|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 27, 2018 3:29:48 GMT
Too be fair DC-Fan brings up a point here, they just take Killmonger's word and assume no foul play is at hand in his claim, but as the MCU has established a degree of Wakandan culture is known to some, the chances of an orphaned child prince would possibly inform others of his culture and significances of certain cultural tradition s is not unfathomable, this is an issue that is easily solved if someone demanded Killmonger's claim be proven maybe the queen mother or Shuri demand his blood be tested, it is after all a nation capable of healing life threatening and paralysis causing gunshots overnight surely a blood test would be a piece of piss for them, and to get around this all T'Challa has to say is enough and he accepts the challenge even if the claimant is not yet proven to be of rightful blood.
As for copying the tat maybe by 92 standards it was unfakeable but by 2016-18 maybe it is possible, seeing how Killmonger had Klaue and Klaue had vibranium if vibranium was used in the tat Killmonger could have forged the tattoo also, the issue here is because we know Killmonger's claim is real it seems pointless but in terms of actual logic questioning his claim is what makes sense, so DC fan has a point and it's not outside of possibility that Killmonger could have been lying, this is the thing the films got logic or narrative issues throughout though not to a degree it ruins the film but like every CBM it has holes and some of them are more obvious than others, atleast DC-Fans switched to a valid issue to complain about... 
You earned this buddy.
Yes, it's a very valid plothole. It never occurred to dumb-ass T'Challa to think, "Well, Klaue worked with my uncle 25 years ago and this guy just helped Klaue escape from our custody. Maybe Klaue came up with this scheme to have this imposter pretend to be my cousin and challenge for the throne and this imposter feels that he doesn't need Klaue anymore so he kills Klaue and goes ahead with Klaue's fake scheme for him to challenge for the throne." But like I said, Wakandans prefer a King who has the most brute strength rather than a King who is the smartest so they get a dumb-ass like T'Challa, who just says "OK. We'll take your word for it. No DNA test needed." It's not a plot hole T'Challa didn't think of this but a character flaw, the plot hole comes from no one seeming to want to clarify one way or another Killmongers claim, this is another thing could have added to a scene later when Killmonger is being a dick and everyone but get out is regretting him being king, have the bloodwork come back and Killmonger undeniably prove his bloodline and lord it over them, he is their king and their is nothing they can do about it unless one wants to challenge him, then when he also refuses the contest for leadership with T'Challa later it futher justifies Okoye and the others turning on him to side with T'Challa. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 27, 2018 3:36:15 GMT
No, weakness and hesitation invites challenge and conflict. A fast acceptance and takedown would be far more likely to discourage future frivolous challenges. That's human nature. Nobody is seen as strong because they waited a couple days for the Maury Povich style paternity test. Nope, you're wrong again. Fast acceptance without any verification invites more challenges. Stricter verification eliminates more challenges. If the IRS suddenly announced tomorrow that they're no longer going to verify or audit people's tax returns, then there would be a lot more people filing false tax returns. It's because the IRS verifies and audits tax returns that lowers the amount of false tax returns being filed because people are afraid of getting audited and found guilty of filing a false return. Same with the challenges. Accepting without any verification will invite anyone to challenge for the throne knowing that they don't have to worry about verifying their identity or their claims. Stricter verification would result in fewer and possibly no challenges at all since people know they'll be exposed as fakes. No you're wrong and you're just making stuff up just to defame the film. Taxes is not ritual combat, you need a better analogy, the stakes are completly different as you yourself have pointed out. That's obvious. You went as far as to say that people of African ancestry and their customs are bloodthirsty and savage. I can't believe this type of racism is tolerated on a public forum. You could keep replying and saying you're right but, it's wrong to be racist against people that have different customs and belief systems than yours. I feel sorry for you, man. Stop this insanity before it goes any further. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 27, 2018 4:12:23 GMT
Too be fair DC-Fan brings up a point here, they just take Killmonger's word and assume no foul play is at hand in his claim, but as the MCU has established a degree of Wakandan culture is known to some, the chances of an orphaned child prince would possibly inform others of his culture and significances of certain cultural tradition s is not unfathomable, this is an issue that is easily solved if someone demanded Killmonger's claim be proven maybe the queen mother or Shuri demand his blood be tested, it is after all a nation capable of healing life threatening and paralysis causing gunshots overnight surely a blood test would be a piece of piss for them, and to get around this all T'Challa has to say is enough and he accepts the challenge even if the claimant is not yet proven to be of rightful blood.
