I'm excited. I thought Momoa did quite well in Justice League and James Wan seems to 'get' the character.
There's a few other pictures that he's posted from the runup to SDCC and the trailer:
Spoiler:
Commented that it's a "mix of practical make-up and FX" for the Fisherman King there.
He posted that last night commenting that he's "working overtime getting the trailer cut for Saturday".
Seems to be a lot of good buzz around this one. James Wan also knows how to make a crowdpleasing action film, and obviously knows how to handle fantastical elements from his horror work. It looks like we're in for some treats, visually speaking.
It's also cool that Tritonis (the Atlantean city of the merpeople) is apparently in. I wondered if they were going to ignore that bit from the comics.
Aparently people have seen the helmet for Black Manta and it's comic book accurate. That is hilarious to me. I cannot wait to see that big stupid head on screen.
Lance845 wrote: Aparently people have seen the helmet for Black Manta and it's comic book accurate. That is hilarious to me. I cannot wait to see that big stupid head on screen.
Maybe slightly more proportional though, from the one still we've seen?
There are a few more hints in this article. The comments from the actor are funny.
Just to be clear, if it is 100% comic accurate and looks like the dumbest thing in the world I will be happy because I will be laughing. I am ALL for that thing being as goofy as possible.
If they wanted to do a trim version they should go for the design from Young Justice.
But if they go this...
spandex and all, I will be so happy. Happy because I am laughing but happy none the less.
Lance845 wrote: Just to be clear, if it is 100% comic accurate and looks like the dumbest thing in the world I will be happy because I will be laughing. I am ALL for that thing being as goofy as possible.
If they wanted to do a trim version they should go for the design from Young Justice.
I have a feeling that the YJ look isn't far off. The article mentioned something about glowing ribs, and that YJ suit has a few glowy parts. And from some things I've seen on the interwebz, Manta isn't the only one who's going to end up with a pretty comics-faithful look.
The articles floating around now keep referencing Raiders and Romancing the Stone as influences, so it seems like the film is going to have a strong adventure component. Sounds like fun to me.
To be fair, we are living in a world where Loki's horned helmet has appeared on screen in fairly accurate form. Surely Ocean Master's mask isn't too much more of a stretch!
I'd be all for a comic-accurate Manta as well, because he's enough of a badass villain to overcome the inherent silliness of the design, but the Young Justice or Injustice 2 armoured look would be just as good.
Lance845 wrote: On the downside, thats all of Aquaman's villains. If we get them both in 1 movie then we are all out of Aquaman villains for any potential sequels.
The number of villains came up a while back when it became known that King Nereus (Dolph Lundgren) is also in the movie. Based on some comments from Wan, it looks like (kinda sorta spoilers ahead)
Spoiler:
Ocean Master is the main baddie, and we'll see Manta's origin to set him up more for a potential sequel. Per Wan:
This is what I’ll say: I don’t have three villains. I think that’s ridiculous! I would never go into an origin movie with three villains. We don’t even know the main character let alone the world and its antagonist. I believe in taking baby steps.
We know Black Manta is in there, but I will say this: Patrick Wilson is the main antagonist in this film. I wouldn’t necessarily say ‘villain,’ but he’s the antagonist.
Two for two on comic accurate helmets then! Truly we live in glorious times!
Looks like a different Manta headpiece there (no rivets) so my guess is the riveted one is the original, the sleeker, armoured one is for the inevitable Round 2.
I'm honestly not sure whether I'm excited for Aquaman or not. I wasn't a huge fan of how he came across in JL but I think that may have been more to do with the script than the performance.
The key thing will be the tone we see in the trailer, I think. It doesn't need the sheer heaviness of BvS or the commentary (or perhaps cynicism) of MoS, but at the very least I reckon we need the grand feel of WW rather than the reel of one-liners and total lack of gravitas I felt JL had. In a perfect world, we get an almost Shakespearean royal high drama, but anything similar to WW would be good.
Yep, pretty much all of the available yes. As I said before, I wasn't sure what to expect, but nothing there looks less than excellent. The visuals look unique and totally stunning, Arthur and Mera come across very well, and it certainly appears to be as epic in scale as it should be.
Between this and the Shazam trailer, DC have knocked it out of the park today.
Shazam DOES look like more fun, but Shazam SHOULD look like more fun.
Shazam! is heaadlined by a kid who suddenly gets to be a super hero and all that entails.
Aquaman has always been best when he was a serious regal king laying down the law and beating the gak out of people like super man for crossing the line.
I liked this and Shazam. This is giving me some high hopes about DC. If these turn out good, maybe they can take a swing at Green Lantern for the first time.
Aquaman has always been best when he was a serious regal king laying down the law and beating the gak out of people like super man for crossing the line.
It looks pretty impressive visually (so, not like a DC movie), but looks like it has far, far too many elements.
Origin story
Rival king backstory
Find the MacGuffin
Fight the Named Comic Villain (Black Manta?)
Awed by Atlantis tourism scene
Big battle scene for whichever war
Personal combat for kingship
Possibly giant monster attack (summoned by MacGuffin/ or part of battle scene)
Some of these are likely connected but that's going to be a really tightly packed 2 hours or so, to the point that the constant CGI spectacle is going to get boring.
Voss wrote: It looks pretty impressive visually (so, not like a DC movie), but looks like it has far, far too many elements.
Origin story
Rival king backstory
Find the MacGuffin
Fight the Named Comic Villain (Black Manta?)
Awed by Atlantis tourism scene
Big battle scene for whichever war
Personal combat for kingship
Possibly giant monster attack (summoned by MacGuffin/ or part of battle scene)
Some of these are likely connected but that's going to be a really tightly packed 2 hours or so, to the point that the constant CGI spectacle is going to get boring.
Yup, so much this. I just have very little faith in the DC movies at this point, and Wan's previous stuff hasn't really done too much for me either. Saw, Insidious, and The Conjuring were passable at best. Different genre I know, but nevertheless does little to inspire confidence.
creeping-deth87 wrote: Saw, Insidious, and The Conjuring were passable at best. Different genre I know, but nevertheless does little to inspire confidence.
Insidious(1) lost me at the very end when the main character did something nonsensical to (potentially) set up a sequel. I wasn't too interested in the sequels after that.
But Wan seems to know what he's doing. IIRC, the Conjuring universe films have made nearly $1.5 billion on maybe $100 million total budget. They weren't all directed by him, but evidence suggests that as a director and/or producer, he knows how to make a crowdpleasing film. The challenge for Aquaman is that it's opening the same weekend as Bumblebee and Mary Poppins AND a PG-13 version of Deadpool. So far, none of the studios involved have blinked. But someone almost has to...it seems like box office mass suicide.
Also...it's a little silly to dissect issues with the screenplay before any of us have actually seen the film. I think the "new" stuff in that trailer was already shown at SDCC. They've kept more under wraps than we think.
Voss wrote: It looks pretty impressive visually (so, not like a DC movie), but looks like it has far, far too many elements.
Origin story
Rival king backstory
Find the MacGuffin
Fight the Named Comic Villain (Black Manta?)
Awed by Atlantis tourism scene
Big battle scene for whichever war
Personal combat for kingship
Possibly giant monster attack (summoned by MacGuffin/ or part of battle scene)
Some of these are likely connected but that's going to be a really tightly packed 2 hours or so, to the point that the constant CGI spectacle is going to get boring.
Two villains is worrying. I don't have a TON of faith in this one, but its worth noting that while Manta deserves better, he'd not be terrible serving as a henchman under Ocean Master. He's pretty silent in most of his appearances so having him show up to lead an attack or something but not really be a character in the film might work. Particularly true if he gets away to serve as the main antagonist of a sequel.
I've never really been a fan of Aquaman but I will admit, this trailer has really grabbed me. My only issue is that Patrick Wilson looks like a discount Eminem. Other than that, I can't wait to see more.
Between this and the Shazam trailer, DC might actually be getting back on track
creeping-deth87 wrote: Saw, Insidious, and The Conjuring were passable at best. Different genre I know, but nevertheless does little to inspire confidence.
Insidious(1) lost me at the very end when the main character did something nonsensical to (potentially) set up a sequel. I wasn't too interested in the sequels after that.
But Wan seems to know what he's doing. IIRC, the Conjuring universe films have made nearly $1.5 billion on maybe $100 million total budget. They weren't all directed by him, but evidence suggests that as a director and/or producer, he knows how to make a crowdpleasing film. The challenge for Aquaman is that it's opening the same weekend as Bumblebee and Mary Poppins AND a PG-13 version of Deadpool. So far, none of the studios involved have blinked. But someone almost has to...it seems like box office mass suicide.
Also...it's a little silly to dissect issues with the screenplay before any of us have actually seen the film. I think the "new" stuff in that trailer was already shown at SDCC. They've kept more under wraps than we think.
Especially as a lot of worrisome things on that list that appears to be too full can be rather speedily accomplished together in a few flashback/background scenes.
I think too that since this film isn't going to suffer from having to go through (x) number of directors/committees/etc. will help a lot too.
Hopefully this step 1 (or 1A) on the road to DC finally getting back on track.
This movie will be for Idoneth Deepkin players what Mad Max Fury Road was for Ork players. Lots of potential inspiration there.
After seeing that last trailer, I'm even more pumped for this movie. As a non-comic book reader, I have no real prior expectations, but the movie looks like a visual feast for sure, which is awesome!
Ahtman wrote: It is a 5+ minute extended trailer so not really surprised there are extended scenes shown, though that certainly wasn't all of chase.
You mean there's going to be even more of that to make 'get on with it' gestures to? What was shown seemed more than sufficient as is.
Maybe for you - looked entertaining to me - its not like it was a dull, stupid and ultimately pointless chase like some films I could mention.
Really? It came across that way. Why are they running? Why not just turn around and punch him in the face? Or whip water powers out and choke some minions? We already know she has those, and that she can rip water from their bodies if need be.
Chase scenes need to feel necessary: Jason Bourne running from 20+ cops. Aquaman and Water Sorceress running from the guy he regularly gets into fights with (and who the audience will want to see him fight) seems entirely pointless.
Shark riding people vs. Seahorse riding people...?
I know who my money would be on, lol.
Looks like worth a trip to the Bay but I won't shell out cash for this silly looking film. I liked DoJ but I don't know if AqM can carry his own movie.
Ahtman wrote: It is a 5+ minute extended trailer so not really surprised there are extended scenes shown, though that certainly wasn't all of chase.
You mean there's going to be even more of that to make 'get on with it' gestures to? What was shown seemed more than sufficient as is.
Maybe for you - looked entertaining to me - its not like it was a dull, stupid and ultimately pointless chase like some films I could mention.
Really? It came across that way. Why are they running? Why not just turn around and punch him in the face? Or whip water powers out and choke some minions? We already know she has those, and that she can rip water from their bodies if need be.
Chase scenes need to feel necessary: Jason Bourne running from 20+ cops. Aquaman and Water Sorceress running from the guy he regularly gets into fights with (and who the audience will want to see him fight) seems entirely pointless.
It’s almost like we haven’t seen the whole movie yet and have no context for why that scene is occurring.
I think the fact that we saw one of those guys chuck Aquaman around like yesterday's fish supper wrapper, and the ones chasing the redhead just run through the walls, is enough to suggest they might be quite tough.
Is this still a teaser? That would explain why I've got no idea what's going on. It's just about good enough to make me want to see the film to find out, though.
Just from the looks of the bad guys I'm guessing it's Atlantis versus some sort of renegade "evil" kingdom trying to take over, as all their stuff is like a twisted version of Atlantis tech. aquaman probably wins the ascension duel, and so the other guy enlists the help of the bad guys to help him take power.
Is he the long-lost "true heir" to the throne? Presumably his mum was a princess who fancied a bit of rough in a lighthouse.
Were there two Atlantises? The mythic one that somehow ended up in the Sahara, and the real one under the sea? or is that Indiana Jones-esque ruin just a lost outpost? (also, if that dates back to when the Sahara was green, we're looking at some point between 6000 BC (when the increased rainfall due to the retreating ice sheets ended) and 4,000 BC when the Sahara reached its current state.)
AegisGrimm wrote: Just from the looks of the bad guys I'm guessing it's Atlantis versus some sort of renegade "evil" kingdom trying to take over, as all their stuff is like a twisted version of Atlantis tech. aquaman probably wins the ascension duel, and so the other guy enlists the help of the bad guys to help him take power.
Is he the long-lost "true heir" to the throne? Presumably his mum was a princess who fancied a bit of rough in a lighthouse.
Were there two Atlantises? The mythic one that somehow ended up in the Sahara, and the real one under the sea? or is that Indiana Jones-esque ruin just a lost outpost? (also, if that dates back to when the Sahara was green, we're looking at some point between 6000 BC (when the increased rainfall due to the retreating ice sheets ended) and 4,000 BC when the Sahara reached its current state.)
The trailer looks very similar to the New 52 arc of Aquaman. Generally speaking, in the comics...
Spoiler:
Aquaman is the true heir of Atlantis. His mother, the queen fell in love with a lighthouse keeper and left their child with him in the hopes that he would learn to understand the land and help bring Atlantis into the wider world. She was later forced to marry a true Atlantean and had a second child Orm, who takes the throne and seeks to wage war against the surface for their abuse of the oceans.
