Wakanda Forever- Yea or Nay?

→ in
Tools    





Hi all, it's been awhile since I was last here, so I thought I'd drop by and ask what you all think of[Wakanda Forever]? I recently saw it and loved it from first to last reel, the storyline was better than I thought it would be with a somewhat surprise ending...what say you?



ᱬWanda Maximoff-Scarlet WitchᱬElizabeth Olesnᱬ
yes ofcourse i loved wakanda forever i loved eveything about it and loved that they did tribute of chadwick aswell
__________________
https://youtu.be/M-7QBR6hugc Wanda Maximoff-Scarlet Witch -Elizabeth Olsen
https://youtu.be/78oLEoy5Npo Natasha Romanoff-Black Widow-Scarlett Johansson
https://youtu.be/0LXhnd-CMrQ Agatha Harkness-Kathryn Hahn
https://youtu.be/4E880wNeB2g Yelena Belova-
Florence Pugh
https://youtu.be/V8BhIsWTGUI Clint Barton-Hawkeye-Jeremy Renner
https://youtu.be/Zy66zOMkGsM Loki Lufeyson-Tom Hiddleston



My thoughts: I don't think this is as good as the first, but there is a lot to like here. Angela Bassett and Letitia Wright are fantastic. There are some great moments, although not everything works. I do think the film is too long. They could have easily cut out at least 20-30 minutes. That being said, this is a worthwhile sequel. I don't think it will get nominated for best picture, but I do expect at least a few Oscar nods. 8/10.



Since there's not a lot of action here, I’d like to hi-jack this thread just temporarily for a little history & trivia.

I haven’t seen the movie, but have read that they drastically changed Namor.


Although he’s never been a personal favorite of mine, I don’t think it’s a good idea to “mess” with him... BECAUSE he holds a place of importance in the annals of American comic book history.

First, trying to “ethnicize” Namor for the sake of diversity is a bit odd since the character already belongs to a fictional race that does not exist – he’s an Atlantean (a race of humans that evolved to breath underwater). To be precise he’s a hybrid: half Atlantean and half Caucasian (his father’s name was McKenzie). Namor’s mother’s skin color was blue!

Namor was one of Marvel’s (then called Timely Comics) “big three” superheroes of the Golden Age (along with the Human Torch & Captain America).

Namor was also comics’ first “anti-hero” – he actually kills two deep sea divers in his first appearance, thinking they are robots. Namor was as often an enemy of the surface world as he was their ally. (He worked with Allied forces to combat the Axis of WWII).

I’ve heard one reason Wakanda Forever so drastically changed Namor was to differentiate him from Aquaman. While DC’s underwater hero may have beaten Namor to the movies, Namor came first in reality and is thus the original “man from Atlantis” – thus, he shouldn’t HAVE to be changed.

Namor has belonged to almost every major hero team in Marvel Comics! He was first a member of the All Winner’s Squad (Timely’s first team that appeared post WWII). He was an arch-enemy, occasional ally and even a sometime fill-in member of the Fantastic Four (the team & book that reintroduced him to the Silver Age of comics). He was a founding member of the Defenders. He was one of the Invaders (a retcon team that placed Namor and the other big three Marvel heroes on a team during WWII). He eventually became a member of the Avengers (Marvel's preeminent team of major individual superheroes), he’s a member of the Illuminati (Marvel’s most powerful big-brains) and Marvel decided he was actually their first mutant due to the circumstances of his birth and he became one of the X-Men at one point.

Since Namor and the Atlanteans have touched & influenced almost every corner of Marvel Comics and its history, changing his origins and his ethnicity would alter the entire Marvel Universe. (Not that Marvel itself hasn't done exactly that, countless times, but I'm something of a purist who remembers the good old days when what made Marvel special & unique was that it adhered to a single continuity shared by all its characters).

While a ruler in his own kingdom, Namor has also attacked on his own & invaded the U.S. (specifically New York City) while leading Atlantean forces on multiple occasions despite having been a wartime ally – usually because of perceived wrongs perpetrated on his people by the surface world.

His importance to the history of comics cannot be denied (which is a very good reason he should not be changed just to appeal to current trends or demographics).

Namor has been an ally, an enemy, a protector, a warrior, a terrorist, a super hero, a super villain, a Nazi-smasher, a prince, a king, a homeless bum with amnesia, a movie producer, a crime fighter and even the CEO of an international company – he accomplished all this over the course of nearly a century without ever once appearing with a ridiculous stud through his nose... until now.



Victim of The Night
Since there's not a lot of action here, I’d like to hi-jack this thread just temporarily for a little history & trivia.

I haven’t seen the movie, but have read that they drastically changed Namor.


Although he’s never been a personal favorite of mine, I don’t think it’s a good idea to “mess” with him... BECAUSE he holds a place of importance in the annals of American comic book history.

First, trying to “ethnicize” Namor for the sake of diversity is a bit odd since the character already belongs to a fictional race that does not exist – he’s an Atlantean (a race of humans that evolved to breath underwater). To be precise he’s a hybrid: half Atlantean and half Caucasian (his father’s name was McKenzie). Namor’s mother’s skin color was blue!

Namor was one of Marvel’s (then called Timely Comics) “big three” superheroes of the Golden Age (along with the Human Torch & Captain America).

Namor was also comics’ first “anti-hero” – he actually kills two deep sea divers in his first appearance, thinking they are robots. Namor was as often an enemy of the surface world as he was their ally. (He worked with Allied forces to combat the Axis of WWII).

I’ve heard one reason Wakanda Forever so drastically changed Namor was to differentiate him from Aquaman. While DC’s underwater hero may have beaten Namor to the movies, Namor came first in reality and is thus the original “man from Atlantis” – thus, he shouldn’t HAVE to be changed.

Namor has belonged to almost every major hero team in Marvel Comics! He was first a member of the All Winner’s Squad (Timely’s first team that appeared post WWII). He was an arch-enemy, occasional ally and even a sometime fill-in member of the Fantastic Four (the team & book that reintroduced him to the Silver Age of comics). He was a founding member of the Defenders. He was one of the Invaders (a retcon team that placed Namor and the other big three Marvel heroes on a team during WWII). He eventually became a member of the Avengers (Marvel's preeminent team of major individual superheroes), he’s a member of the Illuminati (Marvel’s most powerful big-brains) and Marvel decided he was actually their first mutant due to the circumstances of his birth and he became one of the X-Men at one point.

Since Namor and the Atlanteans have touched & influenced almost every corner of Marvel Comics and its history, changing his origins and his ethnicity would alter the entire Marvel Universe. (Not that Marvel itself hasn't done exactly that, countless times, but I'm something of a purist who remembers the good old days when what made Marvel special & unique was that it adhered to a single continuity shared by all its characters).

While a ruler in his own kingdom, Namor has also attacked on his own & invaded the U.S. (specifically New York City) while leading Atlantean forces on multiple occasions despite having been a wartime ally – usually because of perceived wrongs perpetrated on his people by the surface world.

His importance to the history of comics cannot be denied (which is a very good reason he should not be changed just to appeal to current trends or demographics).

Namor has been an ally, an enemy, a protector, a warrior, a terrorist, a super hero, a super villain, a Nazi-smasher, a prince, a king, a homeless bum with amnesia, a movie producer, a crime fighter and even the CEO of an international company – he accomplished all this over the course of nearly a century without ever once appearing with a ridiculous stud through his nose... until now.
As a lifelong Marvel fan and one who used to love The Sub-Mariner back in the day, I honestly completely disagree with you here.
The comics have constantly retconned their super-heroes over the years, long before the MCU even existed (I mean, holy shit, the version of The Guardians Of The Galaxy that we have now has nothing to do with the original team). The Ultimates business, which was an astonishing retcon of several of Marvel's biggest characters, inspired a lot of the MCU, and was a frankly brutal reimagining of some of the characters, particularly Thor, in such a way that I got angry and stopped reading. And the MCU took pretty significant liberties with most if not all of their characters. Robert Downey Jr. was nothing like what any iteration of Tony Stark I ever knew from the comics was like. But it worked on screen so I went with it and eventually learned to love it.
They totally changed Ultron (beyond his look), one of my two favorite villains in Marvel history for the MCU and Thanos' whole motivation in the MCU for everything he ever did was a total departure from what was frankly this beautiful and poetic and imaginative reasoning in the comics to something much more grounded that mainstream audiences would be able to swallow. And those are historic characters.
Making Namor a little browner, I see that as an incredibly small change compared to the retcons they've already done in the MCU and everybody has gone along with. And I actually don't see it as "in the name of diversity" I see it more as common sense that when you make the MCU global, which they have, the characters then should represent the entire globe or it just looks ridiculous. I mean, I'm a Namor fan from of old but Honky-Namor just feels like a bunch of white dudes who've never even thought about anyone else existing, making every single character a white American male until they started, ya know, introducing girls and stuff, yuck! I reject the notion that every time a character isn't White, it's about "diversity". Maybe they just thought the character made more sense as a browner person, maybe they just liked the actor who was a little browner. This is a character I have some amount of nostalgia invested in and I think, especially in light of all the different re-imaginings of Marvel characters for the MCU, this is a perfectly fine version of The Sub-Mariner that really shouldn't make anyone bat an eye. I mean, they actually kept the little wings on his ankles and actually made them flap to make a 200-lb. man fly. And we're gonna quibble about a few shades in the skin-tone?



As a lifelong Marvel fan and one who used to love The Sub-Mariner back in the day, I honestly completely disagree with you here.
The comics have constantly retconned their super-heroes over the years, long before the MCU even existed (I mean, holy shit, the version of The Guardians Of The Galaxy that we have now has nothing to do with the original team). The Ultimates business, which was an astonishing retcon of several of Marvel's biggest characters, inspired a lot of the MCU, and was a frankly brutal reimagining of some of the characters, particularly Thor, in such a way that I got angry and stopped reading. And the MCU took pretty significant liberties with most if not all of their characters. Robert Downey Jr. was nothing like what any iteration of Tony Stark I ever knew from the comics was like. But it worked on screen so I went with it and eventually learned to love it.
They totally changed Ultron (beyond his look), one of my two favorite villains in Marvel history for the MCU and Thanos' whole motivation in the MCU for everything he ever did was a total departure from what was frankly this beautiful and poetic and imaginative reasoning in the comics to something much more grounded that mainstream audiences would be able to swallow. And those are historic characters.
Making Namor a little browner, I see that as an incredibly small change compared to the retcons they've already done in the MCU and everybody has gone along with. And I actually don't see it as "in the name of diversity" I see it more as common sense that when you make the MCU global, which they have, the characters then should represent the entire globe or it just looks ridiculous. I mean, I'm a Namor fan from of old but Honky-Namor just feels like a bunch of white dudes who've never even thought about anyone else existing, making every single character a white American male until they started, ya know, introducing girls and stuff, yuck! I reject the notion that every time a character isn't White, it's about "diversity". Maybe they just thought the character made more sense as a browner person, maybe they just liked the actor who was a little browner. This is a character I have some amount of nostalgia invested in and I think, especially in light of all the different re-imaginings of Marvel characters for the MCU, this is a perfectly fine version of The Sub-Mariner that really shouldn't make anyone bat an eye. I mean, they actually kept the little wings on his ankles and actually made them flap to make a 200-lb. man fly. And we're gonna quibble about a few shades in the skin-tone?
I agree with a lot of what you say.

As a Namor fan, I'm sure you know they explained his ankle wings a long time ago as not what enables him to fly (he can fly because he has mutant powers) but that they are more akin to fins and just a vestigial part of his Atlantean heritage.

My only disagreement is that I think they did make Namor Mexican (and I'm not talking about just the actor playing him, but the fact that they changed his origins to make him Aztec and have him speak with a Latino accent) for the sake of diversity. And the reason I think that is because that seems to be the trend - and what is demanded by the ideologies that Hollywood believes in and thinks it must cater to.

As a human / Atlantean hybrid, Namor would have been the perfect character to deliver the message that race & ethnicity is not what the movie is focusing on (since he is of a race that doesn't exist), but they went in the opposite direction by taking a character of fictional ethnicity and turning him into a real racial minority - which carries all sorts of implications with it that will forever change the character & the history of the Marvel Universe forever.

I never have a problem with the "browning" of anything especially due to the predominantly white nature of comics' history... (if I did then I wouldn't cherish a character like the Black Panther or the fictional African nation of Wakanda or hundreds of other non-white characters and peoples) - the only thing I have a problem with is making inherent changes to long established characters which seems to have become an obsession with Hollywood.

There's always room for new characters and there are plenty of other established characters out there to utilize if the desire is to be representative or show more diversity. I just don't know why it's become so common to sacrifice established characters to forced race changes (among other things) instead of creating new characters or using the stock of characters already available who fit the bill that people would love to see brought to life on the big screen.



I always find it amusing that folks find an action movie too long, with the prices they charge for movies today I want em long.



Welcome to the human race...
I always find it amusing that folks find an action movie too long, with the prices they charge for movies today I want em long.
Would you rather pay for a long boring movie or a short exciting one?
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0




As a human / Atlantean hybrid, Namor would have been the perfect character to deliver the message that race & ethnicity is not what the movie is focusing on (since he is of a race that doesn't exist), but they went in the opposite direction by taking a character of fictional ethnicity and turning him into a real racial minority - which carries all sorts of implications with it that will forever change the character & the history of the Marvel Universe forever.

I never have a problem with the "browning" of anything especially due to the predominantly white nature of comics' history... (if I did then I wouldn't cherish a character like the Black Panther or the fictional African nation of Wakanda or hundreds of other non-white characters and peoples) - the only thing I have a problem with is making inherent changes to long established characters which seems to have become an obsession with Hollywood.

How does this fundamentally change the universe any more-so than Thanos' motivation in The Infinity War?

There's always room for new characters and there are plenty of other established characters out there to utilize if the desire is to be representative or show more diversity. I just don't know why it's become so common to sacrifice established characters to forced race changes (among other things) instead of creating new characters or using the stock of characters already available who fit the bill that people would love to see brought to life on the big screen.

There's also always room for new takes on existing characters. Now that they're going the multiverse route, it's to be expected - the carbon copy version of your perception of the comic Namor that you want exists is some other part of the multiverse. As Wooley pointed out, there's been plenty of retcons throughout the history of marvel comics, (not to mention complete reboots of characters).



I heard it was bad, and after Thor: Love and Thunder I no longer am giving MARVEL movies a skeptical pass. Supposedly theres alot of whining and soul searching, and the payoff comes waaay too late in the film. Compared to Thor L&Ts idiotic silliness Im getting the feeling the genre is getting away from Marvel source material and just making it too Hollywood. Same happened with The Walking Dead. It was strong and then it became a Lifetime Movie Network whinefest with the occasional appearance of a zombie.

Avengers: Endgame was a perfect title for that movie. If they wanted to be literal it could have been Endfranchise.



How does this fundamentally change the universe any more-so than Thanos' motivation in The Infinity War?




There's also always room for new takes on existing characters. Now that they're going the multiverse route, it's to be expected - the carbon copy version of your perception of the comic Namor that you want exists is some other part of the multiverse. As Wooley pointed out, there's been plenty of retcons throughout the history of marvel comics, (not to mention complete reboots of characters).
It doesn't necessarily change the universe more-so than Thanos, except maybe for the fact that Namor's & the Atlanteans' history is more entrenched in the Marvel universe from the beginning.

Thanos, when compared to Namor's first Golden Age appearance or even his Silver Age re-appearance, is still a new kid on the block. (I'd argue more, except I'm not that familiar with the movies - I thought from what I've glimpsed of Thanos on the screen; he looks the part - I know in the comics he was trying to court Death - literally, as he sees her as a female manifestation - via genocide... or something... not sure what he's up to in the movies... population control?)

The "multiverse" is a big part of my overall contention. Multiple concurrent yet canonical carbon-copy counterparts have always just taken away from the feeling and ideal of "the one and only" when it comes to characters. I grieve they've done this to Star Trek (and hoping they don't do it to Star Wars at some point)

I was overjoyed at DC's major "Crisis" (back in 1985) when they cleaned up their continuity and had just one Earth where any characters with the same names just were from a previous generation (as opposed to being any number of counterparts from an infinite number of other dimensions).



It doesn't necessarily change the universe more-so than Thanos, except maybe for the fact that Namor's & the Atlanteans' history is more entrenched in the Marvel universe from the beginning.

Thanos, when compared to Namor's first Golden Age appearance or even his Silver Age re-appearance, is still a new kid on the block. (I'd argue more, except I'm not that familiar with the movies - I thought from what I've glimpsed of Thanos on the screen; he looks the part - I know in the comics he was trying to court Death - literally, as he sees her as a female manifestation - via genocide... or something... not sure what he's up to in the movies... population control?)

The "multiverse" is a big part of my overall contention. Multiple concurrent yet canonical carbon-copy counterparts have always just taken away from the feeling and ideal of "the one and only" when it comes to characters. I grieve they've done this to Star Trek (and hoping they don't do it to Star Wars at some point)

I was overjoyed at DC's major "Crisis" (back in 1985) when they cleaned up their continuity and had just one Earth where any characters with the same names just were from a previous generation (as opposed to being any number of counterparts from an infinite number of other dimensions).
My primary comic reading, particularly Marvel reading, run was basically the 90's with some back-reading into the 80's. It was predominantly X-related titles. I'd say, "Namor wasn't particularly relevant for those titles," but truthfully, it was pretty easy to be fairly siloed with the comic books (even with all of the crossovers. I didn't really run into too many of the Avengers in those titles either). The only place where he showed up was in the Alex Ross/Kurt Busiek Marvels mini-series. Nothing about that wouldn't have worked with this different take on his history (as far as I know. I'm not an MCU person.)

So, you say Thanos, despite his motivation being heavily altered, his background as Galactus' herald not being introduced, because F4 and Galactus have not been introduced, and the resolution of the Infinity Wars having a noticeable difference (decades ago, I picked up the TPB in the store and read the last 20 pages, but I'm pretty sure there's no 7 year gap where people were just reintroduced, and half the population aged without them), despite all that, you're fine with that because, "he looked the part," and because he didn't appear until the early 70s. Despite the fact that most of what we think of Marvel comics didn't really originate until the early 60s (outside of the retro-prologue of Marvels, I'm going to guess the original Human Torch from the 50s hasn't been referenced for decades. Just a guess). Keep in mind, 10 years from roughly '63 (when I think most of the superheroes were created) and '73 (when Thanos first showed up), and it's nearly been 50 years since then?

The truth of the matter is, when material is adapted, some things get altered. Sometimes, it invites re-interpretation or re-thinking. I'm not saying all of those changes are good, but fidelity to the source material, which as Wooley said, has changed many times over the decades, is not the end-all-be-all of adaptation. What's weird is you want fidelity for a character that you literally said isn't a favorite of yours in the comic form. You also didn't actually cite any examples of story-lines that would be lost by this alteration. You simply gave high level descriptions of things Namor did, and most of those don't sound like he couldn't still do them. Minus the WW2 stuff (but again, outside of Captain America, I don't think the MCU is exactly looking to go back and introduce the original Human Torch - but who knows. Maybe some cameo one day for those who want a secret, cultural handshake to be excited about.)
__________________
Saved for personal reference (to see how wrong I was): top 100 comedy countdown - my predictions for my ballot after #41 (Borat) on the list had been revealed



My primary comic reading, particularly Marvel reading, run was basically the 90's with some back-reading into the 80's. It was predominantly X-related titles. I'd say, "Namor wasn't particularly relevant for those titles," but truthfully, it was pretty easy to be fairly siloed with the comic books (even with all of the crossovers. I didn't really run into too many of the Avengers in those titles either). The only place where he showed up was in the Alex Ross/Kurt Busiek Marvels mini-series. Nothing about that wouldn't have worked with this different take on his history (as far as I know. I'm not an MCU person.)

So, you say Thanos, despite his motivation being heavily altered, his background as Galactus' herald not being introduced, because F4 and Galactus have not been introduced, and the resolution of the Infinity Wars having a noticeable difference (decades ago, I picked up the TPB in the store and read the last 20 pages, but I'm pretty sure there's no 7 year gap where people were just reintroduced, and half the population aged without them), despite all that, you're fine with that because, "he looked the part," and because he didn't appear until the early 70s. Despite the fact that most of what we think of Marvel comics didn't really originate until the early 60s (outside of the retro-prologue of Marvels, I'm going to guess the original Human Torch from the 50s hasn't been referenced for decades. Just a guess). Keep in mind, 10 years from roughly '63 (when I think most of the superheroes were created) and '73 (when Thanos first showed up), and it's nearly been 50 years since then?

The truth of the matter is, when material is adapted, some things get altered. Sometimes, it invites re-interpretation or re-thinking. I'm not saying all of those changes are good, but fidelity to the source material, which as Wooley said, has changed many times over the decades, is not the end-all-be-all of adaptation. What's weird is you want fidelity for a character that you literally said isn't a favorite of yours in the comic form. You also didn't actually cite any examples of story-lines that would be lost by this alteration. You simply gave high level descriptions of things Namor did, and most of those don't sound like he couldn't still do them. Minus the WW2 stuff (but again, outside of Captain America, I don't think the MCU is exactly looking to go back and introduce the original Human Torch - but who knows. Maybe some cameo one day for those who want a secret, cultural handshake to be excited about.)
I admit I'm not up to date on current (or even the last decade) of comics, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Thanos was ever a herald of Galactus. (And yes, I'm nitpicking since comic history is kind of a hobby of mine).

The original Human Torch has been resurrected many times since the Golden & Atomic Ages... first in the Fantastic Four in the late sixties, then as a member of the WWII era Invaders that began publishing in 1975 (although we could call that a retcon, it was still the original Torch appearing in "modern" times). He was connected to the Vision of the Avengers (too complicated to get into). He had a mini-series in 1990, was fully resurrected as himself in the West Coast Avengers and even an Avengers training camp (Camp Hammond) was named after the original Human Torch's alter ego, "Jim Hammond".

Now, there's a lot to respond to, but I'll just say of course Namor / Atlanteans stories in Marvel's history could work with alternative versions of Namor (just a little rewriting and you could say every story was just the Skrulls)! But my question is, why should they have to? What is the obsession to change characters strictly to appease (potentially erroneous) demographic desires, when such desires could easily be met by introducing hundreds of established characters that already fit the bill?

The concept goes both ways - just a little tweaking in writing and Moses Magnum, the Mandarin, the Yellow Claw, Black Tarantula, Arclight, Fabian Cortez, Diablo, Toltec, the Puma, Sunfire, and dozens of others could be written in as the threat to Wakanda while all being ethnic minorities (and it seems ethnic minorities is what's desired since that seems to be the trend - to change long-established white characters into minorities - while it would be considered inappropriate and a sacrilege - and I would agree - to change any minority character to white. The reason I would agree is because I truly believe in equality and not in tokenism - I believe all established characters should maintain their inherent qualities.)



They did strip Namor of his ego and his temper which is the problem with race swapping characters. We can't have a Mexican hothead in the film that would be racist let's just take away those aspects of his personality.

Watching the GTOG Christmas special you have basically the Drax and Mantis movie both of which are played by POC but they actually have distinguishable personalities and character



They did strip Namor of his ego and his temper which is the problem with race swapping characters. We can't have a Mexican hothead in the film that would be racist let's just take away those aspects of his personality.

Watching the GTOG Christmas special you have basically the Drax and Mantis movie both of which are played by POC but they actually have distinguishable personalities and character
This is an excellent point.

Besides being a nobleman & sometime hero, Namor is and has always been a bona fide a-hole and Marvel never really shied away from writing stories based on this fact.

For one thing, he's a first class racist (not to mention a terrorist, kidnapper and womanizer)

Even Captain America (probably Namor's best surface-world supporter since their alliance during WWII) has admitted this in various terms on multiple occasions (although Cap, unlike Namor, was able to look past the failings of his teammate).

But again, it was Namor's uncontrollable temper and huge imperfections that made him a more interesting character (an anti-hero) than the dozens of other cookie-cutter superheroes from the Golden Age.

In the comics, it was politically acceptable that a half white / half fictional Atlantean could be such an intolerant & aggressive jerk, but applying those same qualities to a real ethnic minority would only be interpreted as a slur.



Registered User
they changed his origins to make him Aztec and have him speak with a Latino accent) for the sake of diversity.

I am a little concerned at the direction that they're taking here. Tropes of the noble savage are concerning. Techno-primitives who can make entire nations invisible behind force fields, but who still determine sovereign rule among warring ethnic tribes in trail by combat? Now the scope is expanding to Latino Wakanda (sorry, your kingdom is in the ocean)? Diversity is the multiplication of imagined ethnostates, each priding themselves on their racial nationalism, and fighting it out over scarce resources? Is this the MCU or World War 2?