As for copying the tat maybe by 92 standards it was unfakeable but by 2016-18 maybe it is possible, seeing how Killmonger had Klaue and Klaue had vibranium if vibranium was used in the tat Killmonger could have forged the tattoo also, the issue here is because we know Killmonger's claim is real it seems pointless but in terms of actual logic questioning his claim is what makes sense, so DC fan has a point and it's not outside of possibility that Killmonger could have been lying, this is the thing the films got logic or narrative issues throughout though not to a degree it ruins the film but like every CBM it has holes and some of them are more obvious than others, atleast DC-Fans switched to a valid issue to complain about...
You earned this buddy.
Yes, it's a very valid plothole. It never occurred to dumb-ass T'Challa to think, "Well, Klaue worked with my uncle 25 years ago and this guy just helped Klaue escape from our custody. Maybe Klaue came up with this scheme to have this imposter pretend to be my cousin and challenge for the throne and this imposter feels that he doesn't need Klaue anymore so he kills Klaue and goes ahead with Klaue's fake scheme for him to challenge for the throne." But like I said, Wakandans prefer a King who has the most brute strength rather than a King who is the smartest so they get a dumb-ass like T'Challa, who just says "OK. We'll take your word for it. No DNA test needed." If they'd wasted time on that and gotten a positive, you'd say that Killmonger could've faked it and there was still no way to prove anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 27, 2018 5:12:12 GMT
You’ve reasoned this out far better than DC-Fan did. As such one can entertain the idea that some form of testing would have been a good precaution. But, let’s look at the other side of this issue. So what if he was a fake? Honestly, if I were King I might be concerned that people would think he does have a real claim if I didn’t accept the challenge immediately. Accepting without full verification costs T’Challa nothing. Refusing on the grounds of “testing” results could be construed as weakness and it might invite more challenges. Oh I agree that's why I said have Shuri or his mother demand his lineage be proven but T'Challa accept the challenge, even have him say he takes what Zuri says to be true, then have a short scene where his mother &/or Shuri question his choice but he says he will not refuse a challenge, and that if he fails but Killmonger is proven a liar Shuri knows what to do, play it off a little give T'Challa a little more confidence, give us another moment between brother & sister and give a reason behind T'Challa's rashness, it would take a minute and add a little more to the fight and stop T'Challa's behaviour seeming needlessly foolish.
One thing I think though they should have had more meaning behind T'Challa's agreeing to the fight, like he agree's but doesn't intend to kill Killmonger instead wanting to defeat him but welcome his cousin home after, make T'Challa maybe a little more naïve and making choices based on the wrong intention, such as he wants to amend the mistake of his father rather than protect the interest of Wakanda, so that when he fights Killmonger later and deals the fatale blow it shows him accepting his role more, and also his offer to help Killmonger and show him the sunset for Killmonger to refuse him and rather die a king than live as his prisoner can have more impact and give T'Challa more purpose in the film, as it was and has been pointed out by others far smarter & more eloquent than myself T'Challa is the weakest part of the film which isn't saying much as so many parts of the film are great, but his arc is kind of whether he is or isn't king but not about what being King means to him, and I think this would have added more to his arc but I dunno maybe I'm wrong.
Pride comes before a fall. The rashness of T'Challa's decision works with the narrative. He makes a bad call based solely on instinct and emotion. He then goes on to underestimate an opponent who has prepared his whole life for that moment and is severely beaten as a result. The lesson of his defeat at Warrior Falls was that he had to embrace change to be a good King. His first instinct was to cover up what his family did by quickly defeating Killmonger to make the problem go away. Going from a rash decision point to an adverse consequence just tracks better in my opinion. It's not about being right or wrong unless you have an overly simplistic view of the world (like DC Fan). Your interpretation is just as valid as any other. That said, I personally feel that Erik had to die. An ending where he is placed in a cage would have suggested that his cause was just when it was not. Erik Stevens was a psychopath whose mind had been warped by abandonment. He wanted to inflict the same pain on his oppressors that they had inflicted upon him. That's not justice, it's revenge. His death is a more satisfying narrative. There's a great moment where he reflects on the childhood story his father told him about Wakanda. How could he have known if such a place really existed or if it was just his father's delusional rantings? He held on to that memory and cursed himself for believing in a fairytale. The adult Erik trying to reconcile with child Erik was extremely compelling. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 27, 2018 5:39:22 GMT
Oh I agree that's why I said have Shuri or his mother demand his lineage be proven but T'Challa accept the challenge, even have him say he takes what Zuri says to be true, then have a short scene where his mother &/or Shuri question his choice but he says he will not refuse a challenge, and that if he fails but Killmonger is proven a liar Shuri knows what to do, play it off a little give T'Challa a little more confidence, give us another moment between brother & sister and give a reason behind T'Challa's rashness, it would take a minute and add a little more to the fight and stop T'Challa's behaviour seeming needlessly foolish.