Specific to the New 52 arc. This is probably REALLY spoilery given all these characters have been cast for the film and lines up with much of what we've seen in the trailers.:
Spoiler:
An Atlantean named Vulko comes to Arthur to inform him that Orm has hired Black Manta to recover 7 Atlantean artifacts to attack the surface. While Aquaman tries to stop him, a Navy missile malfunction attacks Atlantis directly, after which Orm invades the land in retaliation. Arthur ends up having to fight his brother for the throne, upon which its revealed that Orm had exiled Vulko who then hired Manta to recover the relics and sabotage the missiles to provoke the conflict and reinstate Aquaman as king.
I've not seen the 5m trailer because it feels too much for the film. But my gut instinct says that it feels like it's going to be Justice League Throne of Atlantis but just without the justice League
Looking good.. I just watched Justice League the other night finally and enjoyed it. Seems like folks generally don't like the DC movies as much as Marvel, but I like em. Never was much of an Aquaman fan but this guy does a good job.
Necros wrote: Looking good.. I just watched Justice League the other night finally and enjoyed it. Seems like folks generally don't like the DC movies as much as Marvel, but I like em. Never was much of an Aquaman fan but this guy does a good job.
I dont know what people dislike in JL - yeah its not all dull and doom and rain but rather fun, slick and enjoyabe like a Marvel movie.
Necros wrote: Looking good.. I just watched Justice League the other night finally and enjoyed it. Seems like folks generally don't like the DC movies as much as Marvel, but I like em. Never was much of an Aquaman fan but this guy does a good job.
I dont know what people dislike in JL - yeah its not all dull and doom and rain but rather fun, slick and enjoyabe like a Marvel movie.
It has a bunch of odd character moments where people act out of character or contradictory to the way we have seen them before, bad pacing in its plot, and gak cgi. The whole end takes place in a flat red nothingness where 1 family in a pick up lives.
Basically nothing like a marvel movie.
The difference between marvel and dc isn't fun vs dark. Civil war and infinity war are dark movies. Its quality vs crap.
That and JL exemplifies the Superman problem. As long as he is alive, no problems matter. Evil demon guy is a nigh insurmountable challenge to the entire team and entire civilizations, even actual gods in prehistory. Supes casually beats him down while distracted.
Every effort (and the very concept of the necessity of a justice league) is mocked by the second arc of the film. Band assembles, immediately reduced to gawking fools. Flash saves four people? Superman saves an entire building and dozens inside, while taking a time out from beating the boss monster like a drum.
Voss wrote: That and JL exemplifies the Superman problem. As long as he is alive, no problems matter. Evil demon guy is a nigh insurmountable challenge to the entire team and entire civilizations, even actual gods in prehistory. Supes casually beats him down while distracted.
Every effort (and the very concept of the necessity of a justice league) is mocked by the second arc of the film. Band assembles, immediately reduced to gawking fools. Flash saves four people? Superman saves an entire building and dozens inside, while taking a time out from beating the boss monster like a drum.
That's utterly crap storytelling.
Also the lesson batman learned from BvS was that instead of "If there is even a 1% chance that hes bad I need to kill him!" became "If there is even a 1% chance that bringing him back to life means we have a good guy to help us then we need to throw his body in this goo that made doomsday and hope for the best!"
Necros wrote: Looking good.. I just watched Justice League the other night finally and enjoyed it. Seems like folks generally don't like the DC movies as much as Marvel, but I like em. Never was much of an Aquaman fan but this guy does a good job.
I dont know what people dislike in JL - yeah its not all dull and doom and rain but rather fun, slick and enjoyabe like a Marvel movie.
It has a bunch of odd character moments where people act out of character or contradictory to the way we have seen them before, bad pacing in its plot, and gak cgi. The whole end takes place in a flat red nothingness where 1 family in a pick up lives.
Basically nothing like a marvel movie.
The difference between marvel and dc isn't fun vs dark. Civil war and infinity war are dark movies. Its quality vs crap.
Well yes they tried to ignore the crap elements that we had had in BVs, Man of Steel etc - that was the really poor stuff, the only bad thing was they had to bring back Loopy Lex rather than getting a new actor- I guess that contactural as every moment he was on scrreen was painful,
Whats out of character or is this more the Flash is not the Flash from the comics or whatever?
JL was what happens when a director and studio aren’t in sync...at all. If you didn’t like the Snyderverse - and it really was that - then you might still like the upcoming DC films.
Necros wrote: Looking good.. I just watched Justice League the other night finally and enjoyed it. Seems like folks generally don't like the DC movies as much as Marvel, but I like em. Never was much of an Aquaman fan but this guy does a good job.
I dont know what people dislike in JL - yeah its not all dull and doom and rain but rather fun, slick and enjoyabe like a Marvel movie.
It has a bunch of odd character moments where people act out of character or contradictory to the way we have seen them before, bad pacing in its plot, and gak cgi. The whole end takes place in a flat red nothingness where 1 family in a pick up lives.
Basically nothing like a marvel movie.
The difference between marvel and dc isn't fun vs dark. Civil war and infinity war are dark movies. Its quality vs crap.
Well yes they tried to ignore the crap elements that we had had in BVs, Man of Steel etc - that was the really poor stuff, the only bad thing was they had to bring back Loopy Lex rather than getting a new actor- I guess that contactural as every moment he was on scrreen was painful,
Except they kept a lot of the crap elements and added some more.
1) Batmans stuff is still covered in machine guns and hes still a murderer
2) Batmans still a idiot. (see above where Batman runs on weird Dick Cheney logic for all his reasons for doing anything)
3) Superman is still so astronomically powerful that its pointless for anyone else to be there.
Whats out of character or is this more the Flash is not the Flash from the comics or whatever?
Yep I disagee with everything you said
The flash being a weird mash up of Wally and Barry is whatever. He also runs like somebody who has never run in their entire life and is so fast that time literally slows to near standing still. Despite this he trips on mundane garbage every time he starts moving.
Batmans first scene of the movie is him stopping a robber. Who pulls out a gun and starts shooting wildly in a city, putting all kinds of peoples lives as risk when those bullets keep moving. It also says he is willing to kill. Batman uses him for bait for a monster, and then, after a cheeky little chat, leaves the murdering thief on the roof with his gun to go about his evening of theft and murder.
Batman, who is notoriously protective of his identiy. Shows up to aquaman and flash as bruce wayne and then just starts throwing batarangs and telling them he is batman. People he doesn't know. Who could just tell everyone at any moment that bruce is bats. On the other hand he could just be willing to kill them if they did blab. On the other other hand he didn't even know what the flash could do and honestly flash could kill him 10 times over. So could aquaman. Because this is an idiot batman who goes in blind and whos gimick is vehicles. Not brains. Vehicles.
Cyborg was dull as dirt. He had bad lines and a core element of good plot that looked like it mostly ended up on the cutting room floor.
Aquamans best bit was when WW had the lasso on him and he started talking about his actual feelings. The rest of the time he was a yelling dude bro frat boy. The worst.
The bad guy (Steppenwolf) was a forgettable cgi gray mess. Look at the difference between Thanos and Steppenwolf. It's night and day. Was there ever a fight in infinity war that looked like it took place in a place as flat and boring as the red waste of JLs final battle? No. Because the ruins of Titan were incredibly interesting. And colorful. And while not a place teaming with life it did look like a place that was ONCE teaming with life. On the other hand JLs fight took place in a city on earth. Population tuck with 4 people and a super obvious green screen everything.
1) Batmans stuff is still covered in machine guns and hes still a murderer
Soo completely consistant with the BvS character and in fact previous film versions so not an issue for me (incuding the best Batman film by Tim Burton)
Batmans still a idiot. (see above where Batman runs on weird Dick Cheney logic for all his reasons for doing anything)
Sorry Don't see it and certainly the Nolan version makes this version look like a genius
3) Superman is still so astronomically powerful that its pointless for anyone else to be there.
Except its not all about "MMHUU who is strongest" that s the joy of Marvel films and replicated here.
The flash being a weird mash up of Wally and Barry is whatever. He also runs like somebody who has never run in their entire life and is so fast that time literally slows to near standing still. Despite this he trips on mundane garbage every time he starts moving.
most movie goers have no idea abnout the first element - What I know about Flash and Aquaman comes from Big Bang - otehrs will know the TV series and thats all they will have as background - so this is a differnt incarnation - big whoop. Did you not watch the film - he is not someone who fights battles - he has a power and only now meets something that can kill him and others
"All I have ever done is pushed someone and run away" - Now he faces having people being killed jin front of you and you might die. Strangely he screws up now and again.
Batmans first scene of the movie is him stopping a robber. Who pulls out a gun and starts shooting wildly in a city, putting all kinds of peoples lives as risk when those bullets keep moving. It also says he is willing to kill. Batman uses him for bait for a monster, and then, after a cheeky little chat, leaves the murdering thief on the roof with his gun to go about his evening of theft and murder.
Seriously thats Batmans MO - he scares them then grabs them - loads of times people shoot into the background - again if you watch the films THIS Old Angry Batman is prepared to kill and has lost something of himselfe which he is trying to regain in JL - its really not hard.
Batman, who is notoriously protective of his identiy. Shows up to aquaman and flash as bruce wayne and then just starts throwing batarangs and telling them he is batman. People he doesn't know. Who could just tell everyone at any moment that bruce is bats. On the other hand he could just be willing to kill them if they did blab. On the other other hand he didn't even know what the flash could do and honestly flash could kill him 10 times over. So could aquaman. Because this is an idiot batman who goes in blind and whos gimick is vehicles. Not brains. Vehicles.
He had a fair idea of what Flash is - again that perfectly conveyed by the scene - how did you not understand this? This is in Fact not the other Batmans - this is old Angry Batman - which is you know different as definied in the films - sheesh,
Cyborg was dull as dirt. He had bad lines and a core element of good plot that looked like it mostly ended up on the cutting room floor.
Worked fine for me - not seen these scenes - they might be good, might not be.
Aquamans best bit was when WW had the lasso on him and he started talking about his actual feelings. The rest of the time he was a yelling dude bro frat boy. The worst.
For You Not for me and others. Again the lasso shows his real self beneath the bravado - Thats the point of the Scene!!!
The bad guy (Steppenwolf) was a forgettable cgi gray mess. Look at the difference between Thanos and Steppenwolf. It's night and day. Was there ever a fight in infinity war that looked like it took place in a place as flat and boring as the red waste of JLs final battle? No. Because the ruins of Titan were incredibly interesting. And colorful. And while not a place teaming with life it did look like a place that was ONCE teaming with life. On the other hand JLs fight took place in a city on earth. Population tuck with 4 people and a super obvious green screen everything.
Isnt the Darkseid bloke Thanos and Stepenwolf his MIinon? At best he is Loki or Ultron in the respective Avengers films - which of course this is the first JL film - so duh...
So again I disagree with everything you said but each to your own.
Except, according to the movie itself, it totally is. All of Bats investigations point to the idea that everything is happening because Superman is gone. And he obviously concludes that only Superman can stop it, because the rest of them aren't strong enough.
Yes, Steppenwolf is a minion. That makes it worse. The league is useless against the actual Big Bad's lowest, most unworthy lieutenant. In the unlikely event a sequel happens, everyone who is not Superman will be even more useless.
Only Superman matters, the combined forces of everyone else doesn't count for squat. They could be entirely replaced by Science Guy tossing Supes corpse into the vat with cube for the lulz, and it wouldn't make any difference at all.
And that's before we get in on the dialogue, the inconsistent tone, lighting and absurdly bland effects. Suicide Squad was at least amusing in places. Sad as it is, I still say that's the biggest triumph of the DC universe films... and still doesn't hold a candle to the animated stuff.
Except, according to the movie itself, it totally is. All of Bats investigations point to the idea that everything is happening because Superman is gone. And he obviously concludes that only Superman can stop it, because the rest of them aren't strong enough.
Yes, Steppenwolf is a minion. That makes it worse. The league is useless against the actual Big Bad's lowest, most unworthy lieutenant. In the unlikely event a sequel happens, everyone who is not Superman will be even more useless.
Only Superman matters, the combined forces of everyone else doesn't count for squat. They could be entirely replaced by Science Guy tossing Supes corpse into the vat with cube for the lulz, and it wouldn't make any difference at all.
And that's before we get in on the dialogue, the inconsistent tone, lighting and absurdly bland effects. Suicide Squad was at least amusing in places. Sad as it is, I still say that's the biggest triumph of the DC universe films... and still doesn't hold a candle to the animated stuff.
Not watched the animated so can;t comment - oh other than the dire Batman Ninja I sat through recently at a friends.
Lance845 wrote: You are welcome to your opinion. It's a okay for you to be wrong. Lots of people are wrong about lots of things that are way more important.
Spoiler:
Same to you I have laid out all the reasons that you are wrong IMO as well as amusing caption......
And that's before we get in on the dialogue, the inconsistent tone, lighting and absurdly bland effects. Suicide Squad was at least amusing in places. Sad as it is, I still say that's the biggest triumph of the DC universe films... and still doesn't hold a candle to the animated stuff.
Well, critical reviews, fan ratings, and box office would all say pretty clearly that the biggest DC triumph was WW, not SS. You're entitled to *like* what you like, but 'biggest triumph' may not be the best choice of words in this instance.
The animated films have the advantage of not being reconceptualized and rewritten as production was about to begin, and then rewritten and reworked at the last minute under a different director. Like I said before, the story of JL is the story of a dysfunctional relationship between a studio and a director, with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. Thankfully both parties have moved on, and we should get some more coherent offerings going forward from DC/WB.
Lance845 wrote: The bad guy (Steppenwolf) was a forgettable cgi gray mess. Look at the difference between Thanos and Steppenwolf. It's night and day. Was there ever a fight in infinity war that looked like it took place in a place as flat and boring as the red waste of JLs final battle? No. Because the ruins of Titan were incredibly interesting. And colorful. And while not a place teaming with life it did look like a place that was ONCE teaming with life. On the other hand JLs fight took place in a city on earth. Population tuck with 4 people and a super obvious green screen everything.
