Jason Momoa Says His Aquaman Costume Is Inspired by ?Pollution?
- Thread starter Cicada 5
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So not reading your mind and giving you exactly what you want to see is 'bastardizing' the characters. I don't see how approaching characters from different angles/perspectives is being disrespectful, especially when these characters have been around for so long and especially when comics often do reboots and make changes to characters (Marvel's Ultimate line, for example).Lightknight said:
Characters change over time, and so does the social norm. And while some settings are defined by black and white morality (Lord of the Rings and many other fantasy settings provide examples), superhero comics tend to be more flexible and adaptive to the era they're being written in. And newsflash, the real world doesn't operate in black and white, and with most of these movies taking place in the real world bar the presence of superheroes, I'd like to think the medium has evolved enough to reflect this.Lightknight said:
If anything, it's what puts me off the MCU as a whole. Because of all the films I've seen, what have the villains offerred?
-Iron Man: Obidiah Stane. Perhaps one of the most interesting in that while anyone can guess he's the villain, his performance is good enough to convince those around him. There's a quiet menace to his actions and good dichotomy between how he presents himself and how he really is. And while his motives ammount to "greed" at the end of the day, they still have a rationale (greed being a common and understandable motivation), and even resentment against Tony and his father. Which, from what we see in the film, is resentment that appears well founded.
-Iron Man 2: Lightning whip guy. Yes, I know he's called Whiplash in the comics (I think), and no, I don't care. Because while his motives are understandable (resentment, revenge), he's portrayed as nothing more than a straight up villain. It's like the movie tried to make us care at the beginning, but at the end? Nup. Cackling comic book villain with no depth who's beaten because the finale needed a final battle. Oh, and there's that Hammer guy, but a) not sure if he counts, and b) it's played for laughs more than anything. Stane isn't what I'd call a deep character, but unlike these two, he was at least somewhat interesting.
-Thor: Daddy issues. Or family issues, whatever. That's all I can really attribute to Loki in this film. This will probably generate the most flak, but I just don't find anything interesting about him. The groundwork is there - Norse mythology, his backstory (no idea why he doesn't look like a frost giant though) should make for interesting viewing, but in my personal experience, it doesn't. In fact, apart from Iron Man 1 and 3, I've never found any of the MCU films to be interesting, but that's down to personal opinion.
-Captain America: The Red Skull wants to take over the world because...he's evil? Seriously, I think the line "take over the world" (or something similar) is actually used in this movie. Easily the most boring villain on this list so far, because apparently, in the MCU, you're inherantly good or evil, which affects how the serum works. Or something. And even if that's wrong, he presents no depth, is cliched, and just. Isn't. Interesting. He's everything one would expect a Nazi villain to be. Only, this isn't the 20th century anymore.
-The Avengers: Explosions...Loki wants to invade Earth for some reason...chitauri...aliens...explosions...
Sorry, I got nuthin.
-Iron Man 3: My favorite MCU film (ducks flying object), and a large part of that is due to its villans. A bait and switch that not only works as a twist, but actually reflects the nature of human perception, how Trevor is built up as a Mandarin to portray a threat as we expect a threat to exist. And Aldrich Killian - understandable motivations (resentment, revenge), great dichotomy of portrayal (businessman to fire-breathing madman), and, while not deep, still has "depth," so to speak. In fact, out of all the MCU films I've seen, I'd say these antagonists (if Trevor can even be called one) are by far the most interesting. Because their motives are understandable, their actions aren't over the top, and they convey their menace through subtle means rather than grandiose declarations of world domination. Heck, IM3 is the only one of these films that has provided social commentary. And while it's not deep social commentary, and its message is spelled out for the audience, I can at least give it credit for aspiring (and, IMO, succeeding) to be more than a brainless slugfest.
-Guardians of the Galaxy: Ronan is bad. Ronan wants to destroy Xandar. Ronan wants to destroy Xandar because...um...he's evil? There's a throwaway line about following the way of the kree or something, but as the movie takes no time to flesh out kree culture, then it's a hollow exploration. So, yes. Ronan is bad. Ronan is killed. The end. Yay.
So, yes. I've never made it a secret that I'm not a fan of the MCU, and that the films I enjoy from it (IM1, 3, and MAYBE GotG) are the outliers in my mind. Granted, that's a lot of phase 2 films I haven't seen, but after everything so far, I've little desire to see them. Even IM3 was a DVD I picked up for $5, and was surprised as to how much I liked it.
And y'know what? I don't think this has anything to do with Marvel characters, but just the way the films themselves are produced. In the Rami films, Osborne, Octavius, and even Marko/Eddie from SM3 had some depth to them - one understood their actions, and even sympathized with them. Magneto's actions in the X-Men films are certainly understandable given the nature of the setting, and the nature of his character (of course, being played by Ian McKellan helps). Heck, I'd argue that Deacon Frost from the first Blade movie had more depth than many MCU villains, given that a) he achieved his goals through deception as much as brute force, and b) not being born a vampire is actually touched on and explored to an extent in regards to how he relates to those around him. I've never been a reader of superhero comics, but at least in the films, I've enjoyed some and disliked others based on their own merits.
So, moving onto Zod, of Man of Steel. A movie I found to be "okay," and probably wouldn't have given a second thought to if not for the polarizing views that sprung up afterwards. But of what flaws I had with the movie, it's villain certainly wasn't among them. As:
1) He has backstory (Krypton, history with Jor-el), and one that's actually played out in front of us.
