Freedom Reborn

It was confirmed today that Zack Snyder will direct a Justice League film following from Man of Steel 2.
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=52451

Well I think we all knew things were heading this way. Hard for me to really say much until I see MoS2 though.

Like you said hard to say anything before MoS 2. Need to see how Snyder handles Batman and WW (wasn't a fan of his Superman in MoS).

WB is really speeding things up to catch up with Marvel, we'll see how it does, too early to tell.

I'm struck by the fact that, five or six years ago, I don't think it was in me to NOT be excited about the possibility of a Justice League movie. Yet, WB has successfully beaten every last shred of interest out of me over the last few years. The Justice League are probably my favorite characters of any setting or genre, and yet, with Snyder's name attached to them, I can't say I have any hope that they will resemble themselves in any significant ways. 

It's certainly possible that something amazing could materialize here, but given how ad hoc this whole thing is and the identities of those in charge, I have to say I don't expect much.

I loved Man of Steel but I can't express enough how much Ben Affleck  has sullied me to the future of DC  movies.  I'll watch the movies but I won't be excited.

The combo of Snyder directing/writing isn't a glorious sign for me. I have seen almost all his movies and the only one i loved was Watchmen where let's face it, hed did a copy/paste of the iconic novel. Snyder is a man with vision and passion for his films. That said he has major difficulties materializing tose visions. The execution is rather bland or uninspiring whereas the visual values of his films are state of the art. I respect him as a visualist but not as a narrator or even a writer. Sucker punch was written by him and it was an absolutely mesh. I want to be excited about Bats and Supes but Snyder is the main reason i can't.

I'm not excited or disappointed by it.  I'm just going to wait until the movie comes out.  I'm more concern about how the story is going to play out.  Are they going to be like Marvel and have MoS 2 be the beginning of the storyline and have it end in the JL movie or what.

Quote from: Jimaras8 on April 29, 2014, 12:04:10 PM
The combo of Snyder directing/writing isn't a glorious sign for me. I have seen almost all his movies and the only one i loved was Watchmen where let's face it, hed did a copy/paste of the iconic novel. Snyder is a man with vision and passion for his films. That said he has major difficulties materializing tose visions. The execution is rather bland or uninspiring whereas the visual values of his films are state of the art. I respect him as a visualist but not as a narrator or even a writer. Sucker punch was written by him and it was an absolutely mesh. I want to be excited about Bats and Supes but Snyder is the main reason i can't.

Chris Terrio is revising the screenplay.

While the Marvel "Movieverse" is composed of different toned movies set in a shared universe, I believe WB wanted to give all their movies the same tone, similar to Nolan's Dark Knight, for obvious reasons. But, like Midnite said, they are making some course corrections:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2014/02/01/how-warner-is-rebranding-batman-vs-superman/

I'm about it personally. Like I've mentioned before though, I just " Like comics ". I'll note the details of any work as much as any other person but mostly for fun since if it's about superheroes, chances are it appeals to my sense of nostalgia anyways. I also come from the era (Gen X) of the sugar coated Ninja Turles, direct to dvd Fantastic 4, Ernest Scared Stupid, Garbage Pail Kids The Movie, and so on so I can get away with applying the MS3TK Mantra pretty much all the time. So I'm saying the film " could " come off shoddy, and I'd note it and acknowledge why some people have gotten upset (though for some of course it could be done by Shakespeare and they'll get fired up because wiring and all that), but still enjoy it myself. It would have to go to great lengths to disappoint me just due to the fact that it's a film based on the Justice League, likewise as the film staring both Superman and Batman together will have to. I'm also happy about the announcement as it solidifies to me the era of the " team " movie is officially in full swing (the Avengers sales indicated we'd see this) and can't wait to see what other team franchises get picked for film treatments. Additionally I always love when a hero movie comes out because then all the regular folks I socialize actually know what I'm talking about, like say if I mention Cyborg, rather than think I'm blabbering madness (more than usual of course).

QuoteSucker punch was written by him and it was an absolutely mesh.

Freedom Force on the brain, represent!  :thumbup:
( I do this all the time. My brain decided at some point that " nif " is word and one people outside this community know as well, and feels free to place it randomly in my FB convos)

SA, what bothers me most about things like this that seem to be heading in bad directions and movies that really fail to live up to the characters that they portray is not that they don't do this or that to match the comics, per se, but that these are pretty precious opportunities.  How many chances at film is the Justice League going to get?  If it makes an unholy amount of money, it may get a few more, but if it makes an unholy amount of money, future installments will undoubtedly emulate this one, warts and all.  What frustrates me about shoddy adaptations is that we've got a finite number of chances to see the right movie made.  It's a shame to see any of those wasted.

I'm not saying that this Justice League movie is definitively going to waste one of those chances.  All I'm saying is that I'm not thrilled with what I've heard so far, and I don't think it's unreasonable (not that you're implying such, just speaking generally) to want the powers that be to make the most of the chances they're given.

Well unwanted as it may be " done right " is a subjective term. Is any comic movie done right by comic book readers standards? People are dissatisfied with Man Of Steel. I think it's an awkward film myself, just watched it again and feel the same as before. You know who doesn't? The majority of people who saw the film. Dedicated comic readers, especially ones who are adults are a minority of a worldwide releases audience. And of it's projected marketing group for that matter (people who will buy the products based in the film). It's just a fact. Directors should appeal to " true fans ". Sure, we'd like that, but the reality is we're near the end the pecking order line. Most Generation 1 Transformers fans loathe Bay's films, this is not news. Know who doesn't? The people who are spending tons of money of the films and related products, and I mean buying it up. Do kids today really care if Megatron is identical to a toy from the 80's? Does Hasbro? Just saying the determination of a films technical merits is actually a pretty broad and divided thing, one with many more people of interest that have to appealed to and pleased before someone who likes the comic books and I'm obviously being real short on the nature of that spectrum. Does it suck that the movie crew has to appeal to their investors, and the companies, and figures and pars, and parent groups, and their parent company, and shareholders, and so on before dedicating to comic readers? Or is the better question does it suck for the director and crew...or are they out of a job and the movie ends up not existing at all if they don't do it the REAL right way as opposed to what old fans want. Not saying I like that fact but it's there all the same so I end up sucking it up and enjoying it for what it is all the same. So, I would like for it to be the exact movie " I " want to see, but if it's not I don't think I'm going to hate it or fall asleep through it. I really don't like Man Of Steel personally. I think it's awkward to me and my interested isn't captivated. I like seeing Superman flying around fighting things in it, and how Krypton looks. That's about it. Do I think it was made wrong though? No, it was made to the right standards that it's medium needs it to be, hence why it's a successful movie that didn't fold. In world we all share things have to cater to everyone, or something some such.

Ehh, I think you're argument is making a bit of a strawman there, SA.  There are definitely comic movies made right, there are definitely those made wrong, and there are relatively objective standards that can be used to judge stories in general (logical consistency, quality of performances and effects, etc.) that ultimately mark some films as superior to others.  I don't think anyone is going to argue that Catwoman was a better film than The Avengers, for example.

We may disagree around the edges, and there might be pretty large areas where the lines are blurred, but in general, those movies that have honored the source material, treated it right, in other words, have been superior films and have been the most successful.  Look at the wild success of the Marvel movies.  With only a few notable exceptions, they've evinced an extreme reverence for and love of what makes the characters and universe special, and they've been of better quality over all than other adaptations.  As I've often said, there are reasons that these characters and ideas have endured for half a century or more, and it usually isn't because they were desperately waiting for someone to come along and "fix" them.  Instead, it was because such characters and themes tapped into something archetypal, realized something wonderful, and the movies have managed to do the same thing.

There are exceptions to that rule of thumb, though.  The Transformers movies have certainly made an unholy amount of money...emphasis on unholy, but I imagine that they'd be even more successful if they were good and not just loud and colorful.  In fact, even my ten year old nephew can recognize that the comics and cartoons tell better stories than the movies when he is given a chance to compare. 

The money a movie makes is only one measure of its success, after all.  Yes, it's the only one that matters to the suits in charge, it is how the film is most immediately judged, but the movies that endure do more than just make piles of money, they create something special.  We should expect more from our entertainment.  If we do, we may get more than "big, dumb action movies."  We might get well made movies, even if they happen to be full of action.  I like the critique that Cracked gave of this argument:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-common-movie-arguments-that-are-always-wrong/

I don't think it's too much to expect the basics of good stories, logical consistency, no plot holes, and reasonable motivations, from our entertainment.  In the same way, I don't think it's too much to expect an adaptation to actually attempt to adapt that from which it is drawn.

I'm not claiming that these types of things are entirely objective, nor denying that taste is a big factor, but I don't think this is all just a matter of taste.  Yet, that does not necessarily mean that such conversations as these are merely exercises of 'I like this, you like that.'  For most of human history we've recognized that some stories are good, and some stories are bad.  :)

I'm with Benton on this... though I personally refer to a video Nostalgia Critic made awhile back called "Is it Right to Nitpick? (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/39964-nostalgia-critic-is-it-right-to-nitpick). The gist of the video is that while there is no such thing as a "Perfect film" (there are problems and things to criticise on any film) we are much more likely to see those problems in a film that draws us into its world then one that does not. So yes, it is ABSOLUTELY fair to say that Man of Steel did not do its job by adequately drawing the audience into the world it was trying to create. And as for "the majority of people who saw the film"? Yeah, no. Adjusted for inflation, Man of Steel barely did any better than Superman Returns.

Now, don't get me wrong: I liked Man of Steel. But I also liked XMO:Wolverine and Green Lantern. That does not mean that they aren't all flawed films, it's just that I'm able to see past the flaws and have fun with them as they are. But none of those films blew me away, nor was I in anticipating any of them like I am Avengers 2 or Days of Future Past. I'll watch it, maybe enjoy getting a few new movie figures, but otherwise... eh.

Thanks 'Mato, well said.  Yeah, I want to be as excited for a JLA film as I am for an Avengers film...man, I would kill to have that kind of reason to be excited.  :mellow:

Well I have to agree to disagree with both of you sorry. Your stance is that the Superman films weren't top notch. But your projection for the Justice League films potential to be bad is they were low grade, which they weren't. And no, I'm actually right. The majority of film goers liked the Superman films. I wasn't saying the majority of people on Earth payed money for the film so the draw is really a moot point. Transformers made tons of cash so that equals quality production. Twilight, better than most superhero films? Work your way though every movie ever made. Rocky Horror Picture Show, garbage? It didn't outsell Harry Potter after all? Or just because it's there * points * Aquaman, the character and whatever run of the book is terrible because it doesn't have the draw other things do. But that doesn't denote it's audience and what they collectively feel about the character and comics, you know? I like Aquaman too and get snickered at for it, but so what. Their math is off anyways. So I have disagree on that sorry though it wasn't what I was saying. The majority of people who went to see a film, and any superhero film are not people who read comic books, that's the basis of point and bottom line. So they aren't weighing in factors from the comics and the traditions surrounding them no matter how you want to slice it. Those are imagined factors by comic readers, saying all this as one myself, that only exist and only can exist in those who dedicate themselves to the source material. And again including that factor you have to understand that pleasing the comic book readers isn't the priority nor standard movie makers factor into making a superhero film, in fact it's one of the last. Like it or not, and it's something fans of any subgenre can rarely accept of the entire audience of a film based on there hobby. Not because I believe it's that way, nor want it to be, but because it's both mathematically and statistically impossible for it to be any other way. Because you know what? People who don't read comics thought Deadpool was cool in the movie. Gosh that hurts to even type it, but it's the truth. Our experience with superhero films will be tainted more so than those who do not read comics and we'll have a more critical view towards them. People who were into Transformers and GIJOE as kids show more scrutiny of current works. A child you know doesn't really speak for the board, sorry. Kids nowadays know Transformers Prime and Rescue Bots. Ebert also hated the Transformers films. But he also hated slasher films. All of them and literally worked to ban them from existence. Already people are lighting up on the internet who watched Jem as children saying it's done wrong. If a movie came out about Freedom Force well needless to say we would all have strong opinions about it and probably not be too reserved when it came to sharing them. In fact most of is without thinking would declare some expertise on the subject more than those who'd never played the game had. But none of the above actually equals bad movie. It equals less enjoyable movie for yourself as a dedicated fan of the base medium. Know what I'm saying? It doesn't equal flawed either, just flawed in the eyes of comic book fans. People who make movies go to school for it, it's their job and they know exactly what they're doing. The fact remains that comic readers just are not enough of any movies viewing audience, therefore it wouldn't stand to logic for film makers to make a carbon copy of the movie into a live action film. They have at times sure and likely in their expertise in film making they declared that in those case the translation from paper to film was acceptable as is and that it would cater to their overall demographic with only minor tweaks. In others, like Superman and Batman they changed things up because the source material just didn't work on film. That didn't sink the ship though either way. Again I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even like Man Of Steel (it's on right now, taping for mums) but I wouldn't call it terrible because I know it went over with enough people. So yeah, it is " I like this, you like that " I hate meat. Bacon most of all meat. I think it tastes gross. And most of science is behind me on this. Bacon is not healthy for you. So bacon is bad then yes? Because the details aren't up to snub. But no, because many people " enjoy " bacon, too many to call it on " bad " and at best get away with saying " it has inconsistencies ". But I digress. I made reference towards shoddy films from my yesterday, some well known poory done even in their day. The point is I think we've all become spoiled. As a consumer I'll admit I am, almost inherently even. My feeder bar drops a variety of vittles from it, all constructed to challenge my tastes. And at some point the bar raised. Of course no one would argue that Catwoman was great. But, I bet they would have if it hadn't been made after several beloved Batman movies. (Really too comparing Catwoman and Man Of Steel is like comparing Leonard Part 6 and Young Frankenstein, the overall reception for these films is very different and the gulf of it vast). Before those films people thought the Adam West stuff was the bomb (that's an intentional pun, yeah). Now people say it's hokey garbage apparently written by a crazy person. Does that make that series terrible then? Not really, it's just held now to high standards. Now we had Watchmen...okay some of us, a lot of people think it's terrible. Some say it's too far off from the