Thanos looked great, but clearly most of the CGI budget went there. Proxima Midnight looked like Steppenwolf's sister both literally and in terms of half-baked CGI. It's baffling to me why they didn't just cast a live actress for that character. The 'genestealers' also weren't convincing IMO. And Marvel also needs to own the poor CGI in Black Panther. Not sure why the more limited CGI there was so rubbery there even as Spider-Man has looked pretty good overall.
I think maybe the story here is that audiences are very good at detecting CGI, and these superhero films are trying to push the spectacle and fantastic characters beyond the limits of what the technology and even insane budgets can handle.
And that's before we get in on the dialogue, the inconsistent tone, lighting and absurdly bland effects. Suicide Squad was at least amusing in places. Sad as it is, I still say that's the biggest triumph of the DC universe films... and still doesn't hold a candle to the animated stuff.
Well, critical reviews, fan ratings, and box office would all say pretty clearly that the biggest DC triumph was WW, not SS. You're entitled to *like* what you like, but 'biggest triumph' may not be the best choice of words in this instance.
No, they were exactly the words I wanted. WW's success was something of a given, it had very little to do with the films quality (which broke down into a muddled mess, in terms of message, story and visuals). SS wasn't -good-, but it was actually a fun romp with a fair amount coherent storytelling, something all the other DC films have utterly failed at, being neither particularly fun and nor particularly coherent, either internally or externally. Best of a bad lot, as it were, at least so far.
Wonder Woman was on the whole a great film, it looked great, was well crafted and has enjoyed IMO a deserved excellent response form viewers.
It was absolutely not a "given" successesepcially since it followed some pretty poor DC movies including Bats Vs Sups where although she was perhaps the best thing in the film - it was massively elt down by the director and portrayal of Lex Luther. Add what was percieved as a huge risk in having a female lead in a superhero film - something that Marvel have only just put on the table.
Suicide Squad had some great scenes (and a trailer that was arguabley better than the film) and served as a bridge between the bad old films (Nolans trilogy, Man of Steel,Bats vs Sups) and far superior films - Wonder Woman, Justice League and if the film lives up to the trailers - Aquaman.
And that's before we get in on the dialogue, the inconsistent tone, lighting and absurdly bland effects. Suicide Squad was at least amusing in places. Sad as it is, I still say that's the biggest triumph of the DC universe films... and still doesn't hold a candle to the animated stuff.
Well, critical reviews, fan ratings, and box office would all say pretty clearly that the biggest DC triumph was WW, not SS. You're entitled to *like* what you like, but 'biggest triumph' may not be the best choice of words in this instance.
No, they were exactly the words I wanted. WW's success was something of a given, it had very little to do with the films quality (which broke down into a muddled mess, in terms of message, story and visuals). SS wasn't -good-, but it was actually a fun romp with a fair amount coherent storytelling, something all the other DC films have utterly failed at, being neither particularly fun and nor particularly coherent, either internally or externally. Best of a bad lot, as it were, at least so far.
'Triumph' suggests success or victory, which SS was not in terms of critical reviews or audience reaction. Critics savaged it and audiences gave it a just-okay B+ Cinemascore. It did okay at the box office, but still less than WW.
Ayer wrote the thing in a matter of weeks, and then the studio had a trailer company recut it. He's basically apologized for how it turned out, but it wasn't all on him.
And that's before we get in on the dialogue, the inconsistent tone, lighting and absurdly bland effects. Suicide Squad was at least amusing in places. Sad as it is, I still say that's the biggest triumph of the DC universe films... and still doesn't hold a candle to the animated stuff.
Well, critical reviews, fan ratings, and box office would all say pretty clearly that the biggest DC triumph was WW, not SS. You're entitled to *like* what you like, but 'biggest triumph' may not be the best choice of words in this instance.
No, they were exactly the words I wanted. WW's success was something of a given, it had very little to do with the films quality (which broke down into a muddled mess, in terms of message, story and visuals). SS wasn't -good-, but it was actually a fun romp with a fair amount coherent storytelling, something all the other DC films have utterly failed at, being neither particularly fun and nor particularly coherent, either internally or externally. Best of a bad lot, as it were, at least so far.
'Triumph' suggests success or victory, which SS was not in terms of critical reviews or audience reaction. Critics savaged it and audiences gave it a just-okay B+ Cinemascore. It did okay at the box office, but still less than WW.
Ayer wrote the thing in a matter of weeks, and then the studio had a trailer company recut it. He's basically apologized for how it turned out, but it wasn't all on him.
Same critics who worship without reservation Rian Johnson and the Last Jedi? Seriously F them.
It was better than Bats vs Sups and Man of Steel at least.
Mr Morden wrote: served as a bridge between the bad old films (Nolans trilogy, Man of Steel,Bats vs Sups) and far superior films - Wonder Woman, Justice League and if the film lives up to the trailers - Aquaman.
Are you saying with a straight face you think Justice League was a better movie than the Nolan Batman movies?
Mr Morden wrote: served as a bridge between the bad old films (Nolans trilogy, Man of Steel,Bats vs Sups) and far superior films - Wonder Woman, Justice League and if the film lives up to the trailers - Aquaman.
Are you saying with a straight face you think Justice League was a better movie than the Nolan Batman movies?
Yep - The first one is way way too long, the whole Ninja chaos stuff is weak and the the second film is just crap. Didn't bother with the third.
I watched a whole bunch of upcoming Superhero trailers and this one looked the most interesting. I am not a DC fan, but the trailer looked more interesting than Captain Marvel to me.
Mr Morden wrote: served as a bridge between the bad old films (Nolans trilogy, Man of Steel,Bats vs Sups) and far superior films - Wonder Woman, Justice League and if the film lives up to the trailers - Aquaman.
Are you saying with a straight face you think Justice League was a better movie than the Nolan Batman movies?
I don't think they meet Morden's "Hawt Chix" requirement...
gorgon wrote: Final trailer is here. We see some new stuff in this one, including the Ocean Master helmet.
Yeesh. Yet more 'stuff' to pack into a film that already looks like it's going to have a groan-worthy running time.
Either that or the movie is going to run straight for the trident while jamming in all those freaking flashbacks back-to-back, then jump to the giant CGI battle with no context.
Weird but neat Highlander homage in that beach training scene.
Mr Morden wrote: served as a bridge between the bad old films (Nolans trilogy, Man of Steel,Bats vs Sups) and far superior films - Wonder Woman, Justice League and if the film lives up to the trailers - Aquaman.
Are you saying with a straight face you think Justice League was a better movie than the Nolan Batman movies?
I actually agree with him on that point. That trilogy is WAY overrated.
Mr Morden wrote: served as a bridge between the bad old films (Nolans trilogy, Man of Steel,Bats vs Sups) and far superior films - Wonder Woman, Justice League and if the film lives up to the trailers - Aquaman.
Are you saying with a straight face you think Justice League was a better movie than the Nolan Batman movies?
I actually agree with him on that point. That trilogy is WAY overrated.
The nolan movies had a really good origin for 2 face and a really good joker. Thats it. They have the worst batman on film. a okay scare crow. A gak ras, talia, and bane. They are bad batman movies.
AduroT wrote: You think Nolan’s Batman was worse than Aflec’s Murder Hobo?
Afleks Murder Hobo was 1) a detective. 2) figured out the bad guys plot AND supermans weakness. 3) got batmans simmering rage down. 4) understood that voice synthesizers exist.
Bales batmans was 1) the biggest idiot batman we have seen to date. He did no detective work you and I couldn't also do with the same machine AND every one of those movies ends with the bad guy explaining to a very confused batman the plot of the movie because he couldn't figure out gak. 2) a hypocrite. Just because he SAYS no guns doesn't stop him from getting into "The Bat" and firing guns and rockets all over the city to knock talia off a bridge and killing her. Him being a bad shot doesn't make his gun use any less. 3) a quiter. He quits between or at the end of every movie.
I think Afleks batman REALLY fethed up on the killing department. But Bale was also a killer. In all 3 of those movies he kills. AT LEAST Aflek was intelligent, which is batmans actual greatest weapon. Bale is the biggest idiot we have seen on screen. Just... a complete moron. He really is just some fething guy in a body armor running around. The LITERAL only difference between him and that guy in foot ball pads is the money he has to buy armor. They are both equally dumb as gak.
Mr Morden wrote: served as a bridge between the bad old films (Nolans trilogy, Man of Steel,Bats vs Sups) and far superior films - Wonder Woman, Justice League and if the film lives up to the trailers - Aquaman.
Are you saying with a straight face you think Justice League was a better movie than the Nolan Batman movies?
I don't think they meet Morden's "Hawt Chix" requirement...
Nope - or in fact any real female characters - Nolan never bothers in his films - he either can't or won't write them.
The Nolan Batman is a massively lazy creation, is no detective, usual nonsense of White guy goes to Asia and becomes a super ninja much better than all those asian guys - poor chumps.
Scarecrow is done well - in direct opposiiton to the the Rhas aGhul character who is luaghably bad.
And then it goes downhill in quality in Film 2. I decided not to waste time or money on film 3.
New Angry Batman is far far better than Nolan's - but then he never wanted to make a Superhero film. Strange really as he struggles wth creating anything more than pretty visuals - see inception. All flash and no substance.
New Aquaman looks like great fun and looking forward to it - oh and it has female characters - at least one of whom is also hot but either is beyond or beneath the interest of Nolan.
why underwater people have such fantastic hair ? (its only of my pet 'merfolk' peeves along with how lack of fire would leave them at stoneage tech levels)
gorgon wrote: Final trailer is here. We see some new stuff in this one, including the Ocean Master helmet.
Yeesh. Yet more 'stuff' to pack into a film that already looks like it's going to have a groan-worthy running time.
Either that or the movie is going to run straight for the trident while jamming in all those freaking flashbacks back-to-back, then jump to the giant CGI battle with no context.
Weird but neat Highlander homage in that beach training scene.
2:23. Not too bad for a film with a decent amount of world building to do.
And if Infinity War can handle a cast of thousands, I’m pretty sure Aquaman can handle a main adversary and a secondary villain (who is probably out for both Arthur and Orm, and being set up for a main villain role in a sequel). Think you’re being a little dire here over nothing much. James Wan is a good filmmaker...I don’t know if this is going to be a transcendent film or just a solid one or something in between, but he’ll get a good product into the theaters. He had creative control of this one.
gorgon wrote: Final trailer is here. We see some new stuff in this one, including the Ocean Master helmet.
Yeesh. Yet more 'stuff' to pack into a film that already looks like it's going to have a groan-worthy running time.
Either that or the movie is going to run straight for the trident while jamming in all those freaking flashbacks back-to-back, then jump to the giant CGI battle with no context.
Weird but neat Highlander homage in that beach training scene.
2:23. Not too bad for a film with a decent amount of world building to do.
And if Infinity War can handle a cast of thousands, I’m pretty sure Aquaman can handle a main adversary and a secondary villain (who is probably out for both Arthur and Orm, and being set up for a main villain role in a sequel). Think you’re being a little dire here over nothing much. James Wan is a good filmmaker...I don’t know if this is going to be a transcendent film or just a solid one or something in between, but he’ll get a good product into the theaters. He had creative control of this one.
Does loook great
So is the guy with the trident in the hologram Poisidon - hence his trident?
Turnip Jedi wrote: why underwater people have such fantastic hair ? (its only of my pet 'merfolk' peeves along with how lack of fire would leave them at stoneage tech levels)
looks fun but not cinema excursion fun
It's not a great answer, but in most instances where "Atlantis goes to war" we usually get to see fish-smiths forging weapons over underwater volcanoes.
gorgon wrote: Final trailer is here. We see some new stuff in this one, including the Ocean Master helmet.
Yeesh. Yet more 'stuff' to pack into a film that already looks like it's going to have a groan-worthy running time.
Either that or the movie is going to run straight for the trident while jamming in all those freaking flashbacks back-to-back, then jump to the giant CGI battle with no context.
Weird but neat Highlander homage in that beach training scene.
2:23. Not too bad for a film with a decent amount of world building to do.
And if Infinity War can handle a cast of thousands, I’m pretty sure Aquaman can handle a main adversary and a secondary villain (who is probably out for both Arthur and Orm, and being set up for a main villain role in a sequel). Think you’re being a little dire here over nothing much. James Wan is a good filmmaker...I don’t know if this is going to be a transcendent film or just a solid one or something in between, but he’ll get a good product into the theaters. He had creative control of this one.
The name means little to me, the amount of elements being jammed into 2 hours 23 minutes means a lot,
For example, it's not just handling a general overview of his childhood, but specifically dealing with:
1- how mummy and daddy met,
2- how mummy dies (or fights off assassins before dying, which we see despite AC not being there for that)
3- his rebellious teenage years on the surface,
4- his teenage training years and creepy uncle teaching him his heritage under the water.
If it's done well, those will be well timed flashbacks or the first half hour more or less on the dot. If it isn't done well, it can drag on for half the bloody film.
Then we've got an extended desert arc, with hiking, puzzles, divine exposition drops and sudden villain extended chase scene.
Then (hopefully finally) we've got undersea politics, army prepping, extended cgi armies fighting, giant leviathan 'surprise' and political and film resolution.
Plus an early submarine scene to establish an introduction to plot and general 'reluctant' heroics. Plus whatever filler, which includes introductions for at least 4-5 other characters and a their relevant exposition (beyond the dead/absent parents)
That's honestly a lot for that run time. Especially if there is even more present that isn't in the trailers already.
---
And honestly, IW didn't do a cast of thousands. It did a cast of about a dozen to twenty, with other characters standing in the background dropping one-liners.
gorgon wrote: Final trailer is here. We see some new stuff in this one, including the Ocean Master helmet.
Yeesh. Yet more 'stuff' to pack into a film that already looks like it's going to have a groan-worthy running time.
Either that or the movie is going to run straight for the trident while jamming in all those freaking flashbacks back-to-back, then jump to the giant CGI battle with no context.
Weird but neat Highlander homage in that beach training scene.
2:23. Not too bad for a film with a decent amount of world building to do.
And if Infinity War can handle a cast of thousands, I’m pretty sure Aquaman can handle a main adversary and a secondary villain (who is probably out for both Arthur and Orm, and being set up for a main villain role in a sequel). Think you’re being a little dire here over nothing much. James Wan is a good filmmaker...I don’t know if this is going to be a transcendent film or just a solid one or something in between, but he’ll get a good product into the theaters. He had creative control of this one.
The name means little to me, the amount of elements being jammed into 2 hours 23 minutes means a lot,
Spoiler:
For example, it's not just handling a general overview of his childhood, but specifically dealing with:
1- how mummy and daddy met,
2- how mummy dies (or fights off assassins before dying, which we see despite AC not being there for that)
3- his rebellious teenage years on the surface,
4- his teenage training years and creepy uncle teaching him his heritage under the water.
If it's done well, those will be well timed flashbacks or the first half hour more or less on the dot. If it isn't done well, it can drag on for half the bloody film.
Then we've got an extended desert arc, with hiking, puzzles, divine exposition drops and sudden villain extended chase scene.
Then (hopefully finally) we've got undersea politics, army prepping, extended cgi armies fighting, giant leviathan 'surprise' and political and film resolution.
Plus an early submarine scene to establish an introduction to plot and general 'reluctant' heroics. Plus whatever filler, which includes introductions for at least 4-5 other characters and a their relevant exposition (beyond the dead/absent parents)
That's honestly a lot for that run time. Especially if there is even more present that isn't in the trailers already.
---
And honestly, IW didn't do a cast of thousands. It did a cast of about a dozen to twenty, with other characters standing in the background dropping one-liners.
Well, those are some deep rooted fears you have there, so there’s not a lot I can say to quell them over a movie that neither of us has seen.
Whoops - sorry - I should have been more clear - I think it is Poseidon's Trident that Arthur is after - as that would be a nice upgrade over his...other one!
Yeah, the common keywords from critics seem to be 'fun', 'big', and 'creative'.
Like I said before, James Wan is a good filmmaker who will get a good product into theaters. It's probably no Citizen Kane, but it sounds like it doesn't want or try to be that.
WB needs to stack a few good solid well-received films, and it sounds like Aquaman will be a great start. It'll be a really hard opening weekend to do boffo box office, but the Xmas season may give it some good legs.
gorgon wrote: Yeah, the common keywords from critics seem to be 'fun', 'big', and 'creative'.
Like I said before, James Wan is a good filmmaker who will get a good product into theaters. It's probably no Citizen Kane, but it sounds like it doesn't want or try to be that.
WB needs to stack a few good solid well-received films, and it sounds like Aquaman will be a great start. It'll be a really hard opening weekend to do boffo box office, but the Xmas season may give it some good legs.
Looking forward to seeing it No interest in what critics have to say.
gorgon wrote: I kinda hope the post-credits scene is a 60 second extreme closeup of Jesse Eisenberg just to make Morden convulse and foam at the mouth.
Thats harsh but yeah that would tick me off. Unless of course its his head on a stick - now that would be glorious,
gorgon wrote: I kinda hope the post-credits scene is a 60 second extreme closeup of Jesse Eisenberg just to make Morden convulse and foam at the mouth.
Even better!
Lex is, in this Brave New New DC Film Universe, a Morden Approved Hawt Chik, but...she's channeling Eisenberg for her performance!
Now that would be something to see - if you could see Morden watch that.
He wouldn't be able to stand up, but his...head would explode?
Looking forward to seeing Aquaman now - even more than before!
Aquaman does look like a cool adventure romp about a guy becoming a big damn hero, rather than a chronicle of the main character(s) tormented soul through pain and loss.
I kinda think that Aquaman might be becoming DC movie-realm's Thor.
gorgon wrote: I kinda hope the post-credits scene is a 60 second extreme closeup of Jesse Eisenberg just to make Morden convulse and foam at the mouth.
Even better!
Lex is, in this Brave New New DC Film Universe, a Morden Approved Hawt Chik, but...she's channeling Eisenberg for her performance!
Now that would be something to see - if you could see Morden watch that.
He wouldn't be able to stand up, but his...head would explode?
Looking forward to seeing Aquaman now - even more than before!
It does look good - great fun even.
re Hawt girl is that Nicole from Wynonna Earyp (oh and Discovery) cos happy with that, luckily I don't know if any actress could act that badly
They would have to motion capture his stupid monkey like capering and dub his whiny pathetic voice as well as spend a lot of time writing him Dumb Dumb DaDumb. Seems like a lot of work.
AduroT wrote: I’m going to wager that the end credits is Lex recruiting Manta into his Legion of Doom.
That was my thought as well.
Supposedly the Legion of Doom post-credit thing is kaput. I'm not sure it makes much sense anyway in a franchise that probably won't have another JL film for years, if ever.
I think these films are going to be almost completely standalone for while. It's really hard to have a DCU when Superman and Batman are probably headed for a full reboot. And if more standalone franchises is what it takes to get more good DC films...I say so be it. *shrug*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mysterio wrote: I would've agreed a few months ago, but WB/DC seem to be distancing themselves from all of that.
I'd love for it to be true - and I'd LOVE for there to actually be a surprise Cavill/Superman cameo in Shazam, but...
The Cavill situation is really frustrating. I think WB is better off with Cavill as Superman. And I think Cavill is better off with the Superman role in his repertoire.
BUT...apparently Cavill is asking for a lot, and I can see why WB would be wary of backing up the Brinks truck. His Superman films underperformed at the BO. I can see how it's not Cavill's fault, but I can also see why WB is wary about lingering negativity that could be attached to the guy. And it's not like a good Superman movie can't be made without Henry Cavill.
Hopefully what will happen is that Aquaman will alleviate lingering doubts about Snyderverse survivors, and both sides bend a little, leading to a really good, true sequel to Man of Steel. But I suspect WB is just going to let Cavill's contract run out, and reboot Superman down the road.
Given that one of the only 'good' things to be universally (Ha!) recognized out of Justice League was Cavill's 'new' approach to Superman, and given the early good buzz on Aquaman, I'm still holding out hope for something to happen with him and WB.
Because, like you, I really want a Cavill lead sequel to MoS!
Mysterio wrote: Given that one of the only 'good' things to be universally (Ha!) recognized out of Justice League was Cavill's 'new' approach to Superman, and given the early good buzz on Aquaman, I'm still holding out hope for something to happen with him and WB.
Because, like you, I really want a Cavill lead sequel to MoS!
Not up to date on this - what actors are still in contract and could appear in a cameo / post credits? Is Ben A def gone?
Mysterio wrote: Given that one of the only 'good' things to be universally (Ha!) recognized out of Justice League was Cavill's 'new' approach to Superman, and given the early good buzz on Aquaman, I'm still holding out hope for something to happen with him and WB.
Because, like you, I really want a Cavill lead sequel to MoS!
Per the rumormongers I read/listen to, early this year WB was ready to go all in on Superman after JL, and even make him the thread that holds the new, Snyderless DCU together. The Shazam cameo would probably have been one of a few before the new SM film arrived.
Then the contract thing happened (Cavill only has one film left on his deal, and the studio understandably isn't going to roll him out as Superman again without having him locked up long term) and everything crumbled. The new head of the DC film franchise (Walter Hamada) doesn't seem to be the type to mess around, so the studio seems to be moving on.
@Morden: Everyone assumed Affleck to be gone a long time ago. But per one reporter, he recently warmed up to the idea of suiting up again, maybe in a bookend sequence in the next firm (Old Bruce telling a story from his early days as Batman kind of thing). But the director of the new film (Reeves, who has creative control) said no. I think that might have been cool, but I can also understand why the director would pass.
Damn, WB needs to stay the hell away from the Reset Button. Just salvage what you got, make the next JL movie good (Not that I thought the last one was bad, I think it's just the "in" thing to bag on anything DCU) and build the franchise.
Poor DC. This is why you cast relative unknowns and lock them down hard. And then if it works out you roll out the truck because they are worth it. Another area they didn't learn from Marvel before they even got started.
Gal Gadot and Jason Momoa (box office projections keep going up for Aquaman) say hello, however. Zachary Levi may join that club, if Shazam! is well received like some are expecting.
Cavill was also exactly what you say, except that they burned two of his appearances on films that were poorly received. Now you have an actor with one film left on his deal who doesn't want to do it anymore unless he gets director approval, etc., and a studio that's reluctant to give a guy whose movies have done nothing but underperform a new deal with that kind of power and privilege.
The takeaway is to make movies that audiences like and want to pay to see, and the rest will work out.
Affleck was obviously a big name, and sure, that casting was fraught with peril. Then again, the recent revelation that the Snyderverse was supposed to end after JL2 means that they weren't looking at him being Batman indefinitely. Was the Snyderverse a good plan? Apparently not, so another takeaway here is to have a good plan that everyone involved approves of and understands.
The "dceu" doesnt actually exist anymore. Wb has given up on trying to actively link the movies going forward and tell an ongoing narrative. Word is they just intend to make movies. If sometimes a character from one shows up in another then thats all it is. But they have no intention of building a cohesive single storyline like marvel has done.
Mostly because they suck at it and their actors are quiting.
Lance845 wrote: The "dceu" doesnt actually exist anymore. Wb has given up on trying to actively link the movies going forward and tell an ongoing narrative. Word is they just intend to make movies. If sometimes a character from one shows up in another then thats all it is. But they have no intention of building a cohesive single storyline like marvel has done.
Mostly because they suck at it and their actors are quiting.
Good riddance. I hope Snyder never touches another super hero movie again.
Early returns with the critics aren't bad. 78% on RT, and a more mixed 53 on metacritic (only 2 negative reviews there so far though). Scanned some reviews and it seems like the general consensus is that it's campy and the script might not be amazing, but it's big dumb fun with some cool visuals.
I have no idea how one would go about doing a thoughtful character study of Aquaman. He's not Batman, nor do his villains resemble Batman villains. His source material includes a pet octopus that plays instruments. For many, their most prominent memory of him involves him riding a giant seahorse. So I think James Wan's instincts were right to go really big, fun and otherworldly with this character.
Now, if someone somehow pulled off a deep character dive (pun intended), I'm sure critics would have called it another gloomy introspective affair from the DCEU.
Scores seem to be holding steady. Seems like it may not be a perfect movie, but it's a good popcorn film with some really great visuals. Apparently the third act is insane.
I'm really excited to see the proverbial balls arrive at the wall. Sometimes a nerd just wants to see a bunch of colorful costumes and creatures with colorful lore smack head first into each other in epic combat. That's colorful.
gorgon wrote: I have no idea how one would go about doing a thoughtful character study of Aquaman. He's not Batman, nor do his villains resemble Batman villains. His source material includes a pet octopus that plays instruments. For many, their most prominent memory of him involves him riding a giant seahorse. So I think James Wan's instincts were right to go really big, fun and otherworldly with this character.
Now, if someone somehow pulled off a deep character dive (pun intended), I'm sure critics would have called it another gloomy introspective affair from the DCEU.
Scores seem to be holding steady. Seems like it may not be a perfect movie, but it's a good popcorn film with some really great visuals. Apparently the third act is insane.
Batman isn't much better, with equally goofy nonsense in the source material. Its just that Bats had a lot more iterations beyond the silliness, whereas the useless 'Superfriends' Aquaman became a cultural touchstone that stuck for a long, long time. Even kids who never saw it on TV got it from south park or Dragonball Z abridged.
Though I agree with your larger point. A fun superhero movie has a better shot than DCs usual fare.
This line from IGN's review was all I need to see the film:
"This is the movie Green Lantern was too reluctant to be."
I still love the way Aquaman's perception was addressed in the post Brightest Day relaunch. The police trying to protect him and someone horrified to see him eating fish at a restaurant. Good stuff.
Compel wrote: Yeah, they even ended up sort of addressing that in the New52, with Hal Jordan echoing the typical Superfriends/Big Bang Theory talking points.
Aquaman's response.
Spoiler:
That was a good moment for him. I always liked this resolution to the Aquaman vs. Namor battle many years back. It's corny, but it fits and works.
Spoiler:
LunarSol wrote: This line from IGN's review was all I need to see the film:
"This is the movie Green Lantern was too reluctant to be."
It seems to have been received particularly well on nerd sites...? Definitely seems like Wan embraced the comics like no one ever has. I mean, (minor spoiler):
Spoiler:
Apparently Topo the musical octopus IS IN the movie.
Compel wrote: Yeah, they even ended up sort of addressing that in the New52, with Hal Jordan echoing the typical Superfriends/Big Bang Theory talking points.
gorgon wrote:That was a good moment for him. I always liked this resolution to the Aquaman vs. Namor battle many years back. It's corny, but it fits and works.
Spoiler:
So the guy who takes down entire superteams, goes toe to toe with the Hulk, all the while screaming "IMPERIOUS REX!!!!!!!!!" is going to get clubbed with a whale? THAT entire book was lined with matches that shouldn't have ended the way they did. It was an embarrassment, and is all the more reason why JLA/Avengers needs to be held up as the paragon of Marvel/DC crossovers.
gorgon wrote:That was a good moment for him. I always liked this resolution to the Aquaman vs. Namor battle many years back. It's corny, but it fits and works.
Spoiler:
So the guy who takes down entire superteams, goes toe to toe with the Hulk, all the while screaming "IMPERIOUS REX!!!!!!!!!" is going to get clubbed with a whale? THAT entire book was lined with matches that shouldn't have ended the way they did. It was an embarrassment, and is all the more reason why JLA/Avengers needs to be held up as the paragon of Marvel/DC crossovers.
Power levels are whatever a given story needs them to be, and Namor is a prime example. It's really not something to get bent out of shape about.
In other news, Momoa says Cavill isn't done.
"I just talked to Henry… He’s absolutely not [leaving the character],” he said. “He loves the character, he’s not. 100 percent.
gorgon wrote:That was a good moment for him. I always liked this resolution to the Aquaman vs. Namor battle many years back. It's corny, but it fits and works.
Spoiler:
So the guy who takes down entire superteams, goes toe to toe with the Hulk, all the while screaming "IMPERIOUS REX!!!!!!!!!" is going to get clubbed with a whale? THAT entire book was lined with matches that shouldn't have ended the way they did. It was an embarrassment, and is all the more reason why JLA/Avengers needs to be held up as the paragon of Marvel/DC crossovers.
Power levels are whatever a given story needs them to be, and Namor is a prime example. It's really not something to get bent out of shape about.
In other news, Momoa says Cavill isn't done.
"I just talked to Henry… He’s absolutely not [leaving the character],” he said. “He loves the character, he’s not. 100 percent.
I don't really believe it, but there it is.
That same Crossover had Storm beating Wonder Woman, Wolverine beating Lobo, and Batman beating Captain America. How well do YOU trust it? I don't. Once again, read JLA/Avengers by Kurt Busiek and George Perez, THAT is a crossover between the two groups done right.
I really enjoyed it. There's nothing revolutionary here, it's a big flashy superhero action movie. But it's a big flashy superhero movie done well, with the good sort of cheese and melodrama, likable characters and well-shot and easy to follow action scenes (especially the Manta fight and the final battle, which could have just been a big confusing lightshow). It's nice to see the DC movies finding their feet.
I saw it too, and I liked it. It’s not amazing or game changing, but it is more than passable, which by DC’s current standards is great, and a good sign that they’re continuing to turn it around. It can sit comfortably beside Wonderwoman. A solid 7.
It’s interesting to me that some critics have felt that the villains were weaknesses. I was fine with Orm as the big bad with a POV, and thought we got the perfect amount of Manta as a rage machine who will be fully realized in a sequel.
Aquaman was entirely too good. I literally can't believe DC managed to make a freaking Aquaman movie this good. This may be the most absurd success outside of GotG being brilliant.
Also, Amber Heard is stupid gorgeous. What the hell was Depp thinking?!
I mean, its a bad movie. Just a really fun one. Whenever it tries to pause and do something serious the wheels come off, but when it wants to be about fishmen riding sharks into battle against crabmen it delivers. Black Manta is done exceptionally well and makes for probably one of the best multi major villain uses I've seen in a super hero film. It helps that the cast doesn't hold back and seems all in throughout. It ironically lacks depth, but overcompensates with a pretty stunning realization of a comic world that even comics have often failed to realize. It's Geoff Johns's DC through and through and that's the kind of DC I like.
I went in with really low expectations (despite having missed BvS and JL myself) and was pleasantly surprised. The dudebro attitude of Momoa was grating at times and overdone frequently but overall is was a fun movie that didn't pretend to be something more culturally significant than an action movie nor act as just a pitstop between other movies or setup for a universe.
I liked it.
Not hurt by Momoa being a likeable bloke in person and Amber Heard being smoking hot (JD has a history of discarding hotties, though). Momoa was having fun (which tbh, he also did with Stargate Atlantis) and taking none of it too seriously.
I went into it with low expectations, but knowing that Zack had ZERO to do with this film raised my hopes a tad (I'm not a fan of ANY of his movies, he's more of a hack than Michael Bay, but at least Bay knows he's a hack and plays to it). It's a shame it took a personal tragedy for him to step away from the franchise, but every cloud ...
It also helped that I have zero emotional or sentimental attachment to the comic character. If there were any comic book in-joke references, I probably missed them. I give it a 6.5 out of 10, being one of the "general public" who has the barest of passing knowledge about the franchise.
Not going to lie, normally being a Marvel fan boy (and not even trying to hide it), Aquaman was...AWESOME! The scenery/background...the landscape...easily the best of all the comic book movies that have been made. The underwater views were jawdroppingly awesome. It might not have been DEEP (except some of the oceanic depths), but it was a blast. One of the most fun and enjoyable comic book movies yet. Mamoa clearly had fun with the role, Manta was great, and the guy cast as Orm was perfect. Stellar cast. Plot was similar enough to JL: Throne of Atlantis with a few twists, and a seriously awesome Kaiju thrown in at the end because “why the hell not”. Loved it. If you haven’t yet, then go to the bloody theater and watch it!
Went with my usual friends and we enjoyed it - good action, it all looked awesome - charters worked well -easiyl as good as second string Marvel films like Guardians or Thor 3.
The Monster at the end was fabulous - tenticled Godzilla for the win (and it was actually in the movie rather than last pitiful movie)
James Waan (sp) did his homework. He watched every Marvel movies and figured out the formula, and then ruthlessly applied it to this movie.
The main divergence was the fact that James did not stick with aping only a single genre; instead he threw in a lot of genres. It had period piece drama, Kaiju, dynastic struggle, horror, action/adventure, war movies, etc.
I have a few quibbles here and there..... but overall this was a very well-done and entertaining movie. Just don't look too close.
Yeah, the big and important difference is that Wan really went for it, where most Marvel movies have a conservatism about them. Aquaman didn't stick every landing, but it lands quite a few nicely.
I disagree with LunarSol about it being a bad but fun film. It's certainly no Citizen Kane, but I don't see how the calculus ends up with 'bad'. Catwoman and Elektra are BAD films. The script needed some work in spots, no doubt. I'm not great with dialogue, but even I'd like a shot at polishing some of those lines. The story could have used some work through the middle of the film, but I don't think it's a 'bad' story. It covers his origin, handles two villains well, and does a ton of worldbuilding without feeling as overstuffed as BvS.
The performances were fine (Momoa better than expected), and I thought there were some solid heartfelt moments like Arthur's admission that he screwed up with Manta, Arthur and Orm's conversation before the ring of fire, etc. Again, it wasn't Shakespeare, but it wasn't 'bad movie' fodder either.
The direction was also really good IMO. There were some very complicated action sequences that didn't get murky or hard to follow. And of course the visuals and design were top notch. FWIW, I saw it a second time with my kids and it was fun getting to enjoy the visuals again and focus on other spots and things I missed.
I disagree with LunarSol about it being a bad but fun film. It's certainly no Citizen Kane, but I don't see how the calculus ends up with 'bad'. Catwoman and Elektra are BAD films. The script needed some work in spots, no doubt. I'm not great with dialogue, but even I'd like a shot at polishing some of those lines. The story could have used some work through the middle of the film, but I don't think it's a 'bad' story. It covers his origin, handles two villains well, and does a ton of worldbuilding without feeling as overstuffed as BvS.
I'm mostly talking about the stuff that usually gets brought up when people talk about a "good" film. It's story is fine, but lacks a thematic through line that causes it to fall apart whenever it tries to add any real depth to the characters. There's ideas there with characters talking about stuff like bridging the land and sea but at no point does that really matter in a character driven way. Arthur claims his birthright because he's the heir to the sea pretty much entirely by embracing the sea half of his heritage and really at no point does the land come into it. The movie never really answers the "why" he should be king so much as show us why his brother shouldn't. I get the impression that the weird Chekov's spinning trident thing is supposed to tie into that theme but still never quite delivers a bigger idea that is at the heart of what are generally considered "good" movies. That's not to say its not fun. There's a reason the rest of my post is generally positive. It's a fun film no doubt that I'll definitely recommend to the kind of crowd I think would enjoy it (aka fellow comic nerds); just not one that has the kind of things I consider part of a movie that strives to be more than a fun ride.
I disagree with LunarSol about it being a bad but fun film. It's certainly no Citizen Kane, but I don't see how the calculus ends up with 'bad'. Catwoman and Elektra are BAD films. The script needed some work in spots, no doubt. I'm not great with dialogue, but even I'd like a shot at polishing some of those lines. The story could have used some work through the middle of the film, but I don't think it's a 'bad' story. It covers his origin, handles two villains well, and does a ton of worldbuilding without feeling as overstuffed as BvS.
I'm mostly talking about the stuff that usually gets brought up when people talk about a "good" film. It's story is fine, but lacks a thematic through line that causes it to fall apart whenever it tries to add any real depth to the characters. There's ideas there with characters talking about stuff like bridging the land and sea but at no point does that really matter in a character driven way. Arthur claims his birthright because he's the heir to the sea pretty much entirely by embracing the sea half of his heritage and really at no point does the land come into it. The movie never really answers the "why" he should be king so much as show us why his brother shouldn't. I get the impression that the weird Chekov's spinning trident thing is supposed to tie into that theme but still never quite delivers a bigger idea that is at the heart of what are generally considered "good" movies. That's not to say its not fun. There's a reason the rest of my post is generally positive. It's a fun film no doubt that I'll definitely recommend to the kind of crowd I think would enjoy it (aka fellow comic nerds); just not one that has the kind of things I consider part of a movie that strives to be more than a fun ride.
Well said Lunasol.... and bang on.
There was very little shown on screen that made me thing..... Aquaman should be king and is a hero. Instead, he just looked like another "I am King because I have the biggest Trident!". There are two parts why when they try to get beyond this and show why he is different. however, other scenes in the movie then seem to contradict this supposed "growth" or heroic qualities making the movie a bit chaotic in that regard. However, this is not uncommon in Superhero movies, but something that Avenger/Marvel movies seem to consider a bit more. For example, a big Theme in New York and Sacovia in the Avenger's films is the heroes trying to rescue and help normal people while risking themselves. This is a part of hero-dom that DC is a bit more spotty on.
I’d argue that there’s at least one through-line, in the form of the effects that parents (and lack thereof) have on their children...specifically the moral guidance of a father and the stability and healing powers of a mother.
Both Orm and Manta were morally poisoned by their fathers, and this is specifically called out in the script by Atlanna and Arthur respectively. Arthur had the benefit of a good father and developed a strong, positive moral code. However, the lack of a mother left him somewhat emotionally stunted and unwilling to trust.
Finding Atlanna heals this aspect of Arthur and allows him to become a better balanced individual, and I think it’s important that this happens immediately before the trident. She was the key to him becoming a more worthy king. It’s also notable that Orm is a monster in many respects, yet Atlanna’s unconditional love and refusal to blame him suggests the possibility of some level of redemption. Manta, poisoned by his father and lacking the healing presence of a mother, has no path to redemption and is ultimately a scarier villain than Orm.
Again, this stuff is hardly Lear or Hamlet, but if someone asked me about the theme, this is what I’d probably talk about.
I still cant believe they actually put the drum playing octopus in this film, the director seemed to really love the source material and this film is great.
Well it is now the top earner for the DCEU at $238 domestic/$888 world wide.
Right now Aquaman's world wide gross is higher than any film in the X-Men film series. It is behind only Deadpool ($363) and Deadpool 2 ($318) in domestic box office.
If it were an MCU film it would currently rank 7th in world wide gross behind the Avengers series, BP, IM3, and Civil War. It would rank 6th in other territories behind those same films, but ahead of BP by $3 mil. It would only be 14th in domestic gross with an outside shot of reaching the top 10 down the line.
Right now Aquaman is the 11th highest-grossing superhero movie (without adjusting for inflation) and the second highest solo debut behind Black Panther. It would need to earn another $200 to move up to the 8th spot, but it's currently only $2 mil from cracking the top 10.
I think it will surpass $300 domestic/$1.1 worldwide at this point.
The big loser in the Xmas season crunch was Bumblebee. It looks like Mary Poppins will make its money, but BB ran into a juggernaut in Aquaman.
WB is undoubtedly feeling much better about their DC properties, with promising Shazam and Joker films on the way, and WW2 behind those.
Matt Reeves’ Batman movie might shoot later this year. Supposedly the script is a noirish detective story of Batman working a case. Which is exciting stuff...it’s just going to be awhile.
Keep in mind that the Joker movie has something like a $60 mil budget. Could be a critical disaster (though the buzz is that the script is really good) but something would have to go really wrong for it not to break even, IMO. I’m much more interested in that one than Shazam. But I think Shazam will do well with those who like lighter fare, and really well with kids.
I think Shazam won't do as well as it looks like it should purely because it's (rather ironically, given the history of the name) up against Captain Marvel, which looks equally excellent; comic fans will probably see both, but Marvel is an easy sell over DC to mainstream audiences.
The Joker movie I have no hope for. Mainly as I don't think you can ever really do Joker justice as a protagonist. Either you try and make him sympathetic, and thus miss the point of him as evil incarnate, or you hope the audience is just going to revel in glorified violence and horror (which, to be fair, is an entire sub-genre of horror movie, but I think Joker deserves better in his proper role as a true villain). That all goes double if they're going to try and give him an origin story, Gotham is the only time that's ever worked and that's only by a) subverting it and b) casting an absolutely perfect actor in the role.
