reading this. Excited already?

The first thing that comes to my mind when looking at both movies is how really similar they are at core. Sure one has spaceships, an entire world blowing up, and the other is kind of a down to earth (get it) political thriller mashed with a superhero story. This is not in a sense all Marvel movies are the same shit, but in how both are very traditional coming of age stories (think of lion king for the structure here) of an young prince, having to grow, find their values, deal with conflicted views on their successors in order to surpass them, rise to a throne and save their people. The flaws in former leaders also serve as a commentary on really broad and culturally significant historical events, on Odin`s case they clearly are a meant to evoke colonialism. The wealth and splendor of Asgard being the result of a past of strong militarism, in generally submitting and oppressing others realms and people, and the eternal cycle of hatred, chaos and destruction that brings. In T`chaka`s case the flaw being called upon is his isolationism, which is a display of nationalistic prejudice, the view Wakandians possess, of only people of their own country mattering. The identity as human they have is based on nationality, so while the entire world suffer, and they have the power to do something about it, they ignore it and do nothing. Killmonger is the result and consequence of this practice (which is weird because he also perfectly displays the colonialist approach Thor commented upon).

There sure are issues with how both movies approach those ideas though. Black Panther is kind of a mess in that regard, with long segments adding barely nothing to the main idea being presented. Like what the hell is that segment, where the characters go after the dude who stole Vibranium, even about? Any connections you can make to the main commentary at hand are tangential at best, where it consists of an argument for the whole isolationist attitude because this one dude fucked then over. And even if that is this case, the question never leaves my mind, would it not be better to show him actually betraying Wakanda, than doing something completely unrelated? Even to what I believe are the secondary ideas in the story, the conflict tradition x change and racial identity x national identity (all of which brought and commented in the Killmonger arc), this parts enforces none. And it gets better, the only plot relevant thing that happens because of this, is that one dude believes and follows Killmonger more easily, so yeah great consequences indeed. Although not awful by itself, taking out this part would make for a way better movie overall.

Despite not to this degree, Thor Ragnarok presents the same issue. The sad thing is, this really did not need to be the case. The subplot of leaving the main characters abandoned in the wasteland of Sakaar, despite presenting lots of potential shy away from what it could had been. We have this world specifically and clearly designed to present a commentary on colonialism, along with a totalitarian oppressive government, a coliseum (not coincidentally the symbol of the most famous colonial empire of all), generalized slavery, this is the full plate for this kind of topic. The whole thing should mash perfectly with the main idea and conflict, in dealing with the past of conquering and oppression of Asgard. But bizarrely the connection is never made, Sakaar is not on this precarious state, as a result of any kind of asgardian conflict. Its misery does not originate from looting of conquers. Segments like the dictator saying he is alive and ruling for millions of years, gave me such strong vibe of some secret link, relevant ancient event was in the heart of things. However absolutely nothing comes out of it. Think how brilliant it would have been, with the dictator was a preposterous from Odin`s government. If the people that come to the rescue of Asgard in the end, where the same groups that suffered oppression, and hardships because of events directly connected to such world`s wealth. Some parts of this movie give me the sense of a perfectly logical and ideal development there, but I guess the creators never had complete sense of the story they were making. Which is a shame actually.

The way the main ideological conflicts are presented and resolved also differs heavily between movies. The main ideological compass of Thor Ragnarok contrasts, Thor and Hella`s ideals of leadership. In hella`s case ruling means conquering, exerting power over others, accomplishing great deeds in order to prove yourself, find recognition. Stopping at no ends in the pursuit of your goals. Thor`s leads with his altruism, trying to act in the interest of the subjects, to serve instead of commanding, going to the extreme means of sacrificing himself for the sake of others. Honestly the whole thing is really underwhelming, none of the characters gain a better understanding or learns something new from the other (Thor`s arc and growth of finding his own value has absolutely nothing to do with the conflict at hand). There is no midterm possible between both points of views, and no compromise comes from any of it. Actually that Skurge (or as I like to think of him destroy guy) character is the only who struggles, has story that is about him being challenged by both ideals, and actually choosing in the end. And even in his case the whole thing consists of him flip flopping between the two opposites without much reason. The conflict also comes off as each side simply affirming what they believe, while the other barely cares. That is until consequences of Hella`s ideal and Thor`s sacrifice save the day. An external solution which added nothing.

Black Panther undertakes a way more interesting approach to the central conflict. The thematic template of the movie, has T’chala being challenged by his father isolationism and its issues, and by the ideal of aggressive conquer from Killmonger. His answer to both is never simply to choose one and one sidely vilify the other, he chooses to go for a compromise, accept the merits and issues in each ideal and try to improve upon both. His main take away from it, is to find a middle ground, still act to protect Wakanda and its citizens, while also trying in every way to offer some of the help this world needs. It consists of coming to terms that, even the people you disagree with may have something valid to say. Because Killmonger amidst all his madness in fact had a solid point about the issues of racism and the ideological isolation of Wakanda, it was how far he was willing to undergo. The way he always tried to portrayed any argument on extreme dichotomies, a fake Manichaeism where no half measure could exist, on which only extremism could be accepted as answers. This was his flaw.

Perhaps the whole reason for my points stated above mostly come from the difference in antagonists. Sure we may get hints to Hella`s motivations in her desire to prove her worth and find recognition, and she serves her part in displaying the consequences of colonialism and its cycle of endless violence rather well. But as a character, she has absolutely nothing going for her, making for a more clichéd and cartoony representation of those ideals, rather than a more empathetic (and thus more terrifying) showcase of them. Killmonger is completely different. Many criticized some of his actions like killing his girlfriend just to get a little tactical advantage, or the blatant hypocrisy in his ideals. However those arguments come for me, from misunderstandings about the core character, and what was being said thorough him. Because what makes him special compared with other villains with ideals of destroying the world, is how self-aware he actually is. When played straight, that his supposedly ideals of racial identity and attempt to help people, can only lead to the destruction of the world, he barely blinks an eye. Because he is all too aware of it, how his plans are not set to motion in order to help the people he says to care about. They come from a place of knowing there will only be carnage, endless destruction and massacres, on his path. Nevertheless, he keeps moving on, following this path, because his anger of everything and everyone is all too great for him to actually stop and forgive. The hallucinatory sequence where Killmonger interacts with his father, portrays perfectly the person he is. As a child, we actually get to experience Killmonger cry, lament, show sadness and an inner fragility. But as an adult, those feelings come to the surface only as rage, a desire to hurt everyone around him, while repressing everything else. Killmonger has feelings, but they only can manifest as a deeply ingrained hatred, against the world that denied his dreams, the people and country that killed his father, because of the life he was forced to go through, as an orphan in such world. Despite having a slight empathy with people that had the same experience, what comes first in his mind is always to destroy. Sure lots of people may die in the process of what he wants, but that is just the undeniable reality everywhere for him. Maybe when the entire world is in ruins, everyone forced to experience death in the same ways as him, maybe than he can appease his damaged soul. So yeah we actually get to understand and see everything about the character, in a way that makes the horrible acts he takes, not only understandable but way more powerful, and unsettling. He is a perfectly dramatized and empathetic display of the ideals he presents. And this is not even getting to the topic of just how much the guy, adds to the ideological debate of the movie, the conflict regarding tradition, and the ideal of national identity first, where core aspect the character commented upon. If there was an aspect on both movies, I absolutely loved, and though it deserved any of the large praise it gets, Killmonger`s character is definitely it.

Moving on, the federal flaw in Black Panther is definitely the plot structure. We start with a 20 minute coronation, which besides giving some insight to T`Chala’s situation, presenting the main characters (some of them at least) and the setting is overlong, and did not do much for the movie. Then the story becomes about the pursuit for that Ulysses guy, which I literally have absolutely no idea what is that supposed to do for the story. Like the major contribution we get from that, is the fact of some guy following Killmonger’s rule because of it. So hooray for consequences. So we have an unbelievably overlong first act, where barely nothing of significance happens, sure things do pick up when best boy arrives, but that is no excuse. Thor Ragnarok is way better in the sense, there is a strong degree of causality, each turn in the story being a result, direct consequence of what comes after it. The movie understands the basics of storytelling really well, there is a significant pay off to everything that is established, even the opening sequence that seems like filler at first. No aspect is simply forgotten, usually affecting the plot in more ways than one. You do get clear narrative purpose from every segment, and none of them fells unnecessary long, or overstretched. So yeah, it gives a lesson of effective storytelling, at its finest.

In regards to style, the movies are incomparable. Praise the noir like fell, of the casino sequence all you want, it simply does not even compare to the amount of energy and creativity, found on the smallest action set pieces of Thor Ragnarok. There is a sense of aesthetics, a visual stylization, with the vibrant usage of colors bringing back the glory of 80’s comics, which just come off as glorious. This aspect is not helped by noticeable usage of badly integrated CGI (this just simply is not the setting to attempt to contain so much of it) in Black Panther. The scene of T’Chaka and Killmonger struggling underground, just looked like the most ridiculous thing ever.

About the world building, it is important to notice, this is usually the least important aspect in a Marvel movie. What I mean is, those usually do not care at all for this aspect, only consisting of contemporary settings, where heroes and impeding world threats sometimes appear. Both movies are better in this regards, Wakanda represents an interesting mixture of the most advanced technology in the planet, with archaic traditions and practices. Which is funny for breaking misconceptions and prejudices, of the futuristic society in fiction. The attention to detail in the representation of diverse cultures, and populations of Africa, through the architecture, the practices, the clothing, is truly praiseworthy.  It is far from ideal though, because we have barely any scenes that displays the details and lives of normal people in this setting. The showcases of Wakanda are usually only about the actions of our main characters, never presenting the society divorced from them, making the whole world feel a bit hollow, and only being there for them. Thor Ragnarok struggles a bit more from balancing the two settings the story takes place in, making Sakaar way more interesting than Asgard (which I believe is actually deliberate). Also if you are one of the assholes, who keep complaining about how Wakanda is never discovered, more power to you than. It just beats me how you can rationalize and make sense of every bizarre and implausible act that marks the very fabric of MCU.

Concluding, as part of phase 3 MCU movie, these ones are marked for being a bit (focus on the bit) more experimental and putting thematic exploration at the forefront. Which are things I actually appreciate, but do not change the fact both are just half of a good movie. Take the narrative, structure and style of Thor Ragnarok, with the antagonist and theming of Black Panther, then I could be discussing what a freaking great movie that would be (actually having a better MC than either would also help). As it stands they are movies I kind of enjoyed but will probably never really care about, or try to watch again. As far as Marvel is concerned, the only movie from them I actually considerer great is Guardians of the galaxy 2. However with their recent track record being frankly better than what it used to be, one can only wait and hope for what they come up next.