|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 19, 2018 18:08:13 GMT
If this was WW and this was the Amazon way, you wouldn't be complaining. It's not the Amazon way. The Amazons don't have the same bloodlust and medieval and barbaric traditions that Wakanda (supposedly a technologically advanced nation) has. If anything, the Amazons are worse. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 19, 2018 18:09:35 GMT
Unless a Usurper kills the Royals and takes the Throne, which happened a LOT... Actually, it hasn't happened since before Shakespeare. The last English King to die in battle was Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. That was in medieval times. Now they have a clearly-established line of succession (Prince Charles is 1st in line, Prince William is 2nd in line, Prince George is 3rd in line, etc.) that will result in a peaceful transition of the Crown and the throne. Unless someone kills the Royals and seizes power. No one did this to T'Chaka when he took the Throne, so T'Challa was just unlucky. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 19, 2018 18:14:55 GMT
Actually, it hasn't happened since before Shakespeare. The last English King to die in battle was Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. That was in medieval times. Now they have a clearly-established line of succession (Prince Charles is 1st in line, Prince William is 2nd in line, Prince George is 3rd in line, etc.) that will result in a peaceful transition of the Crown and the throne. Unless someone kills the Royals and seizes power. Nope. Killing Prince Charles doesn't seize power. Because Prince William is next in line so that's whom Parliament would recognize as the rightful King and not the killer of Prince Charles. That's what the clearly-established line-of-succession is for. It prevents any bloodshed because killing Prince Charles wouldn't make his killer the King so there's no reason to kill Prince Charles.
Unlike in Wakanda, where killing the King makes his killer the King. So there's plenty of incentive to challenge for the throne because all it takes is 1 kill to seize the throne.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 19, 2018 18:17:16 GMT
As someone else said the reaction of the other tribes implied a challenge was a rare occurrence. It's more of a tradition for all the tribes to recognize the prince as king. It's a Tradition. And to me it's no less esoteric or barbaric then using a "Holy Book" to make sure ones Oath is valid. Tell me again why Presidents have to swear touching a bible? It's because it's tradition to do so. Now it's a rare occurrence for a President not to use it. In the past there have been a few rare instances where it wasn't used. John Q Adams swore on a book of law. Teddy Roosevelt didn't swear on any book his first term. LBJ swore on a Roman Catholic missal. The difference between swearing an oath on the Bible and royal succession by mortal combat is that 1 of those doesn't result in any blood being spilled or anyone being killed. Swearing an oath on the Bible isn't barbaric because it doesn't involve the spilling of blood or the taking of human life. Royal succession by mortal combat is barbaric and medieval because it's done to fulfill the bloodlust of the Wakandan people.
And yet one of those 2 predisposes that there is a magic man living in the sky. That he wrote a book, and if you lie while touching it or go back on a oath you swore on it, the sky man will hurt you. It's almost as if a Bronze Age people wrote it. To me asking the leaders of the tribes to fight for the right to be King or to accept him without fighting validates the King more than just my Dad was King now my son is. That's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 19, 2018 18:22:08 GMT
The difference between swearing an oath on the Bible and royal succession by mortal combat is that 1 of those doesn't result in any blood being spilled or anyone being killed. Swearing an oath on the Bible isn't barbaric because it doesn't involve the spilling of blood or the taking of human life. Royal succession by mortal combat is barbaric and medieval because it's done to fulfill the bloodlust of the Wakandan people.
To me asking the leaders of the tribes to fight for the right to be King or to accept him without fighting validates the King more than just my Dad was King now my son is. That's just my opinion. So basically, you prefer to see blood spilled and human life taken rather than a peaceful and orderly transition of the Crown and the throne. |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Feb 19, 2018 18:26:13 GMT
To me asking the leaders of the tribes to fight for the right to be King or to accept him without fighting validates the King more than just my Dad was King now my son is. That's just my opinion. So basically, you prefer to see blood spilled and human life taken rather than a peaceful and orderly transition of the Crown and the throne. Fuck yeah! Especially with how boring elections are in the United States! Don't be such a snowflake! |
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 19, 2018 18:28:41 GMT
No IF you are going to have a Monarchy, I would rather a King or Queen be chosen by it's people or counsel. To declare one person has the right to rule just because his parents ruled is stupid. Now if you believe the Sky Man who will hurt you if you blaspheme also chooses the next ruler by divine right you're following Medieval Traditions too.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 19, 2018 18:33:45 GMT
So basically, you prefer to see blood spilled and human life taken rather than a peaceful and orderly transition of the Crown and the throne. Fuck yeah! Especially with how boring elections are in the United States! Don't be such a snowflake! Boring? Heck, the 2016 election was hilarious to watch. All the Hillary fans who had gathered there expecting a huge party and leaving in tears. CNN and MSNBC and all the other liberal news analysts having meltdowns and throwing hissy fits when they realized that Trump was going to win. That was priceless!