As for Aquaman though, saw it today and I think it might be the most fun I've had seeing a movie for ages. Just the sheer amount of comic-book gloriousness, the Marvel Formula but bigger, louder, even more in love with its source material. From the amazingly comicy costumes on Arthur, Oceanmaster and Manta (never thought I'd see those two wearing their comic-accurate helmets in an actual movie! ) to the amazingly out-there visuals to the sheer scale of the spectacle and the willingness to throw in so many genre elements, from a buddy comedy tone between Arthur and Mera to a monster movie vibe in the finale... So much stuff packed in there, and the vast majority of it great.
I feel it absolutely nailed the tone that I think Thor Ragnarok utterly missed, as it knew when to be dumb and brash and ridiculous and when to quiet down a bit and be serious to hit the emotional beats, rather than undercutting every character moment or plot point with a crass joke or a bit of slapstick. I'll happily see Wan take on more comic book properties, and after this I reckon he'd be a shoe-in to put a well-done Green Lantern up on screen, as again there's room for the utterly insane alongside the very heartfelt and human.
I'll definitely go see it and I think you will be proven riht on this one. It will be a 3 star movie (or 70%) enjoyable and nice, but not exactly special in any way shape or form. The big thing that could change this is the acting. If the acting is great, the movie could shine, but seeing the trailer, I doubt it will stellar.
Joker will bomb.
It will proably be better than expcted because I expect it to be pure garbage. Low expectations can help sometime.
WW2 will be disappointing, storywise and possibly at the box office.
It will probably be significantly worse then the first one which was, in my opinion, one of the best superhero movie (with the Nolan's Batman, the oldy Superman for example). I still don't think it will be bad. Probably a descent movie in the 3 star realm, but I leave some place for optimism. The biggest asset of WW was Gadot's performance and its biggest problem its villain casting. In the second one, we will have the first, but not the second.
And they'll finally announce a new Superman movie with Henry in it!
That could indeed be welcome. Man of Steel wasn't all that bad neither was Justice League (they could have been much better though).
I should have made it clear that, aside from the Joker movie, which I really don't care about one way or the other, I *hope* that Shazam does well, and I hope WW2 does too.
Shazam is going to be hard to pull off/get right.
And the whole thing about WW2 being set in 1984, and somehow Trevor is there...
Still, we'll see, and I hope they all do well, much to the chagrin of all those 'serious' Film fans and critics!
A rising tide lifts all boats - and means more quality super-hero fare for all!
I think Shazam is a very strong concept that will play really well with general audiences. ‘Big’ with superheroes...naturally lighthearted material and kid friendly. I certainly don’t think it’s billion dollar material, but it’s not going to be $250 mil to make it either. I don’t know how anyone can be assigning stars of any kind yet to something that’s only had one short trailer...?
Joker is something that the geek community seems to be having trouble getting their heads around. Forget shared universes, etc...it’s an R-rated gangster movie with some King of Comedy nods and face paint. The buzz is that the script is good, and there are a lot of good people attached. Great cast. But it’s not a Batman movie or anything that leads to something...gotta process it as a gangster movie with the (a?) Joker in it. Really have to start thinking about the DC movies as self-contained entities allowing filmmakers to tell a particular story.
Regarding WW2, I heard a rumor about Trevor’s return and I think it works okay. Don’t want to spoil it in case it’s right, but basically his return is an important part of the story rather than something shoehorned in quickly to get those characters back together. And don’t sweat what the implications are for continuity with JL, etc. That’s mostly out the window.
And the whole thing about WW2 being set in 1984, and somehow Trevor is there...
Didn't the old Linda Carter WW tv show do the same thing though? It's been over 25 years since I watched the reruns as a kid in the 80s but I seem to recall the actor playing Steve Trevor there appearing in both the seasons in "current day" (aka the 1970's) and in World War 2. I may be wrong but I think they just hand waved it off as his son or grandson or somesuch uncanny familial resemblance.
I suppose seeing many of these films as self-contained (mostly) and/or Elseworlds type stories is potentially a better way to look at them.
(Still want that Cavill Superman sequel though!)
There was talk that WB was going to unveil a “black label” brand for stuff like the Joker film. But maybe they aren’t going to bother, if continuity isn’t a thing for the “main” DC films anyway.
Regarding Cavill, I guess we can hope that Aquaman shows WB that the Snyder-casted characters can be popular if rebranded some in their own films. But Cavill and his agent might have to beg after what should have been an easy negotiation became a hardball affair. It looks like WB is just going to stall until Cavill’s current deal (which has one more appearance) is done.
I saw it last night. It was a bit rushed as they tried to cram everything in (apparently Black Manta is in there as fanservice, and it might have been better without that particular plot), but it was fun.
I mostly managed to distract myself from worrying about the dodgy thermodynamics of so much underwater lava.
I just love how this movie and Wonder Woman show that DC can still make good movies when they stick to the source material and focus on characterisation. If only they had started off with this in mind; could have spared us Dawn Of Justice and Justice League.
I still wonder how much of that came down to green lantern flopping. They might have seen how the ‘funny’ movie flopped and the ‘serious’ Nolan trilogy didn’t and figured that serious, humorous and depressing was the way to go. What a shame...
Future War Cultist wrote: I just love how this movie and Wonder Woman show that DC can still make good movies when they stick to the source material and focus on characterisation. If only they had started off with this in mind; could have spared us Dawn Of Justice and Justice League.
I still wonder how much of that came down to green lantern flopping. They might have seen how the ‘funny’ movie flopped and the ‘serious’ Nolan trilogy didn’t and figured that serious, humorous and depressing was the way to go. What a shame...
There's little doubt the big problem with the DCEU was simply that it launched after the success of the Dark Knight trilogy. Even GL suffers in part from not being committed enough to being funny or really anything unique. GL suffers from a lot of things. It was an experiment in a ton of ways even putting a ton of marketing into the suit being total CG when no one wanted that (funny enough, the tech for that suit is pretty much identical to Spiderman and Iron Man's Infinity War costumes fwiw). More that anything though, GL just didn't know what it wanted to be as much as it knew what it wanted its sequel (or two) to be.
Man of Steel was pretty obviously a "Dark Knight" take on Superman in a lot of ways. Snyder is a pretty good pick for that tone of film, but the problem is simply that that tone doesn't work for ongoing continuity. I don't think Snyder is a bad filmmaker by any means, but as a comic fan, he's obviously not really fan of the ongoing medium as much as he is in love with the deconstruction of the medium. Granted, a LOT of people first loved comics as they were being dismantled in the late 80's but the people that took stories like Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen as how comics "should" be created the 90's era for a reason. The problem with those stories is that they're not meant to keep going. They're inherently fatalistic, the world is literally ending and by the end of it everything people love in the beginning has probably died to stall out the apocalypse for one more day. It's not a sustainable universe because its literally falling apart and unfortunately that's the kind of foundation Snyder built in Man of Steel.
I am glad Aquaman is doing well, and I hope they keep having success, but I do really hope DC finds a voice with its movies. As good as WW is, it... kinda... wants to make a point about humanity's warring nature, sort of, maybe? what were we talking abo... OOO KAMEHAMEHA!!!! DC's characters tend to incarnate big ideas and I really hope to see them start to tell stories that show people what makes these characters resonate beyond their costumes and powers.
Future War Cultist wrote: I just love how this movie and Wonder Woman show that DC can still make good movies when they stick to the source material and focus on characterisation. If only they had started off with this in mind; could have spared us Dawn Of Justice and Justice League.
I still wonder how much of that came down to green lantern flopping. They might have seen how the ‘funny’ movie flopped and the ‘serious’ Nolan trilogy didn’t and figured that serious, humorous and depressing was the way to go. What a shame...
There's little doubt the big problem with the DCEU was simply that it launched after the success of the Dark Knight trilogy. Even GL suffers in part from not being committed enough to being funny or really anything unique. GL suffers from a lot of things. It was an experiment in a ton of ways even putting a ton of marketing into the suit being total CG when no one wanted that (funny enough, the tech for that suit is pretty much identical to Spiderman and Iron Man's Infinity War costumes fwiw). More that anything though, GL just didn't know what it wanted to be as much as it knew what it wanted its sequel (or two) to be.
Man of Steel was pretty obviously a "Dark Knight" take on Superman in a lot of ways. Snyder is a pretty good pick for that tone of film, but the problem is simply that that tone doesn't work for ongoing continuity. I don't think Snyder is a bad filmmaker by any means, but as a comic fan, he's obviously not really fan of the ongoing medium as much as he is in love with the deconstruction of the medium. Granted, a LOT of people first loved comics as they were being dismantled in the late 80's but the people that took stories like Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen as how comics "should" be created the 90's era for a reason. The problem with those stories is that they're not meant to keep going. They're inherently fatalistic, the world is literally ending and by the end of it everything people love in the beginning has probably died to stall out the apocalypse for one more day. It's not a sustainable universe because its literally falling apart and unfortunately that's the kind of foundation Snyder built in Man of Steel.
I am glad Aquaman is doing well, and I hope they keep having success, but I do really hope DC finds a voice with its movies. As good as WW is, it... kinda... wants to make a point about humanity's warring nature, sort of, maybe? what were we talking abo... OOO KAMEHAMEHA!!!! DC's characters tend to incarnate big ideas and I really hope to see them start to tell stories that show people what makes these characters resonate beyond their costumes and powers.
Yeah, Man of Steel was as much the Nolans' movie as it was Snyder's. They came up with the idea, pitched it, and picked the director. Their influence is all over it. The movies that came after was all Snyder though. And as he recently revealed on social media, his idea wasn't for a sustainable universe. It was supposed to be a five (or whatever) movie arc with an ending. Which puts his movies in a different light. No wonder he was so willing to cap every other character in the DC universe. It didn't matter...he wasn't building another MCU. And his take -- flawed as it was -- also wasn't a crazy idea. There are clearly some inspirations from the highly popular Injustice franchise, and it does seem the original plan was for an evil Superman in JL1.
But obviously it didn't resonate. And as much as you have to blame Snyder for that, you also have to look at the WB execs who handed a single director $750 mil (?) without understanding what they really wanted or needed, and without room to change course.
Anyway, Snyder's gone, a different exec is firmly in charge of the DC properties, and I think we'll see things take a much more normal path.
gorgon wrote: The movies that came after was all Snyder though. And as he recently revealed on social media, his idea wasn't for a sustainable universe. It was supposed to be a five (or whatever) movie arc with an ending. Which puts his movies in a different light. No wonder he was so willing to cap every other character in the DC universe. It didn't matter...he wasn't building another MCU. And his take -- flawed as it was -- also wasn't a crazy idea. There are clearly some inspirations from the highly popular Injustice franchise, and it does seem the original plan was for an evil Superman in JL1.
It's pretty clear JL was supposed to end with Steppenwolf resurrecting Superman as Darkseid's general based on the foreshadowing in BvS. Basically the "Legacy" arc from the Superman animated series. I think the general plan could have worked, but the execution of BvS sent it flying off the rails. Moviebob's Really That Bad on it is a great breakdown of the, well.... breakdown of the film, but I'm still a little puzzled by what took that blueprint so far off the rails. BvS is a weird film in that I feel that everyone involved in it can and has done better than what we got. In many ways its the Phantom Menace of the superhero genre.
gorgon wrote: The movies that came after was all Snyder though. And as he recently revealed on social media, his idea wasn't for a sustainable universe. It was supposed to be a five (or whatever) movie arc with an ending. Which puts his movies in a different light. No wonder he was so willing to cap every other character in the DC universe. It didn't matter...he wasn't building another MCU. And his take -- flawed as it was -- also wasn't a crazy idea. There are clearly some inspirations from the highly popular Injustice franchise, and it does seem the original plan was for an evil Superman in JL1.
It's pretty clear JL was supposed to end with Steppenwolf resurrecting Superman as Darkseid's general based on the foreshadowing in BvS. Basically the "Legacy" arc from the Superman animated series. I think the general plan could have worked, but the execution of BvS sent it flying off the rails. Moviebob's Really That Bad on it is a great breakdown of the, well.... breakdown of the film, but I'm still a little puzzled by what took that blueprint so far off the rails. BvS is a weird film in that I feel that everyone involved in it can and has done better than what we got. In many ways its the Phantom Menace of the superhero genre.
Agreed on Superman's resurrection. Per Snyder, Batman was also going to expire at the end of JL2.
The ultimate cut of BvS is a much better film, just by being fully coherent, giving Clark more screen time and purpose, and doing a better job showing Lex's manipulations. But it's three hours long, and Snyder and company have to take blame for creating a story that can't be told in less than 180 minutes. Plus, it gets a little slow and is strangely light on action for long stretches. Some of the visuals are also gorgeous though...really beautiful stuff.
But I think the Snyder DC enterprise shows you what happens when you give a director with a very specific, not-mainstream vision an almost infinite budget and no constraints for a property that needs to be blockbuster-level popular with the general public. Nothing's lined up there. Jay Baruchel had a great line in a interview when he said that people in the future will look back on BvS as the most expensive indy film ever made. He's right IMO...Snyder dropped $250(?) mil on making the film that HE wanted to see.
Getting back on topic, something that James Wan understands and does well is franchise filmmaking. WB gave him creative control and plenty of budget on Aquaman, but he also understood what he was being asked to deliver. And I think the sequel is potentially set up to be a meatier film in some ways now that so much of the worldbuilding has been done.
