Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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)

Looking forward to a sequal

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.

The transition scenes were really well done. Especially in the prologue.

 gorgon wrote:

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.

 LunarSol wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

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.

Yeah, the core theme of the film is definitely family.


I thoroughly enjoyed it. "Romancing the Stone" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark" meets Thor.

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.

My probably wrong predictions:

Shazam will do "OK". Just OK.

Joker will bomb.

WW2 will be disappointing, storywise and possibly at the box office.

And they'll finally announce a new Superman movie with Henry in it!

I think I’d bet against all those things, LOL.

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.

 Alpharius wrote:
My probably wrong predictions:

Shazam will do "OK". Just OK.

Joker will bomb.

WW2 will be disappointing, storywise and possibly at the box office.

And they'll finally announce a new Superman movie with Henry in it!

What is okay? 50-60% on RT? 200dom/500ww?

I think WW2 will be considered a disappointment if it doesn't match Aquaman's take and reviews.

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.

 Alpharius wrote:
Shazam will do "OK". Just OK.

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.

My guess for Steve Trevor. Dr Psycho messing with Diana.

I suppose I'm still sad over the death of the DCEU - I rather enjoyed the...effort, intention and, yes, for the most part, the execution.

(Heh!)

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!)

 Alpharius wrote:

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.

It will either be grandson or we never saw a body. weird time gak could have happened.

Aquaman is up to 260/940 now and is #10 all time for highest grossing superhero films.

It is pretty cool, just how well it is doing!

 Alpharius wrote:


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.