Discuss: Is Marvel Afraid Of Making A 'Black Panther' Movie?

Features
by Oliver Lyttelton
July 17, 2012 3:40 PM
25 Comments
  • |


To be clear, we're not accusing anyone at Marvel of racism, or anything like that. We're sure they're excited to add "Black Panther" to their stable, and there are bound to be advocates there who want to push forward with this film. But right now, they're scared of doing so in fear of putting a box-office ceiling on the film, and in particular, of doing so internationally. Global grosses have been key to the success of their recent films -- 60% of the take from "Thor" came from abroad, and 58% for "The Avengers," and the perception is that, Will Smith aside, international audience don't turn up to see African-American stars.

And to a degree, that could be backed up by statistics. Internationally, if you exclude Will Smith pictures, the only movies in the all-time international top-grossers with a black actor appearing in anything close to a leading role are... Roland Emmerich's "2012," in which Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton and Danny Glover took leads alongside John Cusack; and "The Matrix Reloaded," in which Laurence Fishburne plays second fiddle to Keanu Reeves. In the U.S all-time top 100, you also get "Beverly Hills Cop" and "Rush Hour 2," but each were more than a decade ago (in the case of the former, closer to 30 years ago). And you know what uther movies aren't in the top 100 all-time grossers? "Thor" and "Captain America."

But Marvel is in a position to change things. No one went to see Robert Downey Jr, or Chris Hemsworth, or Chris Evans headline films before they headlined Marvel movies either. And with Will Smith still being the biggest movie star in the world, we simply don't buy that international audiences are somehow racially biased against African-American actors ("Hancock" and "I Am Legend," sold entirely on Smith alone, sit pretty at number 60 and number 73 in the all-time international charts, with "Men In Black 3," which people aren't going to see because of Josh Brolin, at 65 and climbing).

Marvel has now reached the position at which they've successfully created a brand, and we suspect that if they make a Marvel-labelled "Black Panther" movie, people will turn up in large numbers because it's from the people behind "The Avengers." To say that it's tricky to start a film off in a fictional African country, when they've brought "Thor" from Asgard to Budget-Friendly Backlot, New Mexico, and when "Mad Max" sequel "Fury Road" is shooting in Namibia, Africa, because it's cheaper than doing so in Australia, it stinks of cowardice. If the script's not right for the film, say that. But you start to lose goodwill when you make excuses.

Features
  • |

More: Marvel , Comic-Con, Features, Black Panther

You might also like:
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

25 Comments

  • d | April 14, 2014 9:22 AMReply

    "But it's a little more difficult, maybe, creating [a world like Wakanda, the African country of which the character, T'Challa, is the ruler]. It's always easier basing it here. For instance, 'Iron Man 3' is rooted right here in Los Angeles and New York. When you bring in other worlds, you're always faced with those difficulties."

    Nice excuse well not really . This dude gets paid millions of dollars could have come up with a better lie. Lets look at the facts since this studio thinks African American's are retarded Thor takes place in Asgard a high tech off world sanctuary. Your precious Guardians of the universe takes place in space not Los Angeles. Im really starting to get sick of peoples lame excuses . Trees and cgi structures to hard for this studio ? This is exactly why African Americans are increasingly starting to watch anime and support Asian films . Honestly how can you blame drug dealers and gang bangers if the only thing they have to look up to is HANCOCK the drunken ass whole .The first super hero not to get the girl . We know it Marvel your extremely racist. Still doing the whole Wille lynch thing i see . No positive role models .

  • Miranda | April 13, 2014 7:11 PMReply

    I really want to see a black superhero but then again, I'm afraid of it not doing well. But it is 2014 now and it's about time for a black superhero, I think.

  • Xmasevebaby | September 22, 2012 3:33 PMReply

    It is cowardice, pure and uncut. A Black Panther movie would create buzz amongst Black Hollywood that would rival Carmen Jones, Dreamgirls, and The Color Purple.

    Marvel Studios has the juice to bring Denzel, Will Smith, Viola Davis, and other elites to the table to get this movie done. The Hughes Brothers are talent in search of a massive box office hit, ditto Spike Lee (who referenced Black Panther in Do The Right Thing).

    If there is a hesitancy from moviegoers to pay good money to watch a multi-billionaire crime fighter with world class intellect, next generation weaponry, and the unparalleled ass kicking skills, no one bothered to mention that to Warner Bros., Tim Burton, or Christopher Nolan.

