Chadwick Boseman (1977-2020)

[Big Ben]

Making Black Panther a woman would certainly send an inclusive message and it would make for a good companion piece with the next Thor film in which Natalie Portman will be taking up the mantle of said God. However I'm unsure if Disney has the guts to do it.

[Nasir007]

It is not about guts. It is what makes narrative sense. At least in the way Coogler conceived BP in the first film, it was definitely a very masculine character. The script for part 2 has been written. I think suddenly making it a female character might be a tall order.

I'd say this - BP is an icon and means a lot to so many black kids out there. They should first and foremost think about them. BP undeniably hit the cultural zeitgeist. It was an important film for black people and for representation. They should take this into account to decide what they do with the character.

[Brian C]

“It’s about what makes narrative sense.”

[lists a whole bunch of considerations that have nothing to do with narrative]

[ando]

Though ABC is airing Black Panther without commercial interruption tonight I'm finding it as uncompelling as my first attempted viewing. There's a Boseman tribute after the film at 10:20 (EST) tonight. I'll tune back in for that.

[knives]

It really is unfortunate that he died just when he was beginning to get interesting roles. He seemed stuck in crappy biopics until Marvel said hello and although those films the was included in are bad they seemed to open up the door for complicated roles that began to take advantage of his talents. In the end we really only got what, one or two of those sorts of films?

[Mr Sausage]

Making Black Panther a woman would certainly send an inclusive message and it would make for a good companion piece with the next Thor film in which Natalie Portman will be taking up the mantle of said God. However I'm unsure if Disney has the guts to do it.

I thought Tessa Thompson was taking up that mantle.

[Big Ben]

Making Black Panther a woman would certainly send an inclusive message and it would make for a good companion piece with the next Thor film in which Natalie Portman will be taking up the mantle of said God. However I'm unsure if Disney has the guts to do it.

I thought Tessa Thompson was taking up that mantle.

Jane Foster, Portman's character in the films became Lady Thor in the comic books so there's basis for Waititi's next film in print. I'm under the impression right now that Hemsworth's Thor himself is going to be hanging out with the Guardians of the Galaxy. What will be interesting is if they include Foster's breast cancer story line in the wake of Bosman's death.

[Swift]

They recast Hulk after Ed Norton died.

[black&huge]

I think he meant career wise

[Nasir007]

THR confirms - apparently Marvel did not know he was sick.

They do not require medical exams for their actors.

[Never Cursed]

The same article says that Boseman thought he was going to beat the cancer and play Black Panther again up until a week before his passing, so at least he didn't go into the production of any films thinking/knowing he was on death's door (although it's still not great from a long-term planning perspective, given that Feige et al only learned of the diagnosis on the day of his death).

[knives]

I guess they’ll require a health exam now. Honestly that’s incredibly irresponsible of him and makes him look like a lesser person.

[DarkImbecile]

Yes, God forbid he value his privacy over the corporate plan for a comic-book franchise.

[knives]

If his privacy potentially gets in the way of his job under normal professional ethics he should disclose it. While it was a small part if he had died suddenly during the filming of Da 5 Bloods that could have cost a lot of people jobs if they didn’t have the money to replace him because the insurance wouldn’t have covered that. Privacy is no excuse for a lack of professionalism especially when other people’s livelihoods are on the line because of you.

[DarkImbecile]

That must be why all women are required to let potential employers know if they are or are planning to become pregnant during a job interview.

[willoneill]

How do you know his doctor wasn't advising him as to whether he should take certain parts? I'm not an expert, but I don't think colon cancer is something you die "suddenly" from. There are signs when you start going downhill, like Boseman's weightloss the last few months, which he obviously hadn't hit yet.

Not for nothing, but I've been in a similar position professionally with a co-worker who withheld a terminal diagnosis, and yeah it was a bit of mess to clean up for a few months, but you get over it as you start to understand their motivations and put yourself in their shoes. Boseman ultimately accomplished a lot of good with his post-diagnosis work, and maybe it even gave him the will to live longer. And the hypotheticals didn't happen, so why dwell on them?

[knives]

That must be why all women are required to let potential employers know if they are or are planning to become pregnant during a job interview.

Pregnancy doesn’t usually kill people nowadays. More importantly there’s a difference between planning for something and actually being it. Boseman wasn’t planning to have cancer. He had it! To keep with your pregnancy comparison when women are pregnant they often do inform their employers or potential employers that they’ll have to take maternity leave.

Obviously he didn’t need to tell everyone, but he should have informed the producers or whomever else haggled with the insurance that he was undergoing treatment for a potentially deadly cancer.

[therewillbeblus]

I get the argument, but is "professionalism" really a uniform priority by which our character is judged? Who knows what the actual circumstances were- it sounds like he was confident that he would beat the cancer as he had already to some degree before, in which case disclosing would have prompted a problem-focused whirlwind of risk-management anxiety coming down on him from execs, and I understand wanting to avoid that additional stressor on top of the possible psychological effect of such a move being half-admitting defeat. There's definitely a selfish component in there that isn't considering others' jobs but it's also a valid one exclusive from that effect. I don't know what it's like to have life-threatening cancer but I'd imagine that I'd be a bit more focused on me and mine than the 'what ifs' of crews' livelihoods, despite my liberal and empathic principles, and I don't think that stains one's morality nor are we in a position to make that call.. I really hope when I die the friend who bought me an early birthday gift doesn't pathologize my worth as "a lesser person" because I didn't let him know that I might so they could save money, and before we say that's not a good comparison the point is to shame someone for their imperfect actions dealing with an unimaginable situation is ridiculous when the effects aren't life-threatening for the others we are opting to choose to empathize with for some reason. That doesn't minimize this very real consequence for others, but it can exist as mutually exclusive from the dignity of the person who died without disclosing.

I believe that it's probably a lot easier to be objective and impartially prioritize ethics when we're not dying.

[knives]

I’m not saying he’s a horrible person or anything like that. Just that his actions were irresponsible and that being irresponsible reduced his stature in my eyes. You can still be a good and complicated person even with a reduction in stature.

[therewillbeblus]

Right but there's something very wrong with acting as though optimal ethics are a consideration that should define our status under all circumstances. I highly doubt that you have never acted emotionally in ways that didn't reflect your true character, and if our "statures" were knocked down a few pegs each time we didn't operate on utilitarian principles we'd all be deviants. When we go through acute stressors we have limited scope, and even if it was a conscious omission perhaps it came down to keeping it private for mental health sake or telling people and potentially engaging in logical risk management. It's also just anti-humanist to take inventory on someone's worth from our vantage points. Nobody is saying that what he did or did not do isn't irresponsible to the film crews, but what about being responsible for oneself, one's sanity, and one's family's sanity? If the choice means you can't have both, are you just going to have a reduction in stature either way? It just seems like an offensive thing to say, instead of acknowledging the problem with ignoring others but not rule on their humanity's ranking because of it.

[knives]

You’re taking my statements as much stronger then I’m meaning them. Even with that though I don’t follow your line of reasoning as knowing more information about a person resulting in a more complicated view of them in no way would lead to people becoming deviants in anyone’s eyes. I previously only knew positive attributes and now know a negative attribute. I’m not saying that people have to be optimal at all times. Just that it seems like a normal work ethic to mention any health problems which may limit your ability to perform your job. I mean, it’s no different then a diabetic letting that be known if they work as a good critic.

[therewillbeblus]

My entire point is that it's very different, because the psychological stressors of a life-threatening illness (or any acute high-intensity life event) warp our ability to tend to all those facets of our lives, that disclosing a condition like diabetes would not. Just the fact that you're comparing them is showing how unfair it is for us to assign value to a person's choices who was in a position we cannot comprehend, as well as how not even taking a second to empathize or trying to comprehend that position is factoring into that logical discourse. I agree that it's totally a "normal" work ethic to do that, but these are not "normal" conditions. I apologize if I took your statements as stronger than you meant but referring to someone as "a lesser person" because they made a selfish choice when they were dying definitely felt strong to me.

I know you’re a very empathetic person so I assume this boils down to a difference in where our perspectives are coming from, and in an attempt to bypass a spat and align with part of your initial point, it’s become very clear to me over the last handful of years just how many people’s livelihoods revolve around one star in some of these situations. A philosophical argument about that person’s (in real life, superhero-like) weighted responsibility is a good one to have. I guess I just see it as separate from their worth or character from a very humanistic lens, especially pertaining to circumstances I can’t even imagine dealing with. Though I too was very anxious and concerned hearing about this and my brain went to similar places of alarm.

[knives]

Diabetes is a very life threatening illness that can take a massive psychological toll on a person. It's a fair comparison.

[Brian C]

I don’t fully understand why we need to judge it as either a negative or positive attribute. It seems pretty easy for even the thickest, most obtuse thinkers in the world to see both sides of the situation, and it seems to me that it’s more than enough to simply leave it at that.

However, I now want to pitch an IKIRU remake to Disney, about an actor who just wants to make one positive contribution to the comic-book movie genre before he dies of cancer that no one knows he has. Disney loves remakes, right?

[therewillbeblus]

Knives I realize that, but do you not see how living with a chronic illness in a consistently baseline state is different than an acute one? That’s like me comparing the fact that an alcoholic needs to ask people if alcohol is in things when they go to their houses because it could cause a relapse and they could die, to someone with cancer dealing with end of life stuff. It assumes a logical comfortability with one’s life event. Either way, this is getting into ridiculous territory- I had edited my post to try to make peace, and nitpicking on our allegories isn’t getting at the core issue which is a spectrum of humanism or judgment, and if we can allow it to be problematic and also be compassionate to his position. I agree that it’s an alarming situation and an ethical dilemma, so we can agree there.