It's like the line by Marilyn Monroe in The Prince and the Showgirl: "That's the funny thing about general elections. You never really know who's going to win."
|
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Feb 19, 2018 18:38:50 GMT
Fuck yeah! Especially with how boring elections are in the United States! Don't be such a snowflake! Boring? Heck, the 2016 election was hilarious to watch. All the Hillary fans who had gathered there expecting a huge party and leaving in tears. CNN and MSNBC and all the other liberal news analysts having meltdowns and throwing hissy fits when they realized that Trump was going to win. That was priceless!
It's like the line by Marilyn Monroe in The Prince and the Showgirl: "That's the funny thing about general elections. You never really know who's going to win."
Your claim would’ve had more merits if Trump also won popular vote... |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 19, 2018 18:52:07 GMT
Unless someone kills the Royals and seizes power. Nope. Killing Prince Charles doesn't seize power. It does if you're next in line (as the next male, he was) and have others in the Government to back his claim. These are people who have genuine mystical powers so they KNOW there's a greater power out there that told them to do things this way. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 19, 2018 18:53:09 GMT
No IF you are going to have a Monarchy, I would rather a King or Queen be chosen by it's people or counsel. 1st, if you believe that a King (or Queen) should be chosen by its people or counsel, then there are still peaceful ways to do that without shedding any blood or taking any human life. Vatican City chooses its King of Vatican City (aka Pope) by a vote of their counsel (the College of Cardinals).
2nd, that's still not what Wakanda does. Wakanda isn't choosing their King by having a counsel sit in chambers and vote for a new King. Wakandan succession to the throne is by mortal combat, spilling blood and taking human life.
Of course, during medieval times that was the norm for many kingdoms. But for a supposedly technologically advanced nation in the 21st century, that's a barbaric tradition and the only reason for still following such a barbaric tradition would be because the Wakandan people have a huge bloodlust. The Wakandan people enjoy seeing blood spilled and human life taken, similar to how the ancient Romans enjoyed watching gladiators fight in the Coliseum.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 19, 2018 18:56:55 GMT
Of course, during medieval times that was the norm for many kingdoms. But for a supposedly technologically advanced nation in the 21st century, that's a barbaric tradition and the only reason for still following such a barbaric tradition would be because They have a real actual God who told them to do things this way. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 19, 2018 18:58:29 GMT
Boring? Heck, the 2016 election was hilarious to watch. All the Hillary fans who had gathered there expecting a huge party and leaving in tears. CNN and MSNBC and all the other liberal news analysts having meltdowns and throwing hissy fits when they realized that Trump was going to win. That was priceless!
It's like the line by Marilyn Monroe in The Prince and the Showgirl: "That's the funny thing about general elections. You never really know who's going to win."
Your claim would’ve had more merits if Trump also won popular vote... It's still funny. And the electoral vote is more fun to watch on Election Night. Imagine if the rule was the candidate with the highest popular vote always wins. Well, when you're watching the votes come in on Election Night, you don't know how many votes there'll be so you don't know how many votes are needed to clinch the win.
With electoral votes, you know there are 538 electoral votes so you know 270 electoral votes are needed to win. So as you watch a candidate close in on the 270 electoral votes, you can see reactions from both sides. And watching the reactions of stunned Hillary supporters and stunned news analysts on CNN and MSNBC and the other liberal news networks was just hilarious.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 22, 2018 5:17:42 GMT
Killmonger gave no such order for them to be executed. You need to be spoonfed this badly? DC did a number on your brain. Wow! You MCU fans really do need everything explained to you.
Killmonger gave no such order for T'Challa's mother and sister to be executed and most likely wouldn't have. Killmonger's situation was very similar to Henry VII's situation.
The Lancasters and the Yorks had fought over the throne for 3 decades. When Henry VII defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field to claim the throne, Henry VII knew there were still many people who were still loyal to the Yorks. So Henry didn't have Elizabeth Woodville (Edward IV's widow and Richard III's sister-in-law) or Elizabeth of York (Edward IV's eldest daughter and Richard III's niece) executed. Instead Henry VII took Elizabeth of York as his Queen, thereby uniting the Houses of Lancaster and York and effectively ending the Wars of the Roses.
Killmonger's situation was very similar. Killmonger knew that there would be Wakandans who were still loyal to T'Challa. So executing T'Challa's mother and T'Challa's sister would've alienated Killmonger even further from those who were still loyal to T'Challa. Most likely, Killmonger would've taken T'Challa's sister as his Queen, thereby getting the support of those who were still loyal to T'Challa.
That's how many royal marriages were done in medieval times. Kings and Queens often married to form alliances. And since Wakanda still holds on to medieval traditions, such as the barbaric and savage tradition of royal succession by mortal combat, it's very likely that Killmonger would've followed the medieval tradition of taking T'Challa's sister as his Queen to form an alliance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 22, 2018 7:02:42 GMT
You need to be spoonfed this badly? DC did a number on your brain. Wow! You MCU fans really do need everything explained to you.
Killmonger gave no such order for T'Challa's mother and sister to be executed and most likely wouldn't have. Killmonger's situation was very similar to Henry VII's situation.
The Lancasters and the Yorks had fought over the throne for 3 decades. When Henry VII defeated Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field to claim the throne, Henry VII knew there were still many people who were still loyal to the Yorks. So Henry didn't have Elizabeth Woodville (Edward IV's widow and Richard III's sister-in-law) or Elizabeth of York (Edward IV's eldest daughter and Richard III's niece) executed. Instead Henry VII took Elizabeth of York as his Queen, thereby uniting the Houses of Lancaster and York and effectively ending the Wars of the Roses.
Killmonger's situation was very similar. Killmonger knew that there would be Wakandans who were still loyal to T'Challa. So executing T'Challa's mother and T'Challa's sister would've alienated Killmonger even further from those who were still loyal to T'Challa. Most likely, Killmonger would've taken T'Challa's sister as his Queen, thereby getting the support of those who were still loyal to T'Challa.
That's how many royal marriages were done in medieval times. Kings and Queens often married to form alliances. And since Wakanda still holds on to medieval traditions, such as the barbaric and savage tradition of royal succession by mortal combat, it's very likely that Killmonger would've followed the medieval tradition of taking T'Challa's sister as his Queen to form an alliance.
One problem. In Medieval Times women were chattel. They didn't have rights. His sister wouldn't agree to it and she has rights. Was Suri the type of person who would allow that to happen? No she isn't. The only thing Killmonger could do is order her to do it. (Or blackmail her with treat against her mom and friends) We don't know enough about Wakanda's system of government to even know if he has the power to order her to. It doesn't matter if he has the power to order it or not. He would run into the same PR problem he faces if he kills them. Same with the blackmail. The counsel wouldn't sit idly by while an Outsider threatens friends and family. So he runs into the PR problem again. Again you are nitpicking, when you should be focusing on the timing of Klaue's death. That's where your central troll thesis should be aimed at. This critique of their system of government with allusions to real life Monarchy reeks of desperation. We know you are desperate though. So not really all that surprising. The blow to your psyche must be horrible, after months and months of declaring Wonder Woman is the best Comic/Superhero movie ever. (not to mention DCEU team up movie laid an underwhelming egg) To have that movie get knocked down to 2nd place, it was heart wrenching for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 22, 2018 7:15:05 GMT
Quick question. Are you still sticking to your guns on Black Panther's box office numbers. You still think BP has no chance to beat WW domestically and internationally. How about China still think it will bomb there?
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 22, 2018 12:08:42 GMT
Wow! You MCU fans really do need everything explained to you. No, this isn't DC. Implications, man, implications. He blamed T'Chaka for his life, he showed he was a-okay killing allies. You think he'd let his Uncles' family live? |
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Feb 22, 2018 13:02:01 GMT
1/10? I mean, I know I predicted this would be your exact score, but I thought maybe you would give an honest review of the movie. With you, that is always asking too much. I agree with some of what you said, actually, and I also feel the movie is highly overrated, but it is still a solid movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 22:19:01 GMT
Holy shit! Black Panther is an awful piece of crap. The movie is basically left-wing political propaganda that panders to SJWs. The villain's motivation is "Our people have always been oppressed so now it's time we took advantage of these superior weapons and become the oppressors". And the scene of the Wakandan woman killing people in the casino with her spear was just ridiculous. Where were the security guards? It's a casino so there should be plenty of heavily-armed security guards. How does someone walk into a casino with a spear and stab a bunch of people and and she doesn't get shot by an security guard? WTF? And the CIA agent participating in a coup to overthrow the rightful King of Wakanda (who won the throne by combat) and install T'Challa as the King. Shouldn't he call Langley first to find out if that's something POTUS wants before he participates in a coup to overthrow the King of a foreign nation? And apparently Wakanda doesn't respect American laws or airspace since they just fly their aircraft over an American city anytime they want. Rating: 1 out of 10I give man of steel, batman v superman, wonder woman and justice league all 1/10. Their individual ratings are that divided by 4. So, MoS- 0.25/10 BvS- 0.25/10 WW- 0.25/10 JL- 0.25/10 Hahahaha your black panther rating still beats all these dceu films. In fact, it totals all 4 movies. For shame.... |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 23, 2018 4:53:04 GMT
I thought maybe you would give an honest review of the movie. I agree with some of what you said, actually, and I also feel the movie is highly overrated This IS an honest review of Black Panther. Everyone knows that the movie is highly over-rated and over-hyped. Just look at the difference between the general audience score and the critics' score. The critics are at 97% while the audience is at 77%. So the general audience rated BP 20% lower than the critics did! When he general audience score and the critics' score is within 5% of each other, then you know the rating is pretty solid and accurate. But when the general audience score is a whopping 20% lower than the critics' score, then that's clearly an indication that the movie is highly over-rated and the critics were afraid to give an honest and accurate rating for political reasons (in this case, the critics are afraid to give BP low ratings for fear of being labeled as racist). So in reality, the whopping 20% difference shows that BP isn't as good as the critics rated it and the general audience score is a much more accurate reflection of BP. |
|
