jimnms, having seen the movie, I can see why people are reacting this positively to it. Have you seen it? Where you have or havent, consider the following.

You are right that this isn't the first black superhero movie. If you ignore comedies starring goofy concept heros, the list of movies narrows. Then, consider movies with black super heros who are not anti-heroes (Spawn, Blade). Why this distinction? Anti-heroes are great, but they aren't characters for a general young audience to aspire to. To notice that the majority of main character superheroes in movies are either partially a joke or a dark/brooding/scary/threatening/antisocial hero might be a drag. especially when you compare it to the pool of white super heroes who aren't (most of them). That's important.

First movie with a mostly black cast? No, but how many such movies arent about slavery, inner city gangs, extreme poverty, surviving racism, genocide or third world conflict. How many are almost purely optimistic blend of science fiction and the beauty of African culture? How many imagine what an African country unmolested by colonialism might look like in the future, where its citizens were allowed to reach their highest potential in terms of culture, government and technology? This is in part what the Afro-futurism science fiction genre is about and its a very rare genre to make it to film.

Especially a film that has a budget of $ 200 million dollars. That budget is important. It says that at this point in history, the largest (maybe?) movie studio recognizes that the public wants to see black characters in this light. That's a big deal too.

And considering how well this movie is doing at the box office, Black Panther is a signal of whats to come. More stories about inspirational black characters told at this kind of block buster scale.

Does that make a bit more sense? I'm sure there are other reasons; one being its a really good movie! Hope this helps.

You all are right to call BS on this video. Its trash.

The earthquake that caused the 2004 tsunami in Sumatra released a total of 9 600 000 megatons of energy....that's a bit more than 50 megatons. I don't know though, I'm not a math major.

This earthquake didn't make new continents, nor did it cause an ice age by pushing earth a significant distance away from the sun. So I'm going to guess that neither would this bomb.

The portion of the 2004 earthquake's total energy that was released on the surface of the sea floor was only 26 megatons and it was released a lot less quickly than the detonation of the Tsar bomba, I'll give ya that.

Probably generate a Tsunami, but not a large one. Large natural tsunamis, like those in 2004 and 2011, are generated by very sudden movement of the ocean floor over a large area; the 2004 Sumatra quake lifted the sea floor several meters, very rapidly, along a 1600 km long section of fault, displacing a total of 30 cubic kilometers of water. Google "what does a cubic kilometer look like". Its a lot of water.

Not sure if the bomb can move that much water at a single site; I don't think it replicates the right "mechanics" of large scale tsunami generation....

I dont like cenk for two reasons.

His treatment via completely misrepresentation of Sam Harris is so bad its intellectual dishonesty comparible to and sometimes worse than a fox news talking head.

Secondly, what kind of jerk names his network after co-perpatrators of the armenian genocide? At best a genocide denier.... yuck, no thanks.

When you start off with heres the deal, it sounds like the follow up is gonna be an immutable law of comedy, rather than why you personally find jokes funny.

Bill does actually touch on something true here: a first lady/man is not elected to office, the president is, and yet is given a platform anyways (albeit an unintrusive and politically safe one).

This is a fact that doesnt bother me in the slightest, unlike bill ( or perhaps bills character), but i still find the arguement pretty funny.

Bill's style of comedy is different from luois ck is finding the humour in an agruement against the audience, rather than one on the side of the audience. I think there is as much brilliance in this as any....

Comedy at its core is a performance, not an essay, lecture or real arguement. It may be, just as a performing art can be anything, but it does not have to have a bone of truth in it. Perhaps its patronizing to say thatcomedy is about laugh and everything else is optional, but people seem to have forgotten this.

Does anyone else find it strange that Cenk is calling some one out for being a bigot, while he named his show after a revolutionary movement with a history of racism and bigotry being carried to its most extreme?

I never understood why one would choose "The Young Turks".