That makes sense. Of course my perspective is of a white man from Canada so my opinions do not come from a place of personal knowledge. I do think that the conflict only makes sense if it is created because Erik would not concede without violence. T'Challa only fights him when he cannot get through and doesn't save him because he doesn't want to be saved and will never see any other way but violent global black supremacy. I think that we have to remind ourselves that radical politics are not incredibly promiment outside of radical circles and most people, even those who are black, do not agree with the notion of violent resistence. Being disappointed because the film doesn't depict our personal politics is an interesting method of analysis. It also is out of touch with the rest of society's views. I can see why people bristle at the depiction of black people largely fighting other black people. For me, it was great to see a film where white characters weren't making themselves the center of all the action. I personally am more interested in seeing conflict with as little white influence as possible because we have been overrepresentated in film and been given too many of the flashy showstopper roles. Would've done without Serkis and Freeman if I had my say.
I wouldn’t say a waste... But I do find it qwhite eye rolling that he dies while say... Loki, whose motivations was wanting to rule the earth via alien invasion is allowed to redemption and to come back. But oh well...
Would you have liked Killmonger as much if he was a character that could be redeemed or make negotiations or was his determination and knowing that he was the answer part of what made him a good character?
I think the difference is that this movie isn't treating Erik as someone that needs, or even wants, to be redeemed. He's not a trickster and he doesn't have any remorse because he doesn't believe anything he's done is wrong. He chooses death over compromising his ideals. And even though the film casts him as the antagonist, it doesn't entirely frame his worldview as being "wrong," so much as it just frames his methods as something T'Challa disagrees with. I don't think the comparison is really fair in that way. Loki, on some level, understands what he is doing is "wrong." Giving Erik the chance to "redeem himself" by forsaking everything he stands for would've destroyed everything that made the character so compelling in the first place. That said, like I wrote in my post above, I think keeping him alive for a sequel where he maybe pushes T'Challa in a more radical direction while trying to take down a common hated (Klaue), without compromising his principles, would've been better than just killing him in one film.
I pretty much just chalk that up to different creative teams making different decisions. I do think it was a mistake to make Loki the main villain of the Avengers BECAUSE of their attempts to redeem him, even if I appreciate his presence in Ragnarok enough that I am cool with it. I just don't see any way that the character of Erik as written could find redemption after his violence and thirst for revenge became his sole existence. He didn't see any reason to change. Also, I know very little about Hotep culture but his disregard towards black women in the film reminds me of the male black supremicist movements. Remember that T'Challa had his own mission of revenge for his father in Civil War and ceased only after he saw the huge price Zemo's own quest for revenge. He spared Zemo. He wanted to spare Erik too. There was just no way of getting to someone who was that dedicated to by any means necessary upheaval. His crime wasn't wanting to change the system. It was disregarding the rest of humanity in doing so. It's not like he cared about the pain of the Aboriginal peoples of North America who's people and land was ravaged by colonialism or the Latin people who's low wage migrant population have been both demonized and exploited. He was too caught up in the idea of revenge for colonialism to care about them.
That possibility will probably be answered in Infinity War and Avengers 4 when we see how it’s actually used. Coogler stated yesterday that the Soul Stone isn’t intended to be in Wakanda because the vibranium was already a McGuffin
I'm well aware. I wouldn't say I'm disappointed, cause I'm not really surprised. It would be naive of me and others to think a Disney backed MCU film wouldn't have a capitalist approved message no matter the cast, directors or writers. I think the movie is great from start to end and definitely something I could see over and over again. But while we are celebrating diversity and long overdue black representation in entertainment and its ability to smash all expectations and refute traditional Hollywood dogma on what sells, I think it's just as important to understand the limitations of this success. That is where my criticism is. That is my point of analysis.
I appreciate your point of analysis and agree with some of your points. It is really good to have these talks and have someone like you to passionately articulate you views. I'm just happy that this film exists and contains themes that can spur such in-depth conversations.
I like Killmonger for the same reasons I like Magneto. No need for me to like him more. But i'm not really talking about liking the character. I think the MCU has no place for a mind like Killmonger, thus his death. This is an unfortunate and accurate reflection on society that he plays the villain, as individuals like him also received death.