|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 20, 2018 23:39:58 GMT
Killmonger’s motives basically boil down to him being angry at the world for the injustices that were inflicted upon people of African descent throughout history, and he wants to get revenge by subjugating all the non-black people of the world. That’s of course not all there is to the character, as he also wants to avenge his father, but that is his excuse for wanting to invade the rest of the world. That’s not a bad motive for a villain to have, but I think a key problem with it is that the movie mostly only really pays lip service to this idea. At no point in the film are we ever actually shown what Killmonger’s experience with racism was like. We don’t see him experiencing racial discrimination or anything like that. The closest the movie really came to showing us why Killmonger thinks the way was during the museum scene at the beginning, but I don’t really think that was good enough. I’m not saying he’s a bad villain or anything, but I think his motives would’ve come across as much stronger if we actually had a better idea of what the character’s own racial experiences were like.
What does everyone else think?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 21, 2018 2:47:08 GMT
I think you've ignored a crucial aspect of Kilmonger that belies his real strength as a villain.
Erik Stevens is a sadist and a sociopath. The racial overtones of his motivation are likely rationalizations for his need to inflict pain on, control and murder others. His crusade to avenge his father and usurp the Wakandan throne are tied to a pathological need to inflict a disproportionate reprisal on those he feels have wronged him.
His "race war" serves more as a tool to motivate his base as a ruler and turn them into agents for his real goal - control. Outside of the murder of Zuri, Erik's killing is dispassionate and indiscriminate (unless it is for effect as in the attempted murder of T'Challa).
The discovery of his father's violently murdered body, caused by seemingly all-powerful phantoms who vanished without a trace, set Erik on a path of deep psychopathy which he enacted violently during a prolific military career. Adopting his father's campaign was a possible cover for the satisfaction he derived from killing. He only ever demonstrates a human connection to his father, and it was tenuous at best.
Whether that theory works for you or not, there is one unavoidable reason we never see Kilmonger confronted with on-camera racism; Black Panther is a Disney film (and they've been down that road before). Ironically, they were more content to openly characterize Kilmonger as a homocidal sadist rather than as the victim of racism.
Kilmonger's mission is deeply personal. It has little to do with any socio-political agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Oct 21, 2018 5:34:32 GMT
Also his dialogue, hair and clothing. Basically everything.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Oct 21, 2018 9:01:21 GMT
killmonger was too one dimensional. he had no charm. falling into the angry black man.
ask yourself how do Raz Al Ghaul in batman begins and William Stryker in X2 always managed to still be so charming and could carry decent conversation calmly even with their sinister schemes?
poor writing from mcu as usual.
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Oct 21, 2018 9:13:27 GMT
killmonger was too one dimensional. he had no charm. falling into the angry black man. ask yourself how do Raz Al Ghaul in batman begins and William Stryker in X2 always managed to still be so charming and could carry decent conversation calmly even with their sinister schemes? poor writing from mcu as usual. You're such a racist.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 21, 2018 10:08:04 GMT
Killmonger’s motives basically boil down to him being angry at the world for the injustices that were inflicted upon people of African descent throughout history, and he wants to get revenge by subjugating all the non-black people of the world. That’s of course not all there is to the character, as he also wants to avenge his father, but that is his excuse for wanting to invade the rest of the world. That’s not a bad motive for a villain to have, but I think a key problem with it is that the movie mostly only really pays lip service to this idea. At no point in the film are we ever actually shown what Killmonger’s experience with racism was like. We don’t see him experiencing racial discrimination or anything like that. The closest the movie really came to showing us why Killmonger thinks the way was during the museum scene at the beginning, but I don’t really think that was good enough. I’m not saying he’s a bad villain or anything, but I think his motives would’ve come across as much stronger if we actually had a better idea of what the character’s own racial experiences were like. What does everyone else think? Agreed. That's another reason why Black Panther is an over-rated movie. We never see Killmonger experience the oppression that he claims to have experienced as a black man. Contrast that to the X-Men movies, where we see Magneto experience oppression by the Nazis against Jews.
