Who’s back and who’s new in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever
Meet the new characters and reacquaint yourself with old favorites making their return in the new Black Panther sequel
Film News Wakanda
Image: Black Panther: Wakanda Forever. © 2022 MARVEL
In case you’ve been living in a secret underwater realm for the last two years, you already know who won’t be back in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever. The tragic loss of Chadwick Boseman was devastating for his fans, just as the loss of T’Challa must be for the people of Wakanda. But what of the characters left behind when the show must go on? Who will be returning to the screen to mourn the fallen king? And who will be adding their voices to the ever-growing MCU? Here’s a look at the latest players in this ongoing Shakespearean tragedy disguised as a superhero franchise.
18 Comments
No mention of Daniel Kaluuya (W’Kabi)
I guess he doesn’t fit into either category, since he’s not among “Who’s back” or “Who’s new”
Yeah, there should be a Who’s Not Back section
Danial Kaluuya as Sir Not Appearing in this Film
Honestly though… I’d expect his character to have nothing to really contribute considering how he turned on T’Challa for personal vengeance. Particularly when you consider that Killmonger only had Klaue because he stole him from T’Challa’s custody. W’Kabi’s heel turn was really, really forced (considering he was supposed to be T’Challa’s long-time friend) and I’d honestly expect him to have a villain-turn, maybe even taking a role similar to comic M’Baku since movie M’Baku is best rival/friend status.
At best, I’d expect him to have a “Yes, you’re still sleeping on the couch after all these years beloved” scene with Okoye.
He was filming Nope at the time and couldn’t do both, IIRC.
I used to be a fan of superhero movies until Marvel cornered the market with its Avengers franchise and set the gold standard at three hours of noise. I didn’t find Black Panther to be an exception. The most glaring elephant in the room was the notion that a utopian nation is ruled by an absolute monarchy challenged only by battle. It’s impossible to believe that in a nation where physical prowess determines one’s ability to lead, there has never been a corrupt ruler. Sure, we can suspend disbelief that in Wakanda’s history, every leader has been both compassionate and tough: this is a universe in which magic exists, after all. But even Coming to America 2 addressed some of the problematic monarchal rites by allowing Akeem’s daughter to ascend to queen after his death. It wasn’t quite a democracy, but it was a step towards a more progressive Zamunda. But worse, Black Panther’s exoticised Afrocentrism is the sort of shallow Blacksploitation the movie’s namesake would have loathed. It reeks of a Lion King-esque false narrative, one of an Africa that could have been, while ignoring the realities of the last 500 years. It’s escapism from a problem that doesn’t deserve escape. Kitschy as superhero movies may be, Black audiences deserved representation in Marvel’s universe, but Black Panther trades Marvel’s former tokenism for a fictitious realm that ignores the past and current injustices that made the film necessary in the first place. In a void of Black representation, it’s understandable why audiences were so drawn to this film, why it was deemed so important. But it deserved to be an outlier. The way Joker subverted the superhero genre by crafting an allegory for mental health, Black Panther could have done more to serve up themes on race and racism. But in Black Panther, Marvel ignores racism by concocting a fantastic Africa unbroken by colonialism and slavery. The “Black Marvel movie” has nothing to say about Blackness or race. In Marvel’s universe, Wakanda is just another benevolent monarchy, like Luxembourg or Monaco.
I don’t think anyone’s actually gonna ur read long winded comment about how you don’t like something. Your opinion is a dime a dozen. Go elsewhere.
Oh gosh. The most glaring elephant in the room was the notion that a utopian nation is ruled by an absolute monarchy challenged only by battle. It’s impossible to believe that in a nation where physical prowess determines one’s ability to lead, there has never been a corrupt ruler.This is literally the plot of the movie, and a not insubstantial part of the backstory. The film also makes it clear that in most cases the combat is ritualized or waived, and exists mostly as a cultural artifact. Sure, we can suspend disbelief that in Wakanda’s history, every leader has been both compassionate and tough:His dad creates all the problems in the film by not being compassionate. T’Challa’s personal journey is coming to understand the validity of other people’s problems. It reeks of a Lion King-esque false narrative, one of an Africa that could have beenThe Lion King is a fantasy version of Hamlet about talking animals. Wakanda is a utopianist vision of Africa because it’s Afrofuturism, a genre of science fiction the depicts an idealized future as an aspirational goal. Attacking it because it doesn’t exist is on par with crossing your arms and pouting “stupid Star Trek, we don’t have transporters in real life.” while ignoring the realities of the last 500 years.The colonial dismantling of African autonomy is addressed frequently throughout the film and represents the villain’s primary motivation. Western characters repeatedly mischaracterize or compare Wakanda to their stereotype of an impoverished African nation. Substantial time is devoted to the unfair living conditions of post-diasporic Africans. The way Joker subverted the superhero genre by crafting an allegory for mental health, Black Panther could have done more to serve up themes on race and racism. I would argue Joker was just 2 hours of Todd Phillips pretending to be Martin Scorsese. His mental illness, while key to the character, felt like a very Hollywood kind of condition that creates all the problems giving rise to the events of the film, while otherwise allowing the character to go about his business. His fake relationship with the neighbor lady was cool though. In Marvel’s universe, Wakanda is just another benevolent monarchy, like Luxembourg or Monaco. In 1380, the kingdom of Luxembourg raised the French city of Villes-en-Fries, and spit every child on birch trees, still living. It’s said that when the king arrived to find this grisly sight, he vomited for a full hour, then ordered the entire forest burned so that none would remember the horrors of…That didn’t happen. But Wakanda is definitely not just another benevolent monarchy. It’s a country of vibrant success, but that success is the result of isolation, technology, and militaristic force. In many ways, Wakanda’s removal from the world has hurt both its own people and people elsewhere. At the same time, the absolute power of its monarch leads to murder and revenge that never needed to happen. The main conflict of the film is between the peaceful indifference T’Challa grew up in, and the pointless violent turmoil Killmonger grew up in, with each side having a lot of valid points that, sadly, Killmonger’s radicalism doesn’t allow them to resolve.
Thanks for your detailed reply. You clearly know more about cinema than I do, and I really appreciate your insight. I may have to give it another shot before seeing or deciding to see the sequel.Although I’m not sure I can be swayed on a utopian monarchy, even if combat is waived. I’m sure Marvel didn’t want to stray too far from the source material, but having Wakanda ruled by a monarchy seems counter to what purportedly makes this such an important outlier in the Marvel universe, especially considering absolute monarchies and dictatorships (directly and indirectly put into power by Colonial and Western interests) are responsible for so much of the harm in that part of the world.As a thought experiment, if we were to remove the fantastic elements from Black Panther, and Wakanda was a real monarchy fueled by natural resources, I suppose a more apt comparison than Luxembourg or Monaco would be a benevolent Saudi Arabia, one independent of outside military support. I wonder then, contextually, what would be Wakanda’s motivation to politically deviate from neighboring African or Middle Eastern dictatorships? Is its long-running benevolence a reaction to neighboring corruption, or is neighboring corruption a reaction by corrupt leaders trying to be as powerful as Wakanda? And I can’t remember if Black Panther mentions anything about democracy, but is its steadfast adherence to a monarchy a suggestion that democracy is flawed?I’m genuinely curious. I’ve seen a lot of movies I don’t like, but most are too shallow to stir up a dialogue. But just because I don’t like something doesn’t mean I don’t find it interesting and worthy of conversation. I’d rather have a smart conversation with someone I don’t entirely agree with than a stupid one with someone I do. And again, I really appreciate your thoughtful feedback. That’s the whole reason I posted my comment.
“I would argue Joker was just 2 hours of Todd Phillips pretending to be Martin Scorsese. His mental illness, while key to the character, felt like a very Hollywood kind of condition that creates all the problems giving rise to the events of the film, while otherwise allowing the character to go about his business. His fake relationship with the neighbor lady was cool though.”Sorry, one more thought since you brought it up: I used Joker as an example because it’s a standalone outlier in the DC universe, and that it attempted to say something allegorical which, as you pointed out, it failed to do in Hollywood fashion. I thought his fake relationship with his neighbor was clever, but it fell apart for me when they staged all the flashbacks pointing out that the relationship never existed. For a movie trying so hard to be smart, it should have left that up to the audience to discern. By the time the flashbacks were staged it was already pretty obvious. In the end I found it a forgettable retelling of Taxi Driver for the superhero generation.
Why do you watch these films when you’ve obviously made up your mind ahead of time that you’re going to hate them.It sounds like an exhausting way to live.
Definitely not T’Challa because he dead.
Here’s a bitter pill: Wakanda is a name two white dudes in the 60’s came up with because they thought it sounded African. LOL
How’s Dr. Oz’s dick taste, you big fucking loser?
I just got back from seeing it, and thought it was generally fine, if overly long by about an hour.Just looking to discuss the thing that stood out to me the most.*
MAJOR MASSIVE SPOILERS TO FOLLOWSERIOUSLY, LOOK AWAY NOWWhen Namor described himself as a mutant, I literally did a double-take. It’s such a loaded term in the Marvel universe, and as I recall, they legally couldn’t say it in the MCU prior to the Fox buyout. Got home and looked up the character and yep…he’s a mutant.I know they already dropped ‘mutation’ at the end of Ms. Marvel, but it was so casual and throwaway here. Maybe I’m just getting impatient, because they’ve now been teasing the X-Men just long enough (and it’s been a couple years since the buyout) that I just wish they’d tell us what the hell is going on already.*Yes, this stood out to me more than anything else in the film. I’ve found the post-Endgame films to be generally okay, but not very memorable. And what tends to get my attention the most are the easter eggs of bigger things to come. The Illuminati was easily the most exciting scene for me in Dr. Strange.
I didn’t read this comment but fuck off Mr. can’t-wait-one-day.
This film, like the first film, is important for its representation of Black Superheroes. But, like the first film, it is massively overrated. Both films are fine, but the first one had no business being nominated for Best Picture and this new one is just another Marvel movie and in no way any better or worse than anything in the phase 4 universe.