T’Challa Character Comparison: Civil War and Black Panther

I just rewatched Captain America:  Civil War for the first time since seeing Black Panther (several times.)  It was good to go back and revisit the introduction we had to T’Challa, along with the tiny hints we got of Wakanda.  I remember how much I flat-out adored T’Challa when I first saw Civil War, and how the film got me even more pumped for Black Panther than I already was.  But watching it again, I was really struck by how, while T’Challa is still pretty great in that movie, I love him so much more in Black Panther (some spoilers for both movies.)

We’ll start out with the fact that trying to kill Bucky in a misinformed attempt to avenge his father – while the ink on the signatures of the Accords is still drying, no less – isn’t particularly in character for the T’Challa we know in Black Panther.  There, the young king shows himself to be bold but also measured; he frequently takes time to ponder his next move, to worry over whether he’s doing the right thing, and even his mission style often takes a more covert approach.  I don’t really fault Civil War T’Challa for that, though.  After all, no one is exactly doing the reasonable thing throughout basically the whole of Civil War – it’d be hard to end up with the superhero-on-superhero battles if the characters weighed their decisions more.  So, it’s a product of the narrative, not to mention tying into the movie’s overall theme of the corrosive effect of vengeance, leading to the great scene of T’Challa’s literal mountaintop epiphany when he confronts Zemo.

However, I do have a couple complaints when it comes to T’Challa and Wakanda’s intros in Civil War, having now seen them as they ought to be in Black Panther.  First, on the matter of Wakanda itself, the pre-Black Panther hints we get of the kingdom are kind of all over the place.  It’s first brought up as an easter egg in Age of Ultron, where Bruce has seemingly never even heard of it and Tony and Cap know about it mainly through the connection of Cap’s Vibranium shield that was made by Tony’s dad.  Meanwhile, Civil War first shows us Wakandans on an outreach mission to Nigeria, and when some of their people are caught in the crossfire of an Avengers operation gone south, T’Challa’s father seems to emerge as one of the key voices behind the Accords.  At no point in that movie does anyone treat T’Challa like they think he’s from a third-world nation (not even unsympathetic characters like Thunderbolt Ross,) and no one questions Wakanda’s major role in pushing the Accords.

This doesn’t really gel with Black Panther, where Wakanda is known for being reclusive but incredibly “poor” (little does the rest of the world know.)  Where Everett Ross is polite-ish but fairly condescending to the Wakandans he meets, until he actually goes there and realizes the astounding advances they’ve been hiding.  I don’t think we can make an argument that Civil War didn’t have time to touch on this idea at all, since they took the time to make Wakanda a bigger player within the Accords than would make sense for the world’s perception of it at the time (given the recent incident in Nigeria, I could see T’Challa and T’Chaka being invited to the signing, but not T’Chaka giving a big speech and certainly not him talking about finally wanting to share Wakanda’s resources.)  I feel like this is the sort of oversight that comes from different perspectives – it’s far more likely that patronizing attitudes from unknowing Americans will occur to a Black director/screenwriter than a white production team.

Similarly, other than the Wakandan cryo-chamber in the credits scene, we don’t really get any sense of Wakanda’s technology (and even then, the same movie features a shot of Siberian cryo-chambers old enough to be in an abandoned, seemingly-forgotten facility.)  There’s T’Challa’s Vibranium suit, but as Shuri points out in Black Panther, this version is “functional,” without a fraction of the cool-ass technology she uses for his suped-up version in his own film.  It could be argued that Marvel was saving the awesome Wakandan technology for Black Panther, and that makes sense, because the technology in that movie is endlessly awesome.  Still, I would’ve liked to see at least a few veiled hints of it, or at least no scenes of T’Challa using low-tech western stuff.  Watching Civil War this time, I was really struck by the shot of T’Challa looking at a smartphone.  Given Wakanda’s stylish sand tables and holographic communicators powered by kimoyo beads, I have to think T’Challa’s thoughts about smartphones would be similar to Okoye’s about guns:  “so primitive.”

Finally, the Africanness of T’Challa (and Wakanda, obviously,) stand out so much more to me in Black Panther.  I love that Shuri’s lab is decorated with African designs, and I love the amazing costuming for everyone in the film.  Nothing about Wakanda or T’Challa apologize for their Africanness, and what’s more, they don’t have the barest sense of any reason that they should.  The confidence and self-assurance that comes from never having been colonized is palpable, and T’Challa’s well-tailored but very western clothes in Civil War don’t have nearly the same flair.  Again, this is maybe something that never occurred to the Russo brothers, or perhaps dressing T’Challa in suits was their way of showing that he’s sophisticated.  (Side note:  I also seemed to remember a scene where T’Challa dismisses Wakandan beliefs about the afterlife as something his father believed in, not him, but the scene is more ambiguous than I thought – it could be that T’Challa is only making the distinction in that his father thought the afterlife was peaceful, responding to Natasha’s remark on it.  Either way, the impression does distance T’Challa a little from Wakanda’s religion.)

But T’Challa – and Wakanda – has never needed western trappings to be sophisticated, to be “modern.”  That’s the whole point.  I love that T’Challa uses phrases like, “For Bast’s sake!”, and that Wakanda’s techonologically-advanced weapons are based on spears, not guns.  At the end of Black Panther, when T’Challa goes to the UN to open up Wakanda to the world, I love that the Dora Milaje who escort him still have neck rings to go with their inconspicuous dresses, and I love the glorious scarf T’Challa drapes over his chic black suit.  I don’t think that’s something that Civil War quite understands about T’Challa and Wakanda, and I’m not sure if it ever could have.  Now that T’Challa and Wakanda have made their proper debuts in the MCU, I hope Infinity War uses them (and the other Black Panther characters appearing in that movie) as they ought to be.

Quicksilver Character Comparison: Peter Maximov & Pietro Maximoff (X-Men and The Avengers)

Back when Days of Future Past came out and I flailed nerdishly over X-Men’s Quicksilver, I talked about the franchise overlap with the character being fair game for both X-Men and The Avengers.  This was before Age of Ultron, so I had yet to see Marvel’s Quicksilver, but I was already looking forward to comparing the two version of the speedster.  (Note:  to avoid confusion, this is the last time I’ll use the name Quicksilver.  Since X-Men Americanized his name, I’ll be referring to the X-Men version as Peter and the Avengers version as Pietro.)

Both iterations of the character are awesome, but in fairly different ways.  Everything about Peter says “larger than life”:  the silver hair and goggles, which weirdly kind of work even though they shouldn’t, his ridiculously huge stash of pilfered loot in his room, the quick cuts and comic beats, Evan Peters’s snappy line delivery, and his show-stopping speed scenes in Days of Future Past and Apocalypse.  He’s fast, funny, and fun, whipping through Days of Future Past like a whirlwind, and it’s not just his powers.  Temperament-wise, he’s like a ping pong ball, always eager to leap ahead to the next thing; you get the sense that he’d go well and truly crazy if forced to wait around.

Pietro shares a number of Peter’s traits besides the speed, enough to recognize them as the same character.  Like Peter, he can be cocky (more than a bit of showoff,) a smart-aleck, and easily distracted.  Pietro is different less in character than in the tone of the portrayal itself.  While Peter is a definite “character,” Pietro feels more like a person, like (powers aside) I could easily meet someone like him in real life.  This is partly through the more low-key expression of his humor and partly through his more well-rounded depiction.  Pietro is a young guy with superpowers and can act like it, but he’s also known serious loss.  When he tells Ultron about the deaths of his parents and the days he and Wanda spent trapped in the wreckage of their home waiting to die, you can see the angry and pain driving him.  The different sides of him coexist in a way that feels consistent.  (By contrast, when Peter gets a more serious side plot in Apocalypse, it makes him feel… not like Peter.  The different sides of him are too jarring for me, and his subdued scenes just make me wonder when entertaining Peter is coming back.)

So that’s the major difference in tone.  The biggest difference in terms of character is probably where their focus lies.  Peter is pretty self-absorbed, though not in a particularly bad way.  It’s just that he’s all about instant gratification.  When Charles, Wolverine, and Hank ask him to help them with their mission, his first question is, “What’s in it for me?”  Like I said, this isn’t a condemnation of him – for a teenager a.k.a. walking id (running, in his case,) it’s perfectly believable.  By contrast, Pietro is always, always a package deal with Wanda.  He usually defers to his twin and looks out for her above all else.  Of course, much of this is down to the blindingly obvious fact that Wanda is in Age of Ultron but not the X-Men films; Peter can’t be expected to consider the needs of someone who isn’t there.  However, plot-driven or not, it still changes the character in a big way.  Pietro sees things outside of himself that Peter really doesn’t.

In the end, both versions of the character have plenty of merit.  For me, I’d say Peter is the most entertaining, while Pietro is the most engaging.  Peter probably gets the biggest showcase moments, but Pietro (IMO) makes an overall greater impact.

YA Dystopian Heroine Character Comparison: Katniss Everdeen & Tris Prior

Maybe it’s unfair to compare these two just because they’re tough, capable female leads in popular dystopian series, but it’s kind of unavoidable.  As I read the Divergent books, I couldn’t help but think of The Hunger Games, particularly where our central characters are concerned.  (General premise spoilers for both series.)

Basic parallels first.  Katniss and Tris are both 16-year-old girls from the lowest totem poles of their societies (District 12 and Abnegation, respectively.)  The lives of both are changed at the major ceremony associated with their society’s whacked-out principles, the Reaping and the Choosing Ceremony (and, point of interest, their lives are changed based on their choices – it isn’t Katniss’s name that gets pulled out of the reaping bowl.  Even from the start, they’re not just victims.)  Both obviously know their way around a fight (despite their small statures and weak-looking appearances,) both are deeply damaged by their experiences, and both struggle with being a good person in situations that aren’t known for breeding good people.

When it comes to fighting, both girls are underestimated, but in different ways.  Katniss is quite the competent scrapper before she enters the Arena, an experienced hunter with mad survival skills.  It’s just her small size that makes her seem like an easy target, but she sets people straight on that as soon as they see her with a bow in her hands.  Meanwhile, Tris is genuinely one of the weakest Dauntless initiates.  The others are spot-on when it comes to assessing her original abilities, but they underestimate her determination to improve and pull her weight.

Similarly, though both girls get embroiled in regime-toppling rebellions, they come to it differently.  Katniss doesn’t set out to start a revolt; yes, some of her actions in the Arena, like her alliance with Rue, are considered dissident in the Capitol, but her big eff-you to the Gamemakers is ultimately a last-ditch gambit to survive, not a call to arms.  It’s the public who sees her as a symbol of defiance, and Katniss wrestles between keeping her head down to protect the people she loves and accepting her role as a rallying point for the resistance.  Tris, on the other hand, is a more active rebel as soon as she gets the opportunity.  It’s partly her Divergence – she can literally do things that most in her society can’t, and she can’t let her friends get brainwashed when she can do something to stop it.  While Katniss’s initial butt-kickery is to stay alive and get home (where she’s the chief provider,) Tris’s is to prevent genocide.  Heavy stuff.

Tris is a bit more trusting than Katniss, who has a massively hard time buying that anyone is actually trying to help her.  As such, Tris falls more easily into relationships, while Katniss keeps people at arm’s length long after they’ve proven themselves.  Katniss is better at thinking on her feet, and I’d say Tris is a better overall strategist.  Katniss is good at second-guessing herself and agonizing over her choices, and her tendency towards distrust causes her to miss potential allies.  Tris tends to be more confident with planning and tactics, but that can backfire as well, because she sometimes shuts people down when they don’t fall in line.  I love that both have flaws and blind spots; neither is Super Girl, and neither does the right thing all the time.  Katniss can be horrified by her own ruthlessness, and Tris beats herself up when she can’t always find the strength to do the selfless thing.  Despite the intensely-stressful crucibles in which the girls forge themselves, they don’t brush aside their failings.  Instead, they take hard looks at their character (maybe too hard sometimes) and try to figure out how to be better.  Let’s hear it for the girls!

The Sebastian Stan Character Comparison: Jack Benjamin and T.J. Hammond

I recently watched the short-lived series Political Animals, mainly because of its knockout cast including Sigourney Weaver, Ciarán Hinds, Sebastian Stan, and James Wolk.  I liked the show, despite its problems, and especially enjoyed Sebastian Stan’s T.J.  I always like Stan’s work, but here, I’m especially taken by the parallels between T.J. and my first and still-favorite Stan character, Jack from Kings.  (Character-related spoilers for both shows to follow.)

The same one-line description fits both characters:  the (gay) younger twin son of a world leader.  Jack’s father is a king while T.J.’s was president (with his mother planning her second attempt,) so the stories play out differently – Jack’s plot, for instance, involves issues of succession that T.J.’s doesn’t.  Still, it’s pretty close.  Both are closer to their mothers and uneasy with their fathers – former president Bud shifts between dismissiveness and tough love, and King Silas is downright ugly.  Both are regarded as less put-together than their older twins; T.J.’s brother Doug is a hard-working politico who ran his mother’s first campaign, and Jack’s sister Michelle makes frequent legislative appeals before Silas’s council.  The contrast between T.J. and Doug is starker, since T.J. is an addict recently out of rehab who hits up his more financially-stable family members for investment in his latest pursuit.  Jack, an army major, is better positioned, but he’s tarnished by misplaced blame for an ambush on his unit that resulted in his capture, and he’s generally thought more frivolous than the dedicated Michelle.

What interests me most, though, are the ways the shows deal with the characters’ sexuality.  In both cases, it’s a little uncomfortable because the straight sibling is clearly painted as the “good” twin, and Jack and T.J.’s orientations are involved in that dynamic to an extent.  However, it’s the extreme demands of being the gay son of a king/president, not being gay itself, that causes most of their issues.  Jack is desperately closeted, masquerading as a womanizing party boy for the paparazzi to deflect suspicion.  Neither of his parents are what you’d call allies.  Silas throws Jack’s secret in his face, threatens his future as king, and makes some truly awful homophobic insinuations.  When Jack, backed into a corner, confides the truth to Queen Rose, she slaps him in the face and then tries to make up for it with a hug.  No wonder he’s fears the throne will be given to Michelle and golden-boy David, why he thinks David is trying to steal what should be his and looks for unscrupulous means of ensuring his place.

By turns, T.J’s sexuality seems a non-issue at first.  He makes no secret of it, and his whole family is supportive.  However, the cheery veneer is quick to crack.  Would-be president Elaine, his mother, tells a grasping reporter, “You will never know the vitriol, the evil he suffered when he came out against his will as a boy in the White House.”  The words “against his will” aren’t explained, but they fascinate me.  Did a scandal-chaser snap an illuminating photo of young T.J.?  Was it a political maneuver by Bud, pulling his gay son from the closet to show how progressive he was?  The first openly-gay child of a president, T.J.’s life was a much bigger media circus than that of most presidential progeny, and Elaine’s words suggest that, though his parents’ careers weren’t adversely affected, T.J. was the target of a lot of ugliness.  Suddenly, we see why T.J. couldn’t “handle” the White House fishbowl like Doug could, why he started abusing drugs.  The family’s upbeat comments and tongue-in-cheek jokes start to look like forced grins, loudly being okay with T.J. because no one wants to talk about the mud he was dragged through as a child.  Do they feel guilty that he was thrown to the wolves in a way that they weren’t?