The ultimate cut of BvS is a much better film, just by being fully coherent, giving Clark more screen time and purpose, and doing a better job showing Lex's manipulations. But it's three hours long, and Snyder and company have to take blame for creating a story that can't be told in less than 180 minutes. Plus, it gets a little slow and is strangely light on action for long stretches. Some of the visuals are also gorgeous though...really beautiful stuff.
Unless you recast and rewrite the Luthor character there is no saving that film - that god awful capering idiot Joker wannabe ruins the entire film. Its not last Jedi bad but the Luthor character gaks all over everything every pitiful moment he is on screen
but OT - Aquaman was great fun - which is what alot of people want from a film and not pretending to mean something to score worthless points with the worthless critics.
Future War Cultist wrote: You know, I like James Wan’s work. I’m a fan of the Insidious and Conjouring series, and I’m glad to see what a good job he did on Aquaman.
The Conjuring is the best modern horror film I've seen.
You know I almost wish something like aqua man would actually happen . I mean an advanced power living in the ocean and finally demanding the human race stop poisoning and devastating it or get smacked down hard.
As long as pollution does not directly hurt the plutocrats running the world they will not change it. Maybe it would literally take an ultimatum from Atlantis to force things to get better....
While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
I can kinda agree with that, but, honestly, if you look at humanity can you really blame the Atlanteans for not giving them advanced technology?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
I can kinda agree with that, but, honestly, if you look at humanity can you really blame the Atlanteans for not giving them advanced technology?
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
Also we don't actually know if there any downsides to the A tech, if it pollutes, side effects etc how they deal with the amount of sewage from cities that size mianly cos its a super hero film
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
Also we don't actually know if there any downsides to the A tech, if it pollutes, side effects etc how they deal with the amount of sewage from cities that size mianly cos its a super hero film
I mean, if nothing else, they dumped a seventh of the kingdoms into the lowest class of creature and feed them people every now and then to contain the damage they can cause.
Aquaman vs Black Panther..... I see they both shared liberally in their world building, cast of strong females, isolationist nation schtick, evil brother, and blunt instrument hero.
Easy E wrote: Aquaman vs Black Panther..... I see they both shared liberally in their world building, cast of strong females, isolationist nation schtick, evil brother, and blunt instrument hero.
Which movie did it better and why?
Aquaman by far, it didnt try and beat you over the head with its message or try to claim such a regressive nation like wakanda was somehow able to even work, Aquaman just went "underwater superpower.... go with it" and it was refreshing to not have all the outside nonsense that seems to go with movies these days, Aquaman was escapism at its best, Black Panther was too preachy and surrounded hollywood back patting about how great they are for making such a film... ignoring blade years before it.
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
I can kinda agree with that, but, honestly, if you look at humanity can you really blame the Atlanteans for not giving them advanced technology?
I mean, if their objective is to get humanity to stop polluting the oceans, and the choices are A: give humanity the technology to stop polluting the oceans or B: genocide humanity until they give in and live as subsistence farmers or are wiped out, yeah I think it's pretty fair to blame them. If you have the solution to a problem, refuse to allow the solution to be used(or, you know, even tell people it exists), and then attack people because they can't figure out a version of your solution on their own and all other options for solving the problem are untenable, you're kinda the bad guy in that scenario.
Easy E wrote: Aquaman vs Black Panther..... I see they both shared liberally in their world building, cast of strong females, isolationist nation schtick, evil brother, and blunt instrument hero.
Which movie did it better and why?
Black Panther.
A big part of why Black Panther has been such a big deal is that its characters are representative of some pretty large and important ideas. Killmonger stands as a pretty literal embodiment of a culture trapped in anger, violence and oppression while T'Challa puts forth an idea of something new, based in tradition but ultimately looking to take tradition and show the world what it has to offer. It has the convenience of being unburdened by history and the realities of modern inequalities, but at the heart of it, it makes an argument against the urban culture sold since the 80's in favor of something more akin to the kind of modernization of tradition that has opened up the world in so many other ways. Seeing people pick up bosotho blankets in the wake of the film reminds me so much of the way anime and samurai epics brought Japanese traditions to the rest of the world. There's a reason that people so seriously want to see it get some recognition at the Oscars and its definitely not the special effects.
Aquaman is fine. It's super fun and I'd totally recommend seeing it. It just doesn't really know what it wants to say and instead is happy to be a cool ride through the ocean. It's just not the substantial film Black Panther was.
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
Also we don't actually know if there any downsides to the A tech, if it pollutes, side effects etc how they deal with the amount of sewage from cities that size mianly cos its a super hero film
I mean, if nothing else, they dumped a seventh of the kingdoms into the lowest class of creature and feed them people every now and then to contain the damage they can cause.
The film certainly doesn't present the Atlanteans as being right, but it does present them as being ... authoritarian, very unequal and racist. I don't think fascist or even nazi would be out of the question; Other than what appears to be an absolute monarchy (or at least one with few checks to its power other than tradition), we've got a literal vertical stratification ("the nobles don't come down here" being a heavy implication that the lords live near the surface and the lower orders are ... lower. There's an extreme emphasis on "purity" of breeding, even apart from the usual concerns of the succession in a monarchy. The fact that the commoners can't breathe air is interesting too; I mean, they're descended from humans - how did they lose the ability to breathe air? They've got the same "isolationist superpower" thing going on as Wakanda, although they don't seem to have the same vulnerabilities as Wakanda.
Perhaps a plot of a sequel could be Arthur's attempt to reform Atlantis.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, they certainly don't seem to have any qualms about collateral damage while chasing Arthur after his first duel (oh yes, blood sports - that well-known sign of the super-advanced civilisation ). I wonder how many dozens of people were killed by those missed shots, even before they opened up with those cannons on the wall (what the heck were they to keep out?)
AndrewGPaul wrote: Perhaps a plot of a sequel could be Arthur's attempt to reform Atlantis.
I think that's a good call. What happens when Atlantis needs a king more than a hero? Lots of opportunities there for conflict, even among those close to him. Then you have Manta applying various pressures (going after Arthur's parents?) and taking his attention away from his kingdom.
Like I said before, now that the worldbuilding is done there's more opportunity to explore more themes.
LunarSol wrote: While I agree with the principle, the bit about that that irks me is like a lot of the film, there's no real thought given to that message. It's not like Atlanteans have chosen to forgo modern society to keep the oceans clean. They just apparently have a society so incredible it can produce borderline unlimited energy and impossibly advanced machinery with no waste. Kind of kills the nobility of the argument when you change it from "we're attacking you because you refuse to sacrifice for the good of all" to "we're attacking you because you're too stupid to figure out how to use the three seashells and we can't be bothered to explain it to you".But again, on principle, I agree it would be nice to see some accountability for how waste is managed.
I can kinda agree with that, but, honestly, if you look at humanity can you really blame the Atlanteans for not giving them advanced technology?
I mean, if their objective is to get humanity to stop polluting the oceans, and the choices are A: give humanity the technology to stop polluting the oceans or B: genocide humanity until they give in and live as subsistence farmers or are wiped out, yeah I think it's pretty fair to blame them. If you have the solution to a problem, refuse to allow the solution to be used(or, you know, even tell people it exists), and then attack people because they can't figure out a version of your solution on their own and all other options for solving the problem are untenable, you're kinda the bad guy in that scenario.
One of the more humorous parts of the attack is that the surface doesn't even know Atlantis exists in the film. There's the one nutcase on cable news screaming about it, but nobody actually thinks its a real thing. How anyone is supposed to get the message when they forgot to sign the card is beyond me.
Thinking on it more, Aquaman kind of feels like things coming full circle from Iron Man a decade ago.
Iron Man (and at the same time, Batman Begins) started the cinematic revolution of comic book movies by taking the crazy, impossible concepts and stories of the comic book medium and making it real and believable in a way that they really weren't before. Since then, audiences have become fully comfortable with this, as is obvious when you consider things like GotG being as hugely successful as it is, or Infinity War happening at all.
minor spoilers
Spoiler:
But Aquaman, I think, takes the next step. It uses that level of acceptance to put the crazy back. It understands that audiences are going to be cool with a dude who talks to fish being the king of an underwater realm and just take that for granted, so it asks 'what next?' And the answer, it turns out, is Fish-men and crab-Dwarves being featured in a huge underwater battle sequence without a hint of irony, the hero journeying to the centre of the earth to find a magic trident and a kraken-godzilla, and a dude with a helmet the width of his torso shooting laser beams from his face while also being a genuinely compelling villain we look forward to seeing more of in a sequel.
Which, of course, has always been there in the comics for decades, but the fact you can put that level of crazy in a film, and that that film can be Aquaman of all things, and be this successful, is really quite something... I think it could honestly be game-changing as studios and writers and directors again start wondering just what you can get away with...
You could argue Guardians of the Galaxy did the same thing, but that was at least somewhat self-aware, poking fun at its own silliness throughout. Aquaman plays it entirely straight and pulls it off, and I think that's a key ingredient of what makes it such an incredibly fun film to watch as a comic fan; it's maybe the most comic book movie to date.
In any case, I hope a sequel gets announced sooner rather than later. Aquaman has gone straight to the upper echelons of my favourite comic book movies and I can't wait for more.
This was talked about by some friends and now it bothers me a bit. Queen is living with her land hubby and kid when the atlantean cops show up and tell her she has to come with them back to Atlantis. She proceeds to murder all of them, and then tell her hubby she has to go back to Atlantis now. Couldn’t she have skipped the part where she murdered a bunch of dudes just doing their job if she was going to do what they asked anyways?
Didn't she do that to remove the immediate threat to her family? it looked to me like those goons were going to gun down Arthur and his dad and then take Atlanna back. By taking them out and then returning, she removed the threat to her husband and son - without her, Atlantis wouldn't bother going after them because as a land-dweller and a half-caste they're clearly inferior and not worth bothering about.
AduroT wrote:This was talked about by some friends and now it bothers me a bit. Queen is living with her land hubby and kid when the atlantean cops show up and tell her she has to come with them back to Atlantis. She proceeds to murder all of them, and then tell her hubby she has to go back to Atlantis now. Couldn’t she have skipped the part where she murdered a bunch of dudes just doing their job if she was going to do what they asked anyways?
Yeah, this really bugged me when I saw it.
AndrewGPaul wrote:Didn't she do that to remove the immediate threat to her family? it looked to me like those goons were going to gun down Arthur and his dad and then take Atlanna back. By taking them out and then returning, she removed the threat to her husband and son - without her, Atlantis wouldn't bother going after them because as a land-dweller and a half-caste they're clearly inferior and not worth bothering about.
I assumed she was trying to keep the family a secret, but when Arthur returns its pretty clear she didn't since absolutely everyone seems to be aware of him and who his parents are.
I assumed they knew, but didn't care - he's obviously inferior, so as long as he stays away, they don't need to waste any effort on him. His mother was the important one - again, an obsession with inheritance and "purity".
AndrewGPaul wrote: I assumed they knew, but didn't care - he's obviously inferior, so as long as he stays away, they don't need to waste any effort on him. His mother was the important one - again, an obsession with inheritance and "purity".
I think this is supported by the dialogue before the ring of fire. Orm tells Arthur that he doesn't want to kill him, and tells him to leave and never return. We can infer from this that Orm never wanted to hunt Arthur down previously and was fine ignoring him as long as he stayed away.
The soldiers could easily have communicated what they found before they died. I can't quite remember all the dialogue after the fight, but it's believable that Atlanna may not have been aware of that fact until she returned.
My reading of that scene is that the troopers were ordered to bring Atlanna back no matter what. Clearly, the easiest way to do that is to subdue her and any other resistance and drag her off; any collateral damage is irrelevant. They weren't deliberately trying to kill Arthur and his dad, but then again, they weren't bothering to restrain themselves either. Once Atlanna had shown she was more difficult to recapture than they first thought, the following attempts would be more heavily armed; the more she resisted, the more likely her husband is to catch a stray round.
It's basically the same as how, when conducting an armed raid, the police probably don't concern themselves much if they accidentally squash a hamster.
One thing that bothers me a bit in the film is how little Aquaman actually does. There were many points where I thought the film should have been called Princess Mira and the Aquaman.
Formosa wrote: Aquaman by far, it didnt try and beat you over the head with its message or try to claim such a regressive nation like wakanda was somehow able to even work, Aquaman just went "underwater superpower.... go with it"
Ah yes, the “hidden underwater technologically advanced nation” is so much more believable than the “hidden African technologically advanced nation” when you are a… what's the name for “people who don't like regressive nations again?
Formosa wrote: Aquaman by far, it didnt try and beat you over the head with its message or try to claim such a regressive nation like wakanda was somehow able to even work, Aquaman just went "underwater superpower.... go with it"
Ah yes, the “hidden underwater technologically advanced nation” is so much more believable than the “hidden African technologically advanced nation” when you are a… what's the name for “people who don't like regressive nations again?
Pause that. The hidden advanced African nation was only advanced because of vibranium (which IMO is problematic and poorly thought out). I think they're ultimately equally absurd and both are actually based on myths.
My main problem with Black Panther was about how they could have managed the manufacturing capacity to have everything they had. Atlantis can do more handwaving because the DC universe is much more (overtly) mythically supernatural.
AegisGrimm wrote: My main problem with Black Panther was about how they could have managed the manufacturing capacity to have everything they had. Atlantis can do more handwaving because the DC universe is much more (overtly) mythically supernatural.
AegisGrimm wrote: My main problem with Black Panther was about how they could have managed the manufacturing capacity to have everything they had. Atlantis can do more handwaving because the DC universe is much more (overtly) mythically supernatural.
Vibranium.
Yup. Magical super metal that can be used to do all kinds of gak. Besides obviously having them send people out into the world to pretend to be people from other nations, spy, and collect their technology. Vibranium allows them to advance farther and build on the ideas of the rest of the world without their material limitations.
You need certain metals to make a computer? Nope Vibranium. You need x,y,z for the best armor? Nope, vibranium.
It's a comic metal. It's all stupid all the time with comic metals.
AegisGrimm wrote: My main problem with Black Panther was about how they could have managed the manufacturing capacity to have everything they had. Atlantis can do more handwaving because the DC universe is much more (overtly) mythically supernatural.
Vibranium.
Yup. Magical super metal that can be used to do all kinds of gak. Besides obviously having them send people out into the world to pretend to be people from other nations, spy, and collect their technology. Vibranium allows them to advance farther and build on the ideas of the rest of the world without their material limitations.
You need certain metals to make a computer? Nope Vibranium. You need x,y,z for the best armor? Nope, vibranium.
It's a comic metal. It's all stupid all the time with comic metals.
Well the original explanation in BP was that T'challa sold vibranium to fund programs for Wakanda, not that it could do literally anything. It just had a unique interaction with kinetic energy.
In BP they said that the Vibranium stolen by Klaw and purchased and then used by Ultron was "all the Vibranium" Wakanda had" according to the rest of the world. Their country can't be selling everyone else vibranium if that is the case.
Yeah I was under the impression they were specifically withholding vibranium from the rest of the world and the little bit that was out there was generally stuff that had been lost/stolen.
Lance845 wrote:In BP they said that the Vibranium stolen by Klaw and purchased and then used by Ultron was "all the Vibranium" Wakanda had" according to the rest of the world. Their country can't be selling everyone else vibranium if that is the case.
AduroT wrote:Yeah I was under the impression they were specifically withholding vibranium from the rest of the world and the little bit that was out there was generally stuff that had been lost/stolen.
Yes. The nature of Wakanda's tech is very different in the comics. Also Aquaman has cleared $1 billion world wide and is now #9 all time. 3 2018 superhero films cleared $1 billion worldwide.
Aquaman was ok for me. I loved the development of the villains and the spectacle of everything. The lead did a great job. But the dialogue was not good. At all. They showed how difficult it is the write good flirty banter.
I really did not like the special effects. While it was bright and colorful, everything looked so fake.
One thing that irked me was the kiss between the leads. She just said "We must stop this bloodshed" then makes out with him as her people die in the background. That felt...off.
The thing about Aquaman is, it’s very very silly...but it’s also fun, and the overall plot and characterisations are the most part on target too. I think overall, it’s a good film. And it’s good for DC who were in a bad place before WW turned things around.
24 million shy of the 1.1 billion mark worldwide. It made $13 mil domestic the last week. I think it'll limp over $1.1, but surely it won't be in many more theaters?
Some parts were terrific; all of the visuals were really good. Seeing all the weird sea creatures was great. I especially liked some of the slow-motion cinematic money shots, like the ones of the trench creatures attacking the boat. Some felt a little OTT but it's a comic book movie so what are you gonna do. Big shout out to the drumming octopus as OTT-but-it-works.
Story wise, I am glad he felt some remorse for letting Black Manta's father die - that felt a little out of character to me at the time, but that he felt bad and grew from it... it was OK as part of the larger story.
I liked everything about Black Manta, especially his absolutely ridiculous helmet. That he actively made it bigger might have been my favorite plot point, honestly.
Some rougher parts were when he finally puts on the ridiculous orange and green costume. Yes, I get he wore it in the comic, but it does not translate well and they should have dropped it.
The hideous red wig they inflicted on Amber Heard should have been fixed in the very first test shoot. How did that make it to the final movie? A mystery for the ages.
Some of the dialogue felt a bit clunky and too on-the nose. I don't know if I can recall anything so egregious it stayed with me but I definitely remember sort of rolling my eyes a few times throughout.
Aquaman's strength level doesn't seem to be very consistent - in some of these scenes he appears to be on a Superman-level power scale. That seems a little off to me, but I am mostly a Marvel guy so I don't know how accurate it is or isn't. He sure didn't seem that strong in Justice League, though - I feel like a dude who can casually lift a 17 ton submarine might have been significant enough of a threat to Steppenwolf that they may not have need Supes. Maybe he moves at the speed of plot.
It felt very, very long though. I think there was at least some editing that needed to have happened.
With the orange+green costume, I kinda felt like it was meant to be like Clark getting the Superman suit--"embracing his heritage" or something of that ilk.
I thought it worked better than I thought it would. I think it ended up looking a lot better throughout the battle her wears it than it did in the promo shot and it helps keep him easy to visualize among the chaos.
My main complaint about the orange and green suit (after it was pointed out by my wife) was the over-stuffed codpiece. There must have been a whole bulge team with the final measurements being one girth unit (no pun intended) smaller than whatever size the focus group found too ridiculous.
I thought the designers did a terrific job adapting the costume from the comics. Honestly, that's the first time I've heard someone say that it didn't work.
Some parts were terrific; all of the visuals were really good. Seeing all the weird sea creatures was great. I especially liked some of the slow-motion cinematic money shots, like the ones of the trench creatures attacking the boat. Some felt a little OTT but it's a comic book movie so what are you gonna do. Big shout out to the drumming octopus as OTT-but-it-works.
Story wise, I am glad he felt some remorse for letting Black Manta's father die - that felt a little out of character to me at the time, but that he felt bad and grew from it... it was OK as part of the larger story.
I liked everything about Black Manta, especially his absolutely ridiculous helmet. That he actively made it bigger might have been my favorite plot point, honestly.
Some rougher parts were when he finally puts on the ridiculous orange and green costume. Yes, I get he wore it in the comic, but it does not translate well and they should have dropped it.
The hideous red wig they inflicted on Amber Heard should have been fixed in the very first test shoot. How did that make it to the final movie? A mystery for the ages.
Some of the dialogue felt a bit clunky and too on-the nose. I don't know if I can recall anything so egregious it stayed with me but I definitely remember sort of rolling my eyes a few times throughout.
Aquaman's strength level doesn't seem to be very consistent - in some of these scenes he appears to be on a Superman-level power scale. That seems a little off to me, but I am mostly a Marvel guy so I don't know how accurate it is or isn't. He sure didn't seem that strong in Justice League, though - I feel like a dude who can casually lift a 17 ton submarine might have been significant enough of a threat to Steppenwolf that they may not have need Supes. Maybe he moves at the speed of plot.
It felt very, very long though. I think there was at least some editing that needed to have happened.
On the whole I liked it, a fun if flawed ride.
On the whole strength level, DC seems to work on plot convenience more then anything else. Doomsday was portraid as significantly stronger then Superman and WW actually handle herself very well in that fight, probably better then Sup himself. Yet, in JL she struggles to keep up with Steppenwolf and can't match at all Superman. I guess she had the flue or something like that. It seems to be the same thing for Aquaman. Maybe he's stronger in the water then on land? That could make some sense. Or maybe really, they just wanted to make Superman look better in JL for plot reason.
I watched Justice League again relatively recently. And, to be honest, though Supes was doing *lots* of things at once in the final fight, just focusing on the battle with Steppenwolf, all he really did was 'turn the tide' - It was actually Aquaman that ended up getting the final hit in that defeated Steppenwolf.
I saw this this weekend with my family. I enjoyed it. I had low expectations, but was pleasantly surprised.
I liked how they just went with it. Submarines that look like fish, and swim like fish? Yup! Does it matter if the crew are being thrown around while it sways back and forth? Nope! No justification for it... just is what it is. I liked that.
I really liked Manta and the "Ocean Master" as villains. Lots of fun.
Do you think young Dafoe was CG'd, or did they just go to town with a trowel and filled in the cracks with makeup?
Saw this recently. It was...a spectacle to be sure. As a work of narrative fiction, it was awful and cringe-inducing. As the cinematic equivalent of a flashy fireworks show, it worked.
Dafoe was tragically wasted in this flick. Black Manta might be interesting down the line.
People IRL obsessed too much over reviews and don’t understand subjectivity. ‘No, Ashiraya, don’t go see Aquaman! It’s not good and the reviews criticise it!’
I do what I want. >=( I went to see it alone a few weeks ago.
Spoiler:
The plot was familiar, sure, but I really enjoyed how it was retold. There was still a surprise or two in there, for example I totally expected them to kill off the queen or the friendly old advisor guy in the end - but they didn’t! Nothing wrong with a happy ending in this day and age.
It was a visual spectacle, the actors were good (but then, Jason Momoa <3 <3 <3 )
Sure the ending was bombastic to say the least but… People had the same complaint about Crysis. I liked Crysis. It was fine. The ending battle also was kinda Avatar (the space movie) like but I was fine with that too.
The best character was the sea monster. Real Pacific Rim vibes! Love the way the appearance was teased until the finale. And it was voiced by the delightful 83 year old Julie Andrews who was perfect for the role!
Also black manta lol, just as goofy as he was in injustice…
It was not flawless but I walked out of the cinema smiling. That makes it good in my books.
Some parts were terrific; all of the visuals were really good. Seeing all the weird sea creatures was great. I especially liked some of the slow-motion cinematic money shots, like the ones of the trench creatures attacking the boat. Some felt a little OTT but it's a comic book movie so what are you gonna do. Big shout out to the drumming octopus as OTT-but-it-works.
Story wise, I am glad he felt some remorse for letting Black Manta's father die - that felt a little out of character to me at the time, but that he felt bad and grew from it... it was OK as part of the larger story.
I liked everything about Black Manta, especially his absolutely ridiculous helmet. That he actively made it bigger might have been my favorite plot point, honestly.
Some rougher parts were when he finally puts on the ridiculous orange and green costume. Yes, I get he wore it in the comic, but it does not translate well and they should have dropped it.
The hideous red wig they inflicted on Amber Heard should have been fixed in the very first test shoot. How did that make it to the final movie? A mystery for the ages.
Some of the dialogue felt a bit clunky and too on-the nose. I don't know if I can recall anything so egregious it stayed with me but I definitely remember sort of rolling my eyes a few times throughout.
Aquaman's strength level doesn't seem to be very consistent - in some of these scenes he appears to be on a Superman-level power scale. That seems a little off to me, but I am mostly a Marvel guy so I don't know how accurate it is or isn't. He sure didn't seem that strong in Justice League, though - I feel like a dude who can casually lift a 17 ton submarine might have been significant enough of a threat to Steppenwolf that they may not have need Supes. Maybe he moves at the speed of plot.
It felt very, very long though. I think there was at least some editing that needed to have happened.
On the whole I liked it, a fun if flawed ride.
Traditionally/historically the DC characters -- especially superman -- have always been wwaayy more pwerful than any of the Marvel characters.
Hell Superman , " back in the day" -- was sneezing planets out of their orbit, igniting suns with his heat vision and so forth.
Marvel used to cap out thier heroes -- with perhaps the odd exception for the cosmic entity types -- at being able to life about 100 tons or so -- aka the old "class 100 strength "..
.. I think that lasted about ...oohh.. maybe a week or so ? ..before being ignored.
Superhuman Strength: Aquaman possesses superhuman strength on the order of 150 times human maximum (assuming a human max of 800 lbs, meaning approximately 60 tons), although he's shown feats of at least 80 tons worth of striking and lifting power, but his strength is always underrated, considering the company that he keeps(Superman, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter). His strength is more than a match for most common barriers such as wood, common metals, brick or concrete walls. Only steel reinforced barriers have a serious chance of slowing him for any length of time. Aquaman frequently displays feats of Super-Atlantean (the average Atlantean can lift/press approximately 4 tons) and Superhuman strength. While not on par with Superman or Captain Marvel, he has proven capable of performing standing high jumps of 4 stories (both on land and from water), lifting and throwing a tank (which range from 30 to 60 tons), and has held his own in hand to hand combat with Wonder Woman. His strength would appear somewhat dependent on how immersed in water he is as he was capable of lifting a considerable chunk of a city block in Sub-Diego (which would weigh thousands of tons), gained the upper hand against Despero(who can defeat superman, captain marvel, and wonder woman at the same time), and has proven capable of shifting an oil rig platform, a cruise liner, and a submerged land mass, which would all weigh thousands of tons as well.
Aquaman's superhuman strength allows him to lift a Blue Whale which can weigh in upwards of 400,000 pounds or 200 tons, strength sufficient enough to allow him to rip a tank apart with his bare hands. You try it.
Note: Aquaman's superhuman strength has varied widely over the decades from being able to lift a blue whale up to now lifting a cruise ship in some of the more recent writing. Behold!
Comics have generally started leaning harder into the whole, able to withstand deep sea pressures angle a lot harder lately. He's basically Goku training at about 1100x the atmospheric pressure of the land.
I think Dragonball Z really upped the ante for what audiences expected from superheroes. A hero pushing his limits to lift a tanker truck or yacht just doesn't excite any more.
That's probably true. I haven't watched DBZ, but the glut of superhero movies as a whole - once you see the Hulk punch a giant flying monster the size of a 747, I suppose you feel like you have to up the ante. That's how you get Thanos tossing moons, I guess.
So far as what Red posted, I didn't know he was so strong in the comics. Kind of a reverse Spider-Man: When I was a kid in the comics Spidey was always super strong; he could throw a bus, but you never saw that reflected in the movies. I think that's intentional for the character though, they want to show him struggle.
Hopefully the full movie lives up to it. If nothing else it should be good for Idoneth inspiration 