One thing I think though they should have had more meaning behind T'Challa's agreeing to the fight, like he agree's but doesn't intend to kill Killmonger instead wanting to defeat him but welcome his cousin home after, make T'Challa maybe a little more naïve and making choices based on the wrong intention, such as he wants to amend the mistake of his father rather than protect the interest of Wakanda, so that when he fights Killmonger later and deals the fatale blow it shows him accepting his role more, and also his offer to help Killmonger and show him the sunset for Killmonger to refuse him and rather die a king than live as his prisoner can have more impact and give T'Challa more purpose in the film, as it was and has been pointed out by others far smarter & more eloquent than myself T'Challa is the weakest part of the film which isn't saying much as so many parts of the film are great, but his arc is kind of whether he is or isn't king but not about what being King means to him, and I think this would have added more to his arc but I dunno maybe I'm wrong.
Pride comes before a fall. The rashness of T'Challa's decision works with the narrative. He makes a bad call based solely on instinct and emotion. He then goes on to underestimate an opponent who has prepared his whole life for that moment and is severely beaten as a result. The lesson of his defeat at Warrior Falls was that he had to embrace change to be a good King. His first instinct was to cover up what his family did by quickly defeating Killmonger to make the problem go away. Going from a rash decision point to an adverse consequence just tracks better in my opinion. It's not about being right or wrong unless you have an overly simplistic view of the world (like DC Fan). Your interpretation is just as valid as any other. That said, I personally feel that Erik had to die. An ending where he is placed in a cage would have suggested that his cause was just when it was not. Erik Stevens was a psychopath whose mind had been warped by abandonment. He wanted to inflict the same pain on his oppressors that they had inflicted upon him. That's not justice, it's revenge. His death is a more satisfying narrative. There's a great moment where he reflects on the childhood story his father told him about Wakanda. How could he have known if such a place really existed or if it was just his father's delusional rantings? He held on to that memory and cursed himself for believing in a fairytale. The adult Erik trying to reconcile with child Erik was extremely compelling. I wasn't saying Killmonger should have lived, just that if T'Challa had a arc in the story of going from the son who wanted to preserve, even repair his father's memory by instead of killing Killmonger he tried to "save" him, that this is in part why he loses to him, to him learn his allegiance has to be to his people not his father's memory, you could even add in him reflecting on Zemo and how he instead of killing him allowed him to be held accountable by the courts for his crimes, and just ponder why he does this, did he do it because violence for violence is wrong, or did he do it to punish a man whose only want left is to die so he forced him to live? just so instead of him just being a foolish young king who rushed into combat with an unknown foe, all this would add to how/why he defeats Killmonger in the end, T'Challa it would be clearwas the superior fighter but they fought different battles and that is why Killmonger beat him, because as it was Killmonger should still be as much faster, stronger or skilled than T'Challa as he was before, and he whooped T'Challa so to me you need a reason as to how or why T'Challa for no reason can now defeat Killmonger, which such an arc provides.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 27, 2018 6:34:59 GMT
Pride comes before a fall. The rashness of T'Challa's decision works with the narrative. He makes a bad call based solely on instinct and emotion. He then goes on to underestimate an opponent who has prepared his whole life for that moment and is severely beaten as a result. The lesson of his defeat at Warrior Falls was that he had to embrace change to be a good King. His first instinct was to cover up what his family did by quickly defeating Killmonger to make the problem go away. Going from a rash decision point to an adverse consequence just tracks better in my opinion. It's not about being right or wrong unless you have an overly simplistic view of the world (like DC Fan). Your interpretation is just as valid as any other. That said, I personally feel that Erik had to die. An ending where he is placed in a cage would have suggested that his cause was just when it was not. Erik Stevens was a psychopath whose mind had been warped by abandonment. He wanted to inflict the same pain on his oppressors that they had inflicted upon him. That's not justice, it's revenge. His death is a more satisfying narrative. There's a great moment where he reflects on the childhood story his father told him about Wakanda. How could he have known if such a place really existed or if it was just his father's delusional rantings? He held on to that memory and cursed himself for believing in a fairytale. The adult Erik trying to reconcile with child Erik was extremely compelling. I wasn't saying Killmonger should have lived, just that if T'Challa had a arc in the story of going from the son who wanted to preserve, even repair his father's memory by instead of killing Killmonger he tried to "save" him, that this is in part why he loses to him, to him learn his allegiance has to be to his people not his father's memory, you could even add in him reflecting on Zemo and how he instead of killing him allowed him to be held accountable by the courts for his crimes, and just ponder why he does this, did he do it because violence for violence is wrong, or did he do it to punish a man whose only want left is to die so he forced him to live? just so instead of him just being a foolish young king who rushed into combat with an unknown foe, all this would add to how/why he defeats Killmonger in the end, T'Challa it would be clearwas the superior fighter but they fought different battles and that is why Killmonger beat him, because as it was Killmonger should still be as much faster, stronger or skilled than T'Challa as he was before, and he whooped T'Challa so to me you need a reason as to how or why T'Challa for no reason can now defeat Killmonger, which such an arc provides.