2) His motivations are understandable, even sympathizable. I can get his frustration with the council. And certainly his actions against Earth. Horrible as they are, they're still done in the name of saving his species. There's a weight to his actions, the acknowledgement that yes, they're terrible, but he believes that he doesn't have a choice. That born as a soldier, he shouldn't even consider the alternative.
3) He has a character arc. He goes from confident rebel (start) to melencholy commander (attack on Earth) to the point where he's given up on everything save vengeance (end).
3) He can still throw down with the best of them. Yes, the fight scenes in MoS are well done, and I found myself invested. And a lot of that is because when Superman battles Zod in both cases, his character is interesting to me. I'm invested in both these characters, given the stakes, and the emotional drama. So that by the time Zod declares "never," it's not the laser blast he's referring to, it's his actions as a whole. So when Clark breaks his neck, he screams. Because he's killed the last member of his race (which IMO, is the real weight behind the action, not so much the killing itself), and was without any other recourse available to him.
So, yes. That's just me, and no doubt I'm going to be blasted ten ways to Tuesday for this. But if anything, I'm more interested in the DCCU at this point, even if it's only one movie in so far. Because if "dark and gritty" is the price for some depth, I'll take it.
Aw shit! Now, I can't wait for this Captain Planet reboot for Aquaman! Take that, Ted!Something Amyss said:No, but when his powers combine with four other members, he can summon....Asita said:...So if Momoa's Aquaman is inspired by pollution, will he get to summon undead fish like in Brightest Day?
OT: Let's just hope this Aquaman movie doesn't feel like more pollution in the realm of theatrical movies...
*sigh*
Really? Pollution? That's the best idea they could come up with?
I get that pollution is an actual terrible thing but does it really need to be in a movie about superheroes? Will we also get a scene where Aquaman cries because someone doesn't recycle like those old commercial with the Native American guy?
Really? Pollution? That's the best idea they could come up with?
I get that pollution is an actual terrible thing but does it really need to be in a movie about superheroes? Will we also get a scene where Aquaman cries because someone doesn't recycle like those old commercial with the Native American guy?
Well at least your expecting the tons of brick that will be thrown at your head. I won't be throwing any by the way. You did explain your points, I can't say agree with them but that is personal option.Hawki said:
What I do find interesting is the idea of watching the Marvel movies for their villains. To me that is something I watch DC movie for. I don't watch/read/what ever Batman for Batman but for the amazing villains. Batman is boring but I want to see Mr. Freeze and Joker. I watch/read/what ever Iron-man for Iron-man. Who is the actually villain of all his movies. He is supposed to be his own worse villain but yeah it can get kinda stupid.
Magneto is the reason I read X-men because, as many people have pointed out before, he is the one that is right. Humanity can't deal with mutants. As for Zod I think the majority comes down to the last scene. Superman being forced to kill him was a great ending and really showed off both of their character well.
However, the villain in the majority of the Marvel movies also have reason and back stories but it is true that they are not shown on screen like Zod's but they are there. Loki has a reason, Ronan has a reason but most of it comes in dialogue. Marvel's focus is on their heroes and much less time is given to their villains but I think it makes their heroes stronger but does mean that their villains can be lacking. DC generally has more screen time devoted to their villain's which is great for me because I generally can't stand their heroes. Avengers 2 does go a lot more in depth about the twins (side villains?) but then, there is almost no reason given for Ultron's evilness (main villain). Meh, different strokes for different jokes I guess and apparently I like run-on sentences. My grammar teachers can roll in their graves.
I'm betting it will be, since it's the DCCU. But I'm not going to crucify it until after the "fair trial."FPLOON said:OT: Let's just hope this Aquaman movie doesn't feel like more pollution in the realm of theatrical movies...
Nothing needs to be in a movie about superheroes. I'm curious as to why that's an argument.WonkyWarmaiden said:
Hell, I'm still a little curious as to why people are so up in arms about something that appears to be a throwaway line in a single answer of a single interview. Especially since Momoa seemed to be talking from his perspective, not the character's.
I mean, seriously, is this all it takes to upset people?
I just mean that I don't see how they're going to work Aquaman's story in alongside the whole Batman vs Superman plus Wonder Woman and whoever else shows up. Is Lex Corp dumping toxic waste into the sea and Aquaman just pops up out of the ocean pissed off at humans for polluting or something? I just don't see yet how it's all going to mesh in the final product.Something Amyss said:
So Aquaman is now Captain Planet after someone didn't remove the pickles from his hamburger when he specifically asked them to?
GRRR I PROTECT THE SEAS BUT NOT THE DOLPHINS THE DOLPHINS ARE ALL SMILEY AND GOODY GOODY IT MAKES MY MANLY RED MEAT MUSCLES FLEX IN BROODING ANGER. ROAR
GRRR I PROTECT THE SEAS BUT NOT THE DOLPHINS THE DOLPHINS ARE ALL SMILEY AND GOODY GOODY IT MAKES MY MANLY RED MEAT MUSCLES FLEX IN BROODING ANGER. ROAR
So if that's the angle they're going with when it comes to Aquaman...why isn't he the main antagonist? Atlantis attacking the surface world is a plot device that's been used in the comics before if I remember correctly, and even in a few cartoons so why not just go in that direction with the plot?
For pretty much the same reason why Superman can level buildings blocks at a time "by accident" and still cheered for it.Shoggoth2588 said:
Because being a hero in the DCU defies logic.
One hundred and fifty percent of Aquaman's appeal is the heaping mountain of silly bullshit DC will pull to make him look like a viable hero.mecegirl said: