Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:39, 18 March 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black Panther (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Comics: Marvel / Films Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Related work groups: /  This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group. This article is supported by Comic book films work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: Comic book / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Comic book films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Black Panther (film) appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Wesley Snipes had been interested in portraying the Black Panther in film for more than 20 years, before Marvel Studios officially announced Black Panther in 2014 with Chadwick Boseman in the role? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2017/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Black Panther (film).

[REDACTED]

This was the most viewed article on Misplaced Pages for the week of February 11 to 17 and February 18 to 24, 2018, according to the Top 25 Report.

Marketing section 2

As a reader, it was confusing to have release-related information tucked away above "Marketing" especially when the following section ("Reception") and its sub-sections seemed to indicate coming after the marketing. WP:FILMMARKETING does not at all endorse this approach. A "Marketing" sub-section can be within a "Release" section provided that it comes before a sub-section like "Theatrical run" or "Box office". We didn't state that explicitly because we didn't think people would actually put release information before marketing. Erik (talk | contrib) 23:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

As I responded to this similar query on my talk page (User talk:Favre1fan93#Marketing), FILMMARKETING, as worded, does actually state this as an acceptable format. We didn't state that explicitly because we didn't think people would actually put release information before marketing. User's aren't supposed to read between the lines for implied meaning. Also, as I again said on my talk page regarding this, the MOS is a guideline. There shouldn't be hard and fast "this is how things should be" wording, or expectations. Yes, we aren't moving the Marketing section to the beginning of the article as the second level 2 heading, but it isn't "incorrect" or confusing as it was either. Additionally, this interpretation is the WP:STATUSQUO of the article, being like that since April 2017, so that version is being restored while the discussion takes place. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There's also a discussion happening regarding this at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Film#Marketing. So I guess in the interest in keeping every piece of info together regarding this, if any additional users wish to comment on this, please do so at the MOS:FILM talk. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Popcornduff: Before we get ourselves into more trouble, can we discuss your edits? You are making weird and unnecessary changes to the lead, and your interpretation of WP:FICTENSE is incorrect. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused. When you said in your edit summary "don't revert entire change for small issues", that sounded like you were telling me to restore those "small issues" independently of the other stuff you wanted to revert. Which is what I just did.

Anyway, I rewrote the lead to trim unnecessary words and details. For example, "directed from a screenplay by" becomes "written by" - same information, fewer words. Likewise, we don't need to say the film was "officially announced"; it was simply announced.

As for WP:FICTENSE, it would be helpful if you explained what I'm misunderstanding, instead of just telling me I'm wrong. Popcornduff (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realise that your issues with my edit were the whole thing, which is why I said what I did. I generally find "directed from a screenplay by" to be better because it doesn't make it out as if directing and writing are completely separate things, especially when the article clearly doesn't support that. I also find the new version of the second paragraph to be strange, removing important bits for comprehension, moving elements around unnecessarily, etc. We need to focus on what is best for readers—"mentioned" may be technically correct, but it reads as something different to "first mentioned", and "officially announced" is needed since we already talk about other versions of the film being announced earlier.

As for FICTENSE, it tells us to discuss a film's plot in the present tense since it is always taking place whenever someone watches it. But within this plot, there are a couple elements that happen in the past relative to the main story. So you will see in my version of the plot summary we discuss everything in the present time with present tense, but things that happen before then are discussed with past tense. Otherwise you are trying to say that things that happened before other are actually happening in the present, simultaneously. That doesn't make sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

All films are "directed from" screenplays (when screenplays exist, at least), so if there's something special about the writing and directing of Black Panther discussed in the article, the phrase doesn't illuminate it.

Snipes saying he wanted to make the film in the 90s is not "announcing" it. Perhaps you disagree there, but the point is rendered moot by rewriting the sentence in the active voice anyway: "Marvel Studios announced the film in 2015." Adding "official" here adds no information; if Marvel announced it, then readers can assume it was official.

Regarding the plot stuff: I haven't seen this movie. But bear in mind that articles should be accessible to readers unfamiliar with the subject matter. To me, as a reader who hasn't seen the film, the first paragraph suggests it opens with a sequence depicting the origins of the Wakanda nation and the Black Panther character. If that's the case, it should be written in the present tense as per WP:FICTENSE. If these events are instead described later in the film through secondary exposition such as dialogue, relative to events in the present, the past tense might make sense - but the current structure doesn't imply this, so even if the past tense is "correct", it creates strange reading, and something needs to be fixed. Popcornduff (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I never said this film is unique. I would recommend the "directed from" wording for all film articles. I am referring to the otehr instance in the lead where it already says that the film was announced. And the opening sequence is indeed a recap of the origins of Wakanda, which is clearly the telling of past events before the actual film begins. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Then from the sounds of it the present tense is correct and WP:FICTENSE applies. Just because it's a prologue doesn't mean it should use the past tense.

The two mentions of the film being announced were removed in my edit, because it's confusing without further explanation. Additionally, as both announcements came from Marvel, they're presumably both "official"... so using the word only for the second mention is not only redundant but confusing. Popcornduff (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll throw in my two cents as far as post- and mid-credit scenes is concerned. @Popcornduff: please check previous 17 MCU films. This is a 'thing' and, even if only for continuity's sake, should continue to be mentioned as such.SassyCollins (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I question the logic of continuing to do something simply because we've done it 17 times before rather than it being a good thing in itself. Whether events take place before, during or after credits sequences is completely irrelevant to plot, the thing we're supposed to be summarising. Anyway, that's not the bit we're arguing over here, and it's not currently part of the article. Popcornduff (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Chiming in here. I'm the one who performed the full rewrite, fixing things such as Erik's role in the plot, mentioning the burning of the herbs, Klaue and Erik's relationship prior to Erik killing him, etc. If there are specific issues that some of you feel need fixing, please let me know and I can patch them in. However, fully reverting a rewrite that I spent a good deal of time on is incredibly disrespectful, especially when the old version has many long-standing issues. Buh6173 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Buh6173, you have done the same thing to other users that you are complaining about. Unfortunately, not everyone is going to get the summary that they want. Popcornduff, FICTENSE says the summary should be relative to the characters rather than the audience. From the perspective of T'Challa and the majority of the film, the prologue and flashbacks to the 90s are past events. That is why they should be told in past tense. If we make out like they are happening within the same perpetual present as the rest of the film then the readers are just going to get confused. Even plot summaries need to logically explain the passage of time. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've read through FICTENSE, and it says nothing of the sort. All it mentions is that all actions should be treated as the present when describing the article. Within the context of the movie, the "present" is 1992 when we see everything up to Zuri revealed himself, and then later on the "present" is Zuri's explanation of past events. If we just dropped an explanation of past events later on, that wouldn't make any sense, but through the context of Zuri's explanation, it makes sense. Furthermore, you appear to be the only one in favor of full reversions. If you want to clump all of the 1992 bits into one paragraph, you can discuss that, but don't undo all of the other changes made at the same time. Discuss issues you have on a case-by-case basis rather than slamming that "Undo" button. Buh6173 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Works of fiction are generally considered to "come alive" for their audience. They therefore exist in a kind of perpetual present, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to the reader's "now". Regardless of when things happen to the reader, the prologue and 90s stuff a very clearly flashbacks as presented in the film.

I would also suggest you have a read of WP:STATUSQUO, it is considered good manners to maintain the pre-disagreement version of the argument while a discussion is taking place rather than everyone insisting on keeping their version and continuing the edit war instead of talking. I strongly recommend that you self-revert your latest change to the plot summary and leave it be until consensus can be reached.

If the final consensus is not to interpret FICTENSE as I have been doing it, I would still be very much against using the version of the summary proposed by Buh6173. A simple reworking of the version that myself and Popcornduff have been working from is all that is needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

From what I could tell, @Popcornduff: has generally been making tweaks to my rewrite rather than reverting to the older version. Also, while the 90's stuff is presented in flashback, it is presented in two flashbacks with very different information imparted in each, hence why splitting it into two halves is crucial. It would only make sense to lump it all together in the article if it all happened at once within the film. As FICTENSE says, since the film exists in a perpetual present, events must always be described in the order they're described in the movie, and in the movie, the flashback is cut in two. Also, from where I'm standing, WP:STATUSQUO would apply in my favor, as my edits did not come from a disagreement, but rather cleaning up the article for improved editability, and recklessly hitting "undo" would be better described as the point of disagreement. Ergo, the pre-disagreemnet state would be after I made my edit, prior to everything being undone.Buh6173 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagreed with the bold change you made to the edit summary. That is when the dispute began, which is why the status quo is before that happened. And no, we don't present scenes only in the order they are in film. That's not how plot summaries are written. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I prefer the version by Popcorn and Adam. Also per WP:FILMPLOT: “Lastly, events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen”.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"And no, we don't present scenes only in the order they are in film. That's not how plot summaries are written." That's kind of exactly how plot summaries are written. Events happen in '92, then events happen in the present day, then Zuri explains more events from '92. Simple as that. Also @TriiipleThreat:, just so you know, from what I can tell @Popcornduff: was working off of my revision, so there is no version by "Popcorn and Adam", there's the version by me and Popcorn and then there's the old version Adam keeps reverting to. Now then, at the risk of yet another full-undo occurring, are there any other issues you have with the current version outside of how the flashback is structured within the summary? Buh6173 (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't been following this discussion very long so I am not exactly sure who the authors are but between this and the current version, I prefer the previous version. That's not to say that either is perfect. Also we appreciate your time and effort but this a collaborative process on a recently released film so I am sure by time the dust settles the plot will look totally different.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that consensus is starting to form in the direction of restoring to the version of the plot seen here, but potentially altering the tense in the first two paragraphs. Further changes would obviously happen from there, but with this as a base. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It looks like TriiipleThreat has gone ahead and made some tweaks to the existing version, and the current version on the page looks perfectly fine. If there are any other changes you'd like to recommend, please make them, but don't wantonly reverse all edits. Buh6173 (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Still think we need to rewrite the first part in the present tense as per WP:FICTENSE. Does anyone other than Adamstom oppose this? Popcornduff (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Just because I made some changes doesn’t mean that the current version is perfectly fine. I still think we go back to the previous version as a base and go from there.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, can you express what issues you had with that version? Because so far all I'm hearing is "I like that version more", and unless you can give concrete changes you'd like, that doesn't really help. Also I wouldn't be against rewriting the first part in present tense; that was past tense in both versions and I'm not against fixing that if you feel strongly about that. Buh6173 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

My main concern is that there was a lot of overwriting; wordiness, unnecessary details, etc. The previous version just had less of that. I have since to tried to meld the best of both versions, though I am sure I can still find some areas where it could be cut back further.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, if there are any specifics, please feel free to point them out. But the older version failed to mention that Klaue was working with Erik prior to Erik's betrayal (which is important), how T'Challa deduced Erik's connection to him (also important), and so on. Buh6173 (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything largely wrong with the plot as it is when I'm writing this comment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's just the little things, as both versions are largely similar. I agree with Triiiple that there is just some general overwriting that wasn't present before, which makes the summary feel sub-par compared to our usual standard. I think restoring the plot to what it was before, changing the tense in the first two paragraphs, and then a few minor tweaks for where points may have been missed would be a good compromise and easy enough to do. That way we could move on from this discussion and focus on actually editing the page. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Enough edits have been made to the existing version that undoing all of them would undo a lot of work. Best to just leave it as is and clean it in individual spots if you feel it's warranted. As for overwriting, once again, feel free to point out any specific instances where this can be fixed, as being vague helps no one. Buh6173 (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we have gone for more than long enough without any movement in this thread, so I am going to be bold and follow the clear leaning of this discussion, despite Buh6173's determined fighting, and restore the plot with the tense changes suggested by Popcornduff. I'll also try to catch any good changes made recently to the current plot summary, so hopefully we will get the best of both. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Actually I think we are in a really good place now. Could you perhaps draft your change first so we can compare.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've made the change now for all to see. Feel free to revert my change if you still want to discuss. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That was what I was afraid of. This version was 698 words, a number of editors have since worked it down to 611. I don’t mind rearranging the structure as long as we can keep the count down.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The limit is 700. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That doesn’t mean it needs to be 700 words. The spirit of the guideline is not to make it anymore verbose than it needs to be.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Still, being longer doesn't seem like a major issue given it is better written. And as we have always said, this isn't going to be the final version of the plot, just a better base to build from than the one championed by Buh6173. Also, if we were to decided to keep the current version rather than the one that I changed it to, I would be giving it a thorough c/e to bring it up to our expected quality level which would likely make it similar to this other version anyway. Why not just go with the one that we can all see is better, and work on getting the size down a bit from there? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

How about you userify it first so we don’t disrupt the article. I’d be willing to help out. Then we’d have something better to compare by before making a decision.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't really want to keep making a big deal out of this. If others are happy with the plot I wrote here then I would support reverting to that. If not, then I suggest we end this discussion and just work on the plot normally. I haven't been touching it due to this discussion, but if it ends then I will go ahead and give the live version a c/e as I would usually do. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

2016

@Tophet: I assume you meant to write "the year is NOT explicitly stated, but it is inferred" in your last edit summary. If its not explicitly stated then we should not claim that it is set in 2016 without additional references as it would go beyond WP:CALC. That too is also based on the assumption that Civil War is set in 2016 just because it was released that year. And if so, what if took place in December? Then Black Panther might be set in 2017. See where I'm going? Without it being explicitly stated, we cant assume anything. Present day, is general enough for our purposes. It need not mean this year.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the main plot of Spider-Man: Homecoming is set in late 2017 (like Sep-Nov for the homecoming dance time/start of the school year), which is 6 months after Civil War, so that film is in early 2017 (presumably). Which would then make "Present" for this film early 2017 as well. But all of this is mute, because like Triiiple said, we'd need a source explicitly stating this info. "Present" is fine, and alternatively, "A week after the events of Civil War" because that is stated in the film by the news reporter (but that is too minute info to state). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The timeline of the MCU films was completely screwed up by Homecoming. The "universe" was messed up by the film-TV-streaming inconsistencies years earlier, but Homecoming very explicitly contradicted the whole chronology established in the previous films. Not sure how to address this, and the closest I have to a reliable secondary source for this is this, but FWIW I really don't think it's worth Misplaced Pages fretting over internal chronology; unless it's absolutely necessary, we should just avoid all mention of it. Same basic principle as Talk:Thor: Ragnarok#"Battle of Sokovia"? -- it doesn't make sense, but it's minor enough that we can just leave it out entirely -- and also minor enough that casual fans who are reading our articles are as likely to blame us for "our" error, especially when we don't cite secondary sources as this article's plot summary currently doesn't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

editor is not claudia castello its debbie berman 174.227.133.184 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: Here is a source that calls Berman an editor. And I know that IMDb is not a reliable source, but it lists Berman and Shawver as the editors, and Castello as an "additional editor." Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Per the billing block of the poster and the press kit for the film, editors are Shawver and Berman. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

External links

Favre1fan93 is violating MOS:FILM#External links in removing Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo links even though the guideline says for both, "Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Misplaced Pages article cannot accommodate. For example, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can provide listings of more reviews than sampled in the article body. They can be included as external links instead of links to individual reviews. Other useful external links include the Internet Movie Database, which provides community interaction, and Box Office Mojo, which provides box office statistics that may be too indiscriminate for the article." This is especially relevant in an article that has over 200 references. We should not expect a reader to sift through that to find these unique resources that provide more information (full list of reviews, box office data) than a Misplaced Pages article can provide. This is what the guideline is for. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

VerifiedCactus had noticed this was missing and had re-added it here. Erik (talk | contrib) 21:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Date Edit in "Critical Response" section.

1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: "As of February 18, 2017, ..." Believe this should be 2018 instead of 2017. Katmcg (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)katmcg

 Done Thank you.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Porg010 (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WikiVirusC 20:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference MarvelProductionBegins was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference BBFC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference VarietyCoverStory was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. "Black Panther (2018)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved February 24, 2018.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to edit becaude you made mistakes in paragraph 3 31.185.240.146 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sock (tock talk) 18:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Critical reception

Does the bit about "RelishMix" really belong in the "Critical reception" section? I don't find it to be helpful with regards to the reception it received. Maybe it could be included in a separate section called "public reaction" or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Optimistic Owl (talk • contribs) 09:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That is audience engagement/reception similar to comScore reaction. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Black representation / analysis / critical views

The section is very long and could really use some copy-editing for brevity. Perhaps paraphrasing some the quotes and/or condensing some of the sources that seem be making the same point would work.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, though I have been just ignoring it for now and planning to do a c/e with hindsight later (as tends to happen with the box office info). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Adam too. I think once all info has been added there for the most part, it will be easier to look in hindsight to c/e and combine some things. The intention is of course not to keep it as it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, what should this heading be titled, and what level? Depending on what it is titled (such as what it is now "Black representation and analysis") I think it should be level 3 under reception. But if that wording changes, maybe it should be a level 2 heading, but I do feel most of what is in there now is reception/reaction to the film, so I can see it as being under the current level 2 "Reception" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I am happy for it to stay as "Black representation and analysis" under the Reception section. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for external help to make an edit to the cast section

In the cast section the females in the movie are described in reference to T'Challa or other men (mostly T'Challa). I suggest describing their merits and positions first rather than how they're related to the men in the movie. Fleshyfilangees (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

T'Challa is the protagonist. Every character should relate to him in some way. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

How characters relate to each is extremely relevant and it’s not just the women; Killmonger is discribed as wanting to overthrow T’Challa, W’Kabi is discribed as T’Challa best friend, Klaue is discribed as being allied with Killmonger, and N’Jobu is discribed as T’Chaka’s brother and Killmonger‘s father.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

should Sterling K. Brown be in Billing?

Similar to Anthony Mackie in Ant-Man, I feel Sterling K. Brown, although uncredited, plays an important part in the film and should maybe be included in the infobox/lede? I’m typically a poster billing block purist but thought it was worth a discussion here... TropicAces (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We should stay away from POV based decisions on inclusion/exclusion and try to remain neutral.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat I’m fine with and agree with that, but out of curiosity what makes the Ant-Man page an exception to the rule? TropicAces (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Is it? I hadn’t noticed.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It appears they decided to go with the screen credits on that film, which I’m fine with since it’s a neutral decision. Is this the same case here?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall the billing block part of the credits, but he appears between Winston Duke and Angela Bassett in the crawl. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a topic I’ve found myself curious in, in regards to the extent of who gets infobox billing. I remember starting a similar debate in regards to The Martian and Donald Glover, in which he was credited prominently in the trailer but was not included in the poster billing block. Unless they achieved a consensus to include him or someone at some point readded him without discussion, it seems Glover was included at the bottom of the infobox billing block. Perhaps this could be the same case for Brown, and retroactively Mackie? Rusted AutoParts 16:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

the role was secretive and they kept him off billing blocks for a reason (full context here: http://www.thisisinsider.com/sterling-k-brown-black-panther-role-was-secret-2018-2) but I think now that the film is out and it’s clear he plays an important part in the plot (and he’s a prominent name) it’s worth discussing adding him, a la Mackie and Glover. Or not. I’m fine either way haha... TropicAces (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

I would like to add that, if comparing to Mackie in Ant-Man, Brown was known to be in the film pretty much from the start of filming along with the character name. Granted, we didn't know who the character was, but it was known that he was involved with the film. Versus Mackie, who was not known to be in the film until right up to the release of the film. To that regard, Marvel could have put Brown in the billing for the trailers/posters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite the same as the Mackie situation—there, we didn't know he was in the film, so it made sense for Marvel to not mention him previously. But I agree with Favre in that we have known that Brown was in this film for a long time, so if Marvel considered him to be worthy of billing they likely would have already. They have given people billing without revealing their role before, like Benjamin Bratt in Doctor Strange (we didn't really know what he was doing in the film until it came out, but knew that he had received billing long before that). While N'Jobu is a significant character in the film, his screentime is similar to that of other characters who do not have billing like T'Chaka. In the end, not everyone can get billing even if they have an important role in the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

this movie is literally fucked up lion king xdxd Ah108046 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The talk page for discussing improvements to the article, not for random opinions. WikiVirusC 14:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Critical Reception--Blocking of Reviews

Rotten Tomatoes has been cited here as a consensus of positive reviews...However the site and many others blocked ALL negative reviews of the film for months and only lifted the ban recently. Without mentioning the banning and blocking of negative reviews by said sites and papers, the mention of the high critical praise is disingenuous and misleading. Black Panther has universally high praise, but low praise was not allowed by many sites and sources, making a situation where it could only have universally high praise.

For reasons of transparency and fairness, I do believe that the blocking and banning of negative reviews of the film should be mentioned in under the critical reception section. For a long time the film had a 100% fresh rating in Rotten Tomatoes...and when all the poor reviews are blocked that is the ONLY result that could happen. Furthermore, in order to get their reviews read through said sites, critics were forced to praise the film or have their reviews blocked.

To state the high praise of the film, without pointing out that ONLY high praise was allowed, is fairly misleading and endorses censorship....

....furthermore, the deletion of my posts requesting this is ALSO censorship. 2601:240:10C:E0D5:F4F6:DC8A:7F4D:6039 (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source verifying that RT intentionally held off the publishing of negative reviews?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your posts weren't deleted, they were archived at Talk:Black_Panther_(film)/Archive_1#Should_Article_Have_Negative_Review_Comments_From_Rotten_Tomatoes.. The community has heard your views and rejects them. It does not appear at all that Rotten Tomatoes censored professional critics who know what they're talking about, but rather that they simply chose to ignore alt-right neckbeard trolls who were upset that anyone besides a white guy gets a turn at being the hero (without bothering to see the movie, which would be kinda hard through their pointed hoods anyway). Your failure to incorporate that information that into your narrative is your problem, not ours. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

No, that is factually incorrect, they are NOW allowing negative reviews, which is why BP has fallen from 100% prior to that fall they disallowed said reviews. You are looking at it from a political right v left view, which would only really apply to American reviews. If that were the case they would not have blocked the negative reviews from outside the US for as long as they did. AND, they wouldn't have objected to the first negative review, from Ireland, criticizing the film for a lack of action, as being politically motivated. The fact is, you are turning it into a political left-right issue when it's an honesty and censorship issue. 2601:240:10C:E0D5:F4F6:DC8A:7F4D:6039 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You keep making all these claims, and yet you present no sources. Also, alt-right isn't simply right-wing, they're Nazis who pretend they're not Nazis whenever it's convenient, so I'm not making this left vs right. It is a fact that alt-right trolls were and are trying to lower Black Panther's score on Rotten Tomatoes (as they did with Last Jedi). For you to continue to deny that would either require that:

A) You choose, out of willful ignorance, to support a campaign by alt-right trolls.

B) You ARE an alt-right troll.

One of the many reasons those alt-right shits are so disgusting is that they'll pretend to be in group A whenever they might face any trouble for being in group B, because the tiny shriveled specks they call testicles and the feeble string of nerves they call a spine are not enough to get them to honestly stand up for the evil stupidity they fight for.

Now, are you supporting alt-right trolls, or are you an alt-right troll? Which is it? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

1 billion dollars

Black panther has made 1 billion dollars world wide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3AF5:3C30:F5F1:DA3F:227D:2EF4 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That might be worth including, if there's a source for it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

--Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Cool. No objections from me. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That is worth including, but IMO the article is painfully overdetailed in the "box office" section (this is in no way unique among similar articles), and I hope as time goes by, it will be more summary style, more like "This film made a shitload of money rather quickly." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations page?

Black Panther nabbed 14 nominations at the Saturn Awards. Shall we go ahead and create one, or wait until later? MsScorpioMoon (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Later, 14 noms from one group, hardly justifies its own page.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Should the reference to Hanuman and its censorship in the Indian release be mentioned?

https://www.dailyo.in/lite/arts/cbfc-black-panther-hanuman-hinduism-superheroes/story/1/22487.html
http://comicbook.com/marvel/amp/2018/02/21/black-panther-censored-in-india/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/12/what-india-can-learn-from-black-panther/
http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/hollywood/black-panther-hanuman-muted-not-cbfc-5075192/lite/
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-religion-of-black-panthers-jabari-tribe-raises-ques-1823354320/amp
https://duta.in/news/2018/Feb/19/hindu-god-hanuman-mentioned-in-black-panther-1.html

Finally got around to seeing the film last night and the odd conflation of Africans with Hindus struck me about as much as all that was good about the movie. I wish I could say I was surprised that our article didn't already discuss it, but honestly I'm not. Has it been discussed?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have seen it mentioned elsewhere on the internet, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't been brought up here. From what I can tell, all that really needs to be noted, if anything, is probably a line in the release section noting the censorship and reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

See, I think that kinda misses the point. Making it about "those wacky Indians" and their prioritizing sensibilities about a word over "free speech" dismisses the problem that the film itself (appears to?) ignorantly conflate the cultures of India, Sri Lanka and Bali with that of its own fictional west/central/east African country. In an article on censorship in India, that might make sense, but this article is supposed to be about the film, its content, and how said content is received. Unlike, say, a random episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. where the most noteworthy real-world aspect about the topic is that it conflated Oslo and Dublin or implied that its producers thought Japan had a nuclear arsenal, this isn't quite the single most noteworthy thing about the whole topic, but it is at least as noteworthy as the "thumbs up or down" opinion of any of the random Anglophone critics quoted in the reception section. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't say anything about "those wacky Indians". I just said that, from an objective perspective, this doesn't seem to be a big deal. If we had sources saying this caused wide-spread outrage, or if the filmmakers responded to these in some way, then that may justify having more on the subject. But as it stands, there is an admittedly odd line in the film which has been censored in one country. This probably just on the right side of trivia to be included. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You referred to the problem as "censorship" by the Indian government; this rings very heavily of how some western media dismiss the concerns of other cultures whose symbols they have appropriated -- those wacky Indians. I didn't say you had specifically talked about the issue in that light, just that the way you seem to want to write it into the article would read that way to me, and probably most other people familiar with the problem. And again, the opinions of any random cultural critic in India are just as noteworthy as the opinions of any random film critic who gave it a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down", so all we need is a single RS talking about how weird it is that Wakanda apparently has an ancient tribe of Hindus despite being ... somewhere in Africa (this film contradicts previous references like the director's commentary on Iron Man 2 and possibly Age of Ultron). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the first I’m hearing of it as well. On another note, there’s been reports of racially insensitive feedback from the Chinese release and white nationalists co-opting the film in support of their views. Although I’m not sure if they are suitable for the article per WP:UNDUE.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I did notice the somewhat uncomfortable message of "Black people using what they have to take over and dominate white people is a bad thing"; I doubt that was intentional given the overall theme and plot, but I can definitely imagine anyone from white supremacists to Afrocentrists reading it that way. I definitely think the Chinese stuff would UNDUE pending better sources, as if you click the links (you don't need to read Chinese; I barely do) it's all WP:USERGENERATED: if we go by what internet trolls say, every country in the world is filled with nothing but racist idiots. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the place to spread the words of racist trolls, though we should still be careful to present an unbiased coverage of responses to the film in the reception section, including not filtering everything through a leftist/liberal perspective. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the more important concern is not filtering things through a "leftist/liberal" perspective (which would only make sense in an American concept, and while this is an American film Misplaced Pages is supposed to present a global perspective) than presenting it through a "those wacky racist Chinese" perspective. I don't see any reliable sources saying the Chinese response to this film was particularly negative or that this response was motivated by systemic racism, any more than that Japan has used panty vending machines on every street corner (something one also reads in a lot of "reliable sources"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Misattributed quotation

"redemptive counter-mythology" is Cobb's wording, not Gathara's, and Gathara quotes Cobb in order to disagree with him. In other words, when he places those words in quotation marks, he's using them ironically, which is something we are not supposed to do. Attributing them to Cobb inline as is would be awkward, as we quote Cobb directly further down; maybe move Cobb up or Gathara down, and say (as an example) that Gathara disagrees with Cobb's notion of the film as providing a "redemptive counter-mythology"...? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Comics articles
• Low-importance Comics articles
• C-Class Comics articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Marvel Comics articles
• Marvel Comics work group articles
• C-Class comic book films articles
• Comic book films task force articles
• WikiProject Comics articles
• C-Class film articles
• C-Class American cinema articles
• American cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• C-Class Africa articles
• Low-importance Africa articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles