Loki confirmed as gender fluid.

There is cgi in it. For instance lieutenant Dan's legs and Forrest meeting deceased personages and shaking their hands. This film only had 10 million more dollars to it's budget than Blade. Babe is another one actually. Think about how awful talkiing animals look in movies usually. This film had a smaller budget than Blade.

If you adjust for inflation 45 million would be about 72 million in today's world. District 9 was made for 30 million in 2009 which is about 36 million in today's world. District 9 had great cgi for it's time and especially it's resources. The Matrix had great cgi for it's time as well although I don't cite that because it did have a bit higher of a budget. Anyway usually when a director is inexperienced working on big films that require cgi it typically shows. Spiderman in 2002 has a budget of 132 million. Some of the effects were way wobbly. Some were ok but overall lotr had better effects and not as big of a budget. Now the second one balanced effects way better as the cgi in the second was great due to time but also Raimi now had experienced working on a big budget film. Spiderman was his first big budget film. Same goes for Coogler on Black Panther. Not excusing it just offering insight.

I like both. I love Blade despite it's flaws. I like Black Panther as well. Now do I think it's a cutting edge masterpiece? No but to say it's just an average MCU film I disagree with. I think it's good. When I think of an average MCU flick I think of Thor the dark world. Forgettable villain lame humor etc. I feel Black Panther had a compelling villain and good soundtrack. Neither of which Thor the dark world had. Anyway opinion of course but you saying audiences vastly preferred Blade over Black Panther was false. Just because you prefer it doesn't mean the majority does.