  • Mike B. | September 3, 2012 7:05 PMReply

    This was always one of the least popular and successful characters Marvel had. Couple that with modern politics and the New Black Panther party, you have a recipe for disaster. If this gets made, I predict a lot of movie theater problems including violence.

  • Mike | July 17, 2012 11:52 PMReply

    But a Black Panther movie is at scripting stage, no? If they're that worried, maybe they should introduce him in the Avengers 2 & spin him off, Hawkeye essentially wasn't introduced until the Avengers and he worked as an integral part of the team.

  • Tom Cruise | July 17, 2012 11:04 PMReply

    yes.

  • James | July 17, 2012 7:45 PMReply

    I believe Marvel's biggest fear to this film is the title alone, The Black Panther. If that is the case then change it to simply Panther. Unlike Blade, Panther is about a strong African nation and has a following mostly in the black community.
    The problem with trying to put someone like Will Smith in the role is that his casting would infuriate the Black Community. Let me first explain, I am going to guess that none of the comments posted so far are from any person of color. Apologies if I am the first black person here but I have to say that Will Smith is not love by everyone who is of African decent.
    This gives Marvel 2 strikes when you add Will Smith and the title of the movie. The only way around that is it has to have a very strong screenplay that would be love by all people of all race.

  • James | July 17, 2012 7:50 PM

    Forgot, any other person of color in this discussion will have to admit that they have a few other black friends who are not huge Will Smith fans. Heck, even if you are not black just asks your black friends how they fill about Will Smith. I am sure you will get a few negative answers.

  • Andrew | July 17, 2012 5:20 PMReply

    Um, so what about the Blade trilogy? Or that they used the black version of Nick Fury?

  • Daniel | July 17, 2012 5:17 PMReply

    They should just do Luke Cage first. He's a New York hero. Hell, he's an Avenger. They can throw him in the sequel first if they want to lay the groundwork for a spin-off film. Also: if Idris Elba doesn't play Luke Cage, I will be pissed.

  • COMMENTIER | July 17, 2012 5:14 PMReply

    I don't see why they don't cast a black actor to play an established white super hero. The race of the character wouldn't change anything about their backstory, why not just create a black Hank Pym?

  • Goliath | July 17, 2012 9:50 PM

    Bill Foster is the black Hank Pym. Maybe a black Janet.

  • berk | July 17, 2012 4:56 PMReply

    It doesn't have anything to do with setting but the fact that it's a black lead character with a largely black supporting cast (if it were to be set in Wakanda and not, say, in New York while T'Challa was visiting the U.N. or something).

    Marvel's tight purse strings are not suddenly going to open for Will Smith, whose name recognition and star power make executives and audiences see past color.

    Marvel has a track record of playing it conservative when it comes to finances, and investing in a black-led superhero film without somebody like Smith (who wouldn't want their face covered while in costume or lower their asking price when Marvel is sitting on a billion) is not going to happen.

    It took George Lucas 20 years to get Red Tails made and that didn't exactly light up the box office.

    Its too bad, since Black Panther is a great character (a genius scientist/adventurer king ruling over one of the most technologically advanced societies in the world) that could not only be the focus of a smart action/thriller but also be a great addition to the Avengers group dynamic.

  • cinematic_high | July 17, 2012 4:45 PMReply

    Marvel can afford to brag....and be cowards

  • ME | July 17, 2012 4:32 PMReply

    RE: Rebecca, If I am not mistaken I believe that JACQUES DEMOLAY is speaking rather sarcastically in response to the quotes of Marvel Comics reasons behind taking such a risk. Not sure though is is sometimes difficult to read the tone behind the words...

  • son of caine marko | July 17, 2012 6:37 PM

    Let's be honest here and see what is really happening. They don't feel it would do well internationally which means it would not deserve the budget required to create an authentic Wakanda. Comsidering the fact that Wakanda is the most technically advanced nation on the planet.

    Fake nations are created all of the time. If the story is structured properly then suspension of disbelief will apply and it won't be an issue. From what I have read in your comments Jacque De Molay and please correct me if i am wrong, are you saying that a country like Wakanda would not believed because it is set in Africa? Are you implying that Africa would not be believed to be advanced???

  • Jacque De Molay | July 17, 2012 5:23 PM

    I am not being sarcastic, actually. I truly believe that it is more difficult to take a movie that requires the audience to buy into a fake African nation and make it "work" than it is to make something like Asgard "work". I can honestly see where "Asgard" is easier for the average audience to accept because while it's a mythical place, it's a place that has roots in real-world mythology. A lot of people have heard of Asgard outside of the Marvel universe. It's made-up but RECOGNIZABLE.

    With something like Black Panther, it probably is very difficult from a screen-writing perspective to make up an entire fake nation, place it into the real-world setting and make it at least believable enough so that the average audience-goer doesn't go: "Wakanda? Where is that? Oh, it's made up, but it's supposed to be in Africa? That's fucking stupid."

    I'm not saying it CAN'T be done - it's just legitimately more difficult to pull of WELL than it is to pull of something like Asgard or Mars or something that isn't supposed to be on the actual earth WERE WE LIVE.

  • Rebecca | July 17, 2012 4:38 PM

    ME: If that's the case I missed the sarcasm- my mistake.

  • Rebecca | July 17, 2012 4:25 PMReply

    JACQUES DEMOLAY- Your opinion is irrelevant, if the audience is able to suspend disbelief for a spider man, a God, a person who can talk to sea creatures, and all of the many ridiculous super heroes out there, people can accept that there is a fake African nation. All you are doing is choosing the base element of the story to say that it is not possible, disregarding all of the things that the audience has been asked to do for these characters to seem plausible int he first place. Just say you don't want a black panther movie and be done with it- or at least make a legitimate argument.

  • Jacques DeMolay | July 17, 2012 5:35 PM

    Lemme break it down: Public asks Marvel, "WHY NO BLACK PANTHER?". Marvel responds, "Because doing a movie set in a fictional country that is made up but still supposed to exist on Earth in the real world is tricky to pull off." Everyone else seems to be reading into it that what Marvel is actually saying is "Because doing a movie with a Black male lead is too risky." What I'M arguing is that from a screen-writing and movie-making standpoint, a fictional country set within a non-fictional bondary is VERY FUCKING TRICKY to do and do well enough to not have it derail your movie. It's a very legitimate reason for Marvel to be "cowardly". They probably DO feel that a Black Panther movie has a high risk potential to be a box-office bomb, and they're attributing that risk to the peculiar details of the setting. Everyone else is just flat out ignoring what they're saying and making it a racial issue, when I don't see any reason or evidence to support such an argument.

  • Jacques DeMolay | July 17, 2012 3:52 PMReply

    It seems to me that everyone is overlooking (intentionally) the fact that making up a fake planet in outer space is actually far easier on the suspension of disbelief factor than making up a fake country that's supposed to exist right here on Earth. You're being disingenuous when saying things like "Oh really, doing a movie about a talking racoon is easier than doing a movie about a black guy?" when the issue isn't the character itself, but the SETTING. When you set a story in the fanastic realm of outer space, anything goes. But doing a movie that requires you to ask your audience to pretend there is a country in Africa that isn't actually there is absolutely retarded.

  • Jacque De Molay | July 17, 2012 5:28 PM

    @ MAL - that's a damn good point, and one I hadn't considered. All I can offer is that Superman and Batman are both VASTLY more recognizable as brand names and characters to the average person than Black Panther. BP may be a very beloved character by comic book fans, but even people who have zero comic book geek cred know damn well who Superman and Batman are. The recognizability of the characters probably has more to do with their success than the settings. Plus it helps that "Metropolis" and "Gotham" are also clearly recognizable stand-ins for cities we all know.

  • MAL | July 17, 2012 4:55 PM

    What does it say about making up a fake city? The fact that Batman lives in Gotham and Superman lives in Metropolis must be the reason those movies have done so poorly.

  • PapushiSun | July 17, 2012 4:22 PM

    Well given most people's ignorance of Africa, I doubt very many people would even realise Wakanda is a fictional until they decided to google it. Besides, I think Marvel are seriously underestimating people capacity for suspension of disbelief. The setting of the Marvel films is already established with supercorporations, aliens, government organisations and gods that don't exist.

  • Jaques DeMolay | July 17, 2012 3:56 PM

    I'm sorry, I need to clarify - the part I quoted/paraphrased was actually something you guys quoted from somewhere else. The part you guys actually wrote that wrankled me was this: "To say that it's tricky to start a film off in a fictional African country, when they've brought "Thor" from Asgard to Budget-Friendly Backlot, New Mexico, and when "Mad Max" sequel "Fury Road" is shooting in Namibia, Africa, because it's cheaper than doing so in Australia, stinks of cowardice."

Email Updates