I felt comfortable with the choices Coogler made in the final film. They felt right for the character. I like the fact that T'Challa is decisive and confident - even if he's wrong. The Black Panther isn't as introspective as Captain America. He lives in the moment, and you can feel that in the way he presents himself and how he behaves. His arc in the film is clear and easy to follow; a young King who thinks he's a traditionalist breaks with the past and sets a new course for himself and his people. A lot of people said T'Challa's arc was boring and staid but, I found it to be just as compelling as Erik's. Both sons inherit the legacies of their father's crimes. Erik is imprisoned by his father's mandate to free people of color from oppression. T'Challa is shackled by his father's sins and unwillingness to take Wakanda out onto the world stage. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 27, 2018 7:11:00 GMT
I wasn't saying Killmonger should have lived, just that if T'Challa had a arc in the story of going from the son who wanted to preserve, even repair his father's memory by instead of killing Killmonger he tried to "save" him, that this is in part why he loses to him, to him learn his allegiance has to be to his people not his father's memory, you could even add in him reflecting on Zemo and how he instead of killing him allowed him to be held accountable by the courts for his crimes, and just ponder why he does this, did he do it because violence for violence is wrong, or did he do it to punish a man whose only want left is to die so he forced him to live? just so instead of him just being a foolish young king who rushed into combat with an unknown foe, all this would add to how/why he defeats Killmonger in the end, T'Challa it would be clearwas the superior fighter but they fought different battles and that is why Killmonger beat him, because as it was Killmonger should still be as much faster, stronger or skilled than T'Challa as he was before, and he whooped T'Challa so to me you need a reason as to how or why T'Challa for no reason can now defeat Killmonger, which such an arc provides.
I felt comfortable with the choices Coogler made in the final film. They felt right for the character. I like the fact that T'Challa is decisive and confident - even if he's wrong. The Black Panther isn't as introspective as Captain America. He lives in the moment, and you can feel that in the way he presents himself and how he behaves. His arc in the film is clear and easy to follow; a young King who thinks he's a traditionalist breaks with the past and sets a new course for himself and his people. A lot of people said T'Challa's arc was boring and staid but, I found it to be just as compelling as Erik's. Both sons inherit the legacies of their father's crimes. Erik is imprisoned by his father's mandate to free people of color from oppression. T'Challa is shackled by his father's sins and unwillingness to take Wakanda out onto the world stage. Fair point, I also recognise whilst what I'm saying may have fleshed out T'Challa a little more for my liking what Coogler did was do a wonderful job spreading the character growth out to many of the supporting characters and allowed many of them to have their own big moments rather than give them all to T'Challa, it's a balancing act and almost no film gets it perfect, and like I said T'Challa maybe the weaker of many of the characters in this film but that's not a insult to that character but a compliment to the others, the film did a good job of allowing many of the characters shine in such a way that if you dislike one or two or three of them there are enough other characters with enough screen presence that are different from each other you should be able to like.
Even the Nolan films had issues with making the lead the most vital part of the films so it's not a new problem and as problems go having a good lead who just happens to fail in outshining his supporting cast it's a good one to have really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 27, 2018 7:33:07 GMT
I felt comfortable with the choices Coogler made in the final film. They felt right for the character. I like the fact that T'Challa is decisive and confident - even if he's wrong. The Black Panther isn't as introspective as Captain America. He lives in the moment, and you can feel that in the way he presents himself and how he behaves. His arc in the film is clear and easy to follow; a young King who thinks he's a traditionalist breaks with the past and sets a new course for himself and his people. A lot of people said T'Challa's arc was boring and staid but, I found it to be just as compelling as Erik's. Both sons inherit the legacies of their father's crimes. Erik is imprisoned by his father's mandate to free people of color from oppression. T'Challa is shackled by his father's sins and unwillingness to take Wakanda out onto the world stage. Fair point, I also recognise whilst what I'm saying may have fleshed out T'Challa a little more for my liking what Coogler did was do a wonderful job spreading the character growth out to many of the supporting characters and allowed many of them to have their own big moments rather than give them all to T'Challa, it's a balancing act and almost no film gets it perfect, and like I said T'Challa maybe the weaker of many of the characters in this film but that's not a insult to that character but a compliment to the others, the film did a good job of allowing many of the characters shine in such a way that if you dislike one or two or three of them there are enough other characters with enough screen presence that are different from each other you should be able to like.
Even the Nolan films had issues with making the lead the most vital part of the films so it's not a new problem and as problems go having a good lead who just happens to fail in outshining his supporting cast it's a good one to have really.
Great summation. I will also add that Black Panther has a very stable and healthy emotional support system in his family and friends that I really dig. Although he has experienced tragedy, he is not shaped by it. T’Challa is a stable individual who isn’t lost or broken like other Marvel characters. He’s not a man out of time, a narcissist or an ego maniac. He isn’t haunted by past misdeeds or struggling with repressed rage. He’s a very well adjusted individual who is confident and comes off like a boss in almost everything he does. He’s sphinx-like under that mask and that’s what makes the persona of the Black Panther so straight-up badass - that and his relentlessness. He more interesting as a character than he has a right to be because he doesn’t really have any issues. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 5, 2018 4:32:55 GMT
Considering that Wakanda recognises a monarchy not an elected government violence is the only way to force change in leadership That's false. Less than a century ago, the UK replaced a King who wasn't dead in a peaceful way without any bloodshed. Yet Wakanda is so barbaric and savage and Wakandans are so stupid that they can't come up with a way in the 21st century to choose a leader in a peaceful way without any bloodshed or mortal combat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 11:57:30 GMT
Out of curiosity DC-Fan, what do you think of the netflix marvel shows? |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 5, 2018 12:12:13 GMT
Considering that Wakanda recognises a monarchy not an elected government violence is the only way to force change in leadership That's false. Less than a century ago, the UK replaced a King who wasn't dead in a peaceful way without any bloodshed. They didn't have God telling them to do it via combat. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Mar 5, 2018 12:19:52 GMT
Considering that Wakanda recognises a monarchy not an elected government violence is the only way to force change in leadership That's false. Less than a century ago, the UK replaced a King who wasn't dead in a peaceful way without any bloodshed. Yet Wakanda is so barbaric and savage and Wakandans are so stupid that they can't come up with a way in the 21st century to choose a leader in a peaceful way without any bloodshed or mortal combat. Better than an entire culture that stagnates for tens of millennia and never advances beyond the bow and arrow technologically. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Mar 5, 2018 14:08:50 GMT
Considering that Wakanda recognises a monarchy not an elected government violence is the only way to force change in leadership That's false. Less than a century ago, the UK replaced a King who wasn't dead in a peaceful way without any bloodshed. Yet Wakanda is so barbaric and savage and Wakandans are so stupid that they can't come up with a way in the 21st century to choose a leader in a peaceful way without any bloodshed or mortal combat. Yes the crown was abdicated due to King Edward's desire to marry but not cause a huge political upheaval so he abdicated his crown to his younger brother, he did so by choice not by force because his personal happiness meant more to him than being King as did his desire not to fuck with the countries politics.
But the transition of power between the monarchy and parliament was long and was at times bloody and required parliament to take up arms against the crown and vice versa in a jockeying of power for many years until the monarchy's power was primarily ceremonial and parliament effectively gained control of the country for the long haul.
As you seem to have not noticed I said violent methods are the only way to FORCE change in a monarchy rule because except to pass the crown to an heir conquering is the only other way said power is transferred, well that or by marriage.
But you would think also in the 21st century a advanced society or enlightened people would be able to find a way to determine leadership based on selecting the best person for the job, without the need of lying, backstabbing, underhanded methods, praying on racism and other such idiocies, or at the very least be able to determine a leader that isn't mentally fucking unbalanced and borderline retarded, but low and behold President Trump, you simpleton.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Mar 6, 2018 0:19:38 GMT
Out of curiosity DC-Fan , what do you think of the netflix marvel shows? 1/10 |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 6, 2018 4:55:00 GMT
That's false. Less than a century ago, the UK replaced a King who wasn't dead in a peaceful way without any bloodshed. Yet Wakanda is so barbaric and savage and Wakandans are so stupid that they can't come up with a way in the 21st century to choose a leader in a peaceful way without any bloodshed or mortal combat. Yes the crown was abdicated due to King Edward's desire to marry but not cause a huge political upheaval so he abdicated his crown to his younger brother, he did so by choice not by force
LOL!!! You think Edward VIII wasn't forced to abdicate? And do you also think Richard Nixon wasn't forced to resign as POTUS? No monarch abdicates unless they're forced to. Edward VIII didn't want to abdicate. He wanted both - to marry Wallis Simpson and to remain King. He even offered a compromise in which he would marry Wallis Simpson but she wouldn't be given the title of Queen Consort. But the people wouldn't go for that. He wanted both, but the people forced him to choose either one or the other. So the British people forced their monarch out, in a peaceful way without any bloodshed or mortal combat, just like the American people forced Nixon out, in a peaceful way without any bloodshed or mortal combat. As you seem to have not noticed I said violent methods are the only way to FORCE change in a monarchy rule As you seem to have not noticed, I've already debunked your claim. The British people forced a change in the monarchy, in a peaceful way without any bloodshed or mortal combat, just like the American people forced Nixon out, in a peaceful way without any bloodshed or mortal combat. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 6, 2018 4:55:44 GMT
That's false. Less than a century ago, the UK replaced a King who wasn't dead in a peaceful way without any bloodshed. They didn't have God telling them to do it via combat. Neither did the Wakandans. All the Wakandans have are myths handed down from generation to generation. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Mar 6, 2018 4:57:22 GMT
Out of curiosity DC-Fan , what do you think of the netflix marvel shows? , Luke Cage, and Iron Fist aren't bad. Jessica Jones is boring and crappy and the worst superhero TV series ever made. Haven't seen The Defenders or The Punisher yet. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Mar 6, 2018 5:48:28 GMT
Yes the crown was abdicated due to King Edward's desire to marry but not cause a huge political upheaval so he abdicated his crown to his younger brother, he did so by choice not by force
LOL!!! You think Edward VIII wasn't forced to abdicate? And do you also think Richard Nixon wasn't forced to resign as POTUS? No monarch abdicates unless they're forced to. Edward VIII didn't want to abdicate. He wanted both - to marry Wallis Simpson and to remain King. He even offered a compromise in which he would marry Wallis Simpson but she wouldn't be given the title of Queen Consort. But the people wouldn't go for that. He wanted both, but the people forced him to choose either one or the other. So the British people forced their monarch out, in a peaceful way without any bloodshed or mortal combat, just like the American people forced Nixon out, in a peaceful way without any bloodshed or mortal combat. As you seem to have not noticed I said violent methods are the only way to FORCE change in a monarchy rule As you seem to have not noticed, I've already debunked your claim. The British people forced a change in the monarchy, in a peaceful way without any bloodshed or mortal combat, just like the American people forced Nixon out, in a peaceful way without any bloodshed or mortal combat. But you ignore the part where the government had the power to prevent Edward from both marrying and keeping the crown, it came at a price one paid for in blood centuries earlier, England has a constitutional monarchy where as Wakanda has an absolute monarchy, but even then the forced change that England went through is different than the change you are rabbiting on about, Edward abdicated the throne and passed it to his younger brother, the crown remained in the royal family though, which should T'Challa do so would simply make Shuri queen, it wouldn't shift power just change the head of state and T'Challa like Edward would remain a member of the royal family and simply hold other titles, and like how Shuri can give counsel to her brother so he would be able to counsel her, the change is superficial but so is your entire argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 6, 2018 11:55:05 GMT
They didn't have God telling them to do it via combat. Neither did the Wakandans. All the Wakandans have are myths handed down from generation to generation. Very real myths and mystical powers, meaning their God is real. They had more reason to do what they did than the Amazons. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 6, 2018 11:56:01 GMT
Out of curiosity DC-Fan , what do you think of the netflix marvel shows? is boring and crappy and the worst superhero TV series ever made. Nah, it just blows Supergirl out of the water. But that's what happens when you have a real character instead of flat archetypes (Supergirl, Wonder Woman, etc). |
|
