The Black Panther of comics, real identity T’Challa, king of Wakanda, debuted in 1966 and was interesting and popular enough to make a few more guest appearances before getting his own feature work in “Jungle Action.” Earlier issues of Jungle Action starred such notable comic standouts as “Lorna, Queen of the Jungle” and “Tharn, the Magnificent.” Jungle Action became T’Challa’s own after his debut issue there, however, and that was his home for a while. It wasn’t until 1977 that he got his own titled comic. The introduction in Fantastic Four, the Jungle Action comics and first-run Black Panther-named comics are old and fairly rare and will fetch a premium. Black Panther is a worthy figure in the comic book pantheon. But his comics are not nearly as highly sought after as his neighbors in that pantheon, and while he was ground-breaking socially, no one is calling these comics great art. He is not as popular as Batman or Superman, nor even as popular as Spider-Man or Iron Man of many of the X-Men. Black Panther was always there, available to be an add-on to a team, or to have a moderately interesting solo-adventure, but he was not the top draw. He was the very definition of B-list.
There is nothing wrong with being B-list. B-list is often synonymous with “niche,” and Black Panther did serve a niche. He helped expand the comic audience and allowed exposure to some semblance of another culture to those who took the time to read it. While the initial work of Jack Kirby and Stan Lee was not particularly accurate, nor flattering, over time the portrayals have become more nuanced and more consistently accurate—as much as comic books can ever be.
Marvel Studios has been making movies about some of their biggest stars for a quite a while now. The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) has been forced to delve into some of their backlog a little due to licensing agreements set up with other studios. Sony has Spider-Man. Fox has (or, had, I guess) X-Men and the Fantastic Four. So MCU lead with their next best properties: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Captain America. But after a few movies each, we need a new hero. First they delved to grab the Guardians of the Galaxy. This team was a much more recent creation and had no particular strong cache with most audiences. But the movie was a smashing success. Marvel knew it could use some of their less familiar, more niche character and make a movie that could work. That opened the door for Black Panther, and likely many more to come.
What made Guardians of the Galaxy work? Why was it able to become a surprisingly successful movie in spite of the mediocre source materials? On the DC side, was there something similar to what happened when Wonder Woman outshone both her own source material and every other recent DC comics movie? Are these related, and can they help us to understand why Black Panther, a B-list comic character, just smashed so many box office records to take the 5th best opening ever?
The answer lies in first understanding that the source material doesn’t matter very much, past the top-billed characters. Batman movies will always be big because Batman is big. There is a cultural store there that almost cannot be depleted, no matter how awful the movie may be. Comic book characters are largely built on tropes and Jungian types. They are very malleable to whatever story desires we might have at the time of creation. One of the reasons why Guardians of the Galaxy succeeded so well, some complained, was that it did a phenomenal job of just being “The Avengers” part two, with new characters. The storyline was similar, and the roles each character played in the Jungian-type charts matched fairly well. But this is a lot like complaining that a D&D campaign has a warrior, a rogue, a cleric and a mage as its primary members. The Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy each succeeded by being something more than the sum of their parts.
Much attention has been paid to the fact that Wonder Woman was directed by a woman, or that Black Panther was written and directed by a black man. These appeals to minorities in those roles help foster a sense of good will for the movie, we are led to believe. Or their perspective brings something needed for a better film. I think there is a modicum of truth here, but that this is being overblown. Black Panther could have been done just as well by a white director, but doing so would have been tone deaf and not in keeping with the zeitgeist. What bringing a woman in to direct Wonder Woman did do was help to give the movie an outsiders perspective, and that is fantastic for inclusiveness. In order for Wonder Woman to be a hit, it does not need to appeal to comic book geeks. It needs to appeal broadly, without alienating the comic book geeks. Having an outsider at the head of production helps to make sure that the movie will appeal broadly. Having a strong design focus and a solid script that is true to the characters and the type make sure that it does not alienate the geeks. This is why Wonder Woman’s subdued costume in the movie was so widely discussed. It was still completely appropriate to Wonder Woman’s identity, but it avoided being the kind of exploitative nonsense that constantly graces comic book covers.
Black Panther just became a AAA-movie because it didn’t play to its comic book source limitations. Without abandoning what makes him Black Panther and T’Challa, the movie plays with bigger ideas than can normally fit into a comic book, making it a perfect adaptation to a movie. And then it did it in a way that pays proper homage to the home of the character, a way that Kirby and Lee were frankly incapable of doing in the 1960s, no matter their intent. Having experts mattered for that.
The final hurdle for becoming a truly great comic book movie is to have sufficient backing to have the action and CGI sequences needed these days (Marvel’s got you covered) and to have a script that holds it together. That has been the stumbling block for the Marvel movies that have failed for me. Black Panther’s story is not amazing. There are still Marvel-sized plot holes. Yet, in the moment of watching, those are easily ignored, and the beauty of the rest is able to be admired. The plot holds it all together and does not get in the way.
I mentioned that Black Panther is a good movie adaptation of a comic book because it does movie-things rather than staying a comic book. It asks questions, sometimes literally through the mouths of its characters, that resonate with the audience. Movies can tap into a collective unease and let us face our own inner demons by externalizing them to another place or time. Even historically accurate dramas often tell us much more about the time and place they were made than of their setting.
That is the path to turning a B-list source material character into a AAA-block busting movie. Stay true to the character and his Jungian-type. Give it all of the resources it needs to succeed throughout production. Insist on attention to every detail, but none more than that the characters lead the way and that the script stay smart. Fox had their own Marvel smash hit by following that path, even ignoring the ‘give it all the resources it needs’. Really, that is the least important part, but by adding it to Black Panther, Marvel Studios ensured that Black Panther really would be AAA.
This article has 1 Comment