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Oct 21, 2018 10:50:37 GMT
I think you've ignored a crucial aspect of Kilmonger that belies his real strength as a villain. Erik Stevens is a sadist and a sociopath. The racial overtones of his motivation are likely rationalizations for his need to inflict pain on, control and murder others. His crusade to avenge his father and usurp the Wakandan throne are tied to a pathological need to inflict a disproportionate reprisal on those he feels have wronged him. His "race war" serves more as a tool to motivate his base as a ruler and turn them into agents for his real goal - control. Outside of the murder of Zuri, Erik's killing is dispassionate and indiscriminate (unless it is for effect as in the attempted murder of T'Challa). The discovery of his father's violently murdered body, caused by seemingly all-powerful phantoms who vanished without a trace, set Erik on a path of deep psychopathy which he enacted violently during a prolific military career. Adopting his father's campaign was a possible cover for the satisfaction he derived from killing. He only ever demonstrates a human connection to his father, and it was tenuous at best. Whether that theory works for you or not, there is one unavoidable reason we never see Kilmonger confronted with on-camera racism; Black Panther is a Disney film (and they've been down that road before). Ironically, they were more content to openly characterize Kilmonger as a homocidal sadist rather than as the victim of racism. Kilmonger's mission is deeply personal. It has little to do with any socio-political agenda. This was a great post. summers8 and DC-Fan, you both need to read this.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 21, 2018 18:53:44 GMT
killmonger was too one dimensional. he had no charm. falling into the angry black man. ask yourself how do Raz Al Ghaul in batman begins and William Stryker in X2 always managed to still be so charming and could carry decent conversation calmly even with their sinister schemes?poor writing from mcu as usual. You're such a racist. I consider racism to be a conscious set of choices and behaviors. Statements like the one highlighted above are more indicative of a deep cultural bias rather than any overt bigotry. The poster is judging villainy based on the standards of his or her own culture. The predisposition towards a Eurocentric orientation of villainy, a white, middle-aged male with Eurocentric affectations in dress and speech, is likely as old as the cinematic artform itself. Consider the villainous traits that are thought of as classically acceptable to the individual making the statement. The villain must be a "charming" conversationalist with a calm demeanor who is able to obfuscate their devious nature and plan with the pretense of being gracious. This description could fit Dr. No, Ernst Stavro Blofeld or even a certain undead fiend from the Carpathian Mountains. It's worth noting that neither Liam Neeson's Ra's al Ghul nor Danny Houston's Stryker is particularly charming or an exceptional conversationalist. Ra's al Ghul is resolute in his beliefs and he occasionally flirts with being eloquent in the articulation of his plans. Stryker is a company man who is slightly more imaginative than similar characters of his ilk; but, I digress.Kilmonger's overt bravado and machismo don't fit into the Eurocentric model of villainy and thus, are found to be inferior by those who have adopted Dr. No, Blofeld or Vlad the Impaler as exemplars of sinister behavior in cinema. Kilmonger's performance is more suited to the psychopathic (and often exotic/openly deviant) henchmen - the Jaws and Baron Samedi types of the villain world. Invariably detractors will state that Ulysses Klaue was the superior villain of the film and this makes sense in that Kilmonger is essentially his henchmen until the film's turnabout. All that said, had Kilmonger offered T'Challa breezy conversation, a meal and a good night's rest in his sprawling compound, he may have been able to stave off the harsh criticism that is associated with his performance.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 21, 2018 22:20:18 GMT
killmonger was too one dimensional. he had no charm. falling into the angry black man. ask yourself how do Raz Al Ghaul in batman begins and William Stryker in X2 always managed to still be so charming and could carry decent conversation calmly even with their sinister schemes? poor writing from mcu as usual. You're such a racist. Nah, if it was Fox, he'd probably be into bbc.
|
|
|
Post by hobowar on Oct 21, 2018 22:54:21 GMT
Nah, if it was Fox, he'd probably be into bbc. It's funny 'cos it's true.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Oct 22, 2018 4:53:45 GMT
Nah, if it was Fox, he'd probably be into bbc. no. i found apocalypse too one dimensional.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 22, 2018 14:24:48 GMT
He's dead?
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 22, 2018 14:31:47 GMT
Killmonger’s motives basically boil down to him being angry at the world for the injustices that were inflicted upon people of African descent throughout history, and he wants to get revenge by subjugating all the non-black people of the world. That’s of course not all there is to the character, as he also wants to avenge his father, but that is his excuse for wanting to invade the rest of the world. That’s not a bad motive for a villain to have, but I think a key problem with it is that the movie mostly only really pays lip service to this idea. At no point in the film are we ever actually shown what Killmonger’s experience with racism was like. We don’t see him experiencing racial discrimination or anything like that. The closest the movie really came to showing us why Killmonger thinks the way was during the museum scene at the beginning, but I don’t really think that was good enough. I’m not saying he’s a bad villain or anything, but I think his motives would’ve come across as much stronger if we actually had a better idea of what the character’s own racial experiences were like. What does everyone else think? Agreed. That's another reason why Black Panther is an over-rated movie. We never see Killmonger experience the oppression that he claims to have experienced as a black man. Contrast that to the X-Men movies, where we see Magneto experience oppression by the Nazis against Jews. that thing with Magneto was a stroke of genius, lifting him into the best movie villains charts. All the villain characters who copied that were just glib facsimiles, history repeats itself first as tragedy then as farce...
|
|