comic. Anyways, most of us (only pointing to those who read comics again), had Watchmen. We had Burtons Batman film, Nolans Batman films, Avengers, Iron Man I would even say was held in high regard, Sin City for some. You know what I'm getting at though. When it comes to superhero stuff, basically we all have " refined tastes " (adjusts monocle and puffs on pipe) so our standard for comic to film is much different than the viewing audience outside our collective bubble, hence doesn't account for the overall achievement of a super film particularly as our (collectively) view tends to be though the looking glass, and staring at that one spot that looks like the comic books. That also means we see a greater distance in the adaption than is actually there, and often blot out the condensation factor any movie faces. In fact as result of this effect many comic readers now regard Burton's Batmans as tripe because they consider Nolan's better, but is it fact? Superman, modern ones, also have many particular issues. Asides being a large franchise meaning it has any number of things to align to, there is that whole lawsuit which was a big deal for WB. That and working in anticipation of future ones and trying to prevent them. In fact we've been told for years now that the face of Superman would be changing. And it's a big deal again, I don't know if you know the extent. Like families of past WB movies have been trying to sue them over everything. Casablanca in fact, and I know the family closely though I'm going to have to tuck that away, insider info and all that, has several lawsuits revolving it still in action and that goes pretty far back doesn't it. MoS doesn't match the source material identically (personally I think a modern movie that did would look silly but I guess that's me?), but neither does the one in the current comics so why is that a factor? He was Superman, he had a Superman costume and cape, he had the powers, he came from Krypton, he was raised in a podunk town by the Kents, he gets the feels when he looks at Lois Lane, and he fights Zod and saves the Earth. New look to it for sure, but the elements are all there. I dunno, I think you two are judging the film too harshly and wrong about the entire audiences feelings towards the film. Straw man, if by the definition of using one thing to define another thing it isn't (Transformers against Superman) I guess you got me there, though I don't really care about internet debate nor the structure of it so shuggle it. But I can say isn't establishing a prevision of a movie that's well off and another between sort of straw man anyways? I mean all we got is official information right? Kind of like all the official confirmed stuff we got about Creeper, Baby Doll and Depp as the Riddler in the third Batman? Just thinking it, that old saying about judging books by their covers. One film doesn't equal the other. The last three Batman's were by the same person, the first three Spider-man's and the Lord Of Rings, and so on yet I think there's a lot of things said that there's a difference between the related vehicles and could therefore determine that a directors take on one film doesn't completely determine how a sequel will come out. Your free to not get excited for it, I hope I don't imply otherwise. I don't design to dictate your personal feelings towards the film. And not to like Man Of Steel and Superman Returns, I'm in one of those boats with you anyways but I'm going to have not agree on them being failures as well as the reasons for, nor proof of a failed Justice League Movie heresy I know but any assumption that the film makers actual owe comic readers anything. Just how it shakes it here. Will Justice League be one of the GREATEST films? Maybe? Will it just be an okay film? Maybe? Did the film makers fail if it isn't one the greatest films of all time? I don't believe so. Do any of us really know? Nope. Well okay time travels in my character powerset so I could, but you know spoilers and stepping in movie popcorn makes paradoxes so I'm going to have to pass. If anything Benton, BentonGrey, whichever your comfortable with think about this: It's pretty early. Your not excited. Basically I am, but I'm really not that excited. But there really isn't anything we should be excited about so it could be natural. It's still entirely possible when it gets closer and the adverts roll out you'll get pumped and so will I, and when you see it maybe it will great for you. Maybe in fact by lowering the bar it will exceed your expectations, and we'll chat here again and I'll be the one trying to sell you on what a bad movie Justice League was, lol. Just to note it too, everything your saying literally I've seen said about Whedon and The Avengers film, before and after the fact, whether in relation to why it would be a terrible production or why it is a bad movie to date.That's all I got. As for the Cracked link...I remember reading barely, I get there stuff in my FB feed, but their a comedy site and I rarely consider proof of anything and especially not authority. Funny articles, well not so much these days I think. Nostalgia Critic much the same, besides that kind of his job. Of course he's going to defend being critical. I kind of consider the validity of those things as much as I did earlier this week when someone one a social network tried arguing against feminism statements with an episode of South Park, no offense and I enjoy all three of those things myself for laughs. Well here's to hoping Justice League isn't a flop. *clink*

* sorry about the wall-o-text Btw, hard to do this on this pc and connection.

Ohh man, SA.  Can we get some paragraphs?  That would make your posts a lot easier to read. :)

Actually... no. You ARE wrong, because throwing money at a movie and making it sparkly does NOT mean it is a "quality production". A good part of the reason Man of Steel is a blah movie is BECAUSE OF THE CREATIVE STAFF BEHIND IT. Michael Bay, for instance, isn't going to start making introspective analysis on the works of Shakespeare. Man of Steel is a very flawed film, and not just with comic fans... I have plenty of non-comic fans who thought the pacing was bad, some of the motivations didn't match up, etc. Doug Walker, who does the Nostalgia Critic series I linked last post, did a collaboration review alongside AngryJoe where Joe (a Superman fan) loved the film and Doug (who really doesn't know the comics at all) hated it. Not because he had ANY attachment to the character, but because he thought it was a bad FILM.

Yes, this is all opinion, and things could happen that change our mind between now and when this film comes. But while I'm perfectly happy to keep up with the news and see what the designs are (if only to get me some darn Justice League movie action figures) I don't anticipate it with the same fervor as I do other films. I feel like DC is rushing this, they should have focused everything on a Trinity (Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman) movie next, then built Justice League around that.

Like I said sorry but I have to disagree, with both your perception of movie production and the logic your attempting to make a case with mainly because it's not applicable and the math is bad. I tried to lay out why but maybe I'm composing it right? If you say the film has a number of things that are off, I'm in no disagreement there. You saw " flaws " but what you've pointed out aren't. A flaw would be for example when in an Ed Wood film you see a string you shouldn't be able to, not that the content which was actually done correctly is questionable to some. I see that it's it there, like I said I'm bored with the film personally, but there's reasons everything was done the way they were in MoS and to me at least seem very apparent. But is it a terrible production? That's were I can't agree and I don't agree that the majority of people who watched it feel that way either. Key word BTW, the " persons who watched it ". That's why the " made this revenue " whereas the other movie made this much doesn't actually apply. That type of train of thought is similar to how a beauty pageant works or an election, if that example helps to clarify? The difference is the votes in those contests are from people who experienced more than one subject and where doing so the intention of comparing them. As well just because it's second place doesn't make it " worst " nor unappreciated for what it is. In films there is no competition of such so try and attempt to line one up is boulderdash. Be it a lesser amount of persons that paid for it or more, it's the overall appreciation from the sum of the persons who did watch it that speak for it's merits. The persons who didn't see it really don't have a say, you know, so why would how many people didn't see a film factor into opinion of said film? It's like saying that any movie that didn't make as much money as Avengers is terrible by default and Avengers is better than every film and I saw many do as such elsewhere and/or try and apply the same logic to other films (Captain America 1st Avengers vs. final Harry Potter chapter springs immediately to mind here). That's where that logic alludes me and seems more an absence of. It's also exclusive of other factors in play as much as again your misunderstanding of things that have to be done a certain way in each film (Transformers could not have been based directly on the originals for example, it would have lost it's initial investors Hasbro and various automotive corporations and never happened in the first place just for one. This is cross-applicable to MoS. Am I explaining this wrong, I'm sort of confused?) and anything else in play, like the amount of people that downloaded which ever film rather than paying for it for example. Again Nostalgia Critic is well...a joke. That's not a serious point of contention to use, no offense. An enjoyable bit to say the least as any reviewer online really but not proof of anything.

And yeah Benton, already told you I'm having trouble with my browser and apologized for it. Basically on my end I'm typing into what looks like the search box for Google. It has to do with a slow connection and not being able to update the browsers. I digress, I'm detecting I'm inciting a bit of abrasion and snarkiness where I'm only attempting to explain the logistics of the process from my view inside the industry itself. I get it, you passionately loathe the film. It's a laxative to me anyways. But I just have to leave at that I think your wrong in your reasoning and acknowledge you feel the same towards me, and I get the why's of that and concede to bow out of the discussion for fear it will turn into something I consider this forum to be above as well fall into repetition and redundancy. My respect for either of you pretty much exceeds my desire to convince you of where MoS actually rates anyways. Sorry to hear your not feeling new movies coming out and that the ones that have grate on you. Wish there was something to do for that. Happy spring if your experiencing it your areas (snowstorm here, BLUH!).

Ummm... no. A flaw, in terms of a film, is anything that breaks the illusion the film is trying to create. Jonathan Kent constantly telling Clark to both "Be great" but also "Imma die to hide your greatness"? That is a FLAW that audiences noticed and which broke the illusion the film had created. The church scene which might as well have been shoving the Jesus parallels down the audience's throats? That is a flaw because it is so heavy handed that it broke the illusion for some people. Those scenes might be "as intended" by the filmmaker, but they don't work for the audience he's attempting to reach with them. Now, that's not a flaw on the actor's part, or on the cinematographer or on any of the staff that shot those scenes. They are flaws that came exclusively from the Editor, the Screenwriter and the Director.

And you can't say that these films are only bad for FANS, because that's blatantly not true. I watched the first Transformers movie as a complete and total outsider to the fandom, and after watching it? I wanted nothing to do with them. I hate the look of the Bay Transformers, I hate the story of the Bay Transformers, and I have zero interest in spending money on anything related to that series. It's sad, because I kinda want to know more about the series (just as a toy collector) but I'm so afraid of having to deal with the movies again that I end up doing little more than dipping my toe in before I manage to find something else to occupy me.

Since when does deviating from the source material mean a quality drop in the film adaptation? That is a tired comic book guy argument that (a) ignores the fact that Marvel and DC comic book characters regularly receive makeovers in print form in order to remain relevant to their target demographic and (b) ignores films like Tim Burton's and Christopher Nolan's Batman, Del Toro's Hellboy, Mendes' Road To Perdition, Blade, etc, which all deviated significantly from the comics.

The thing that differentiates a good comic book film from a bad one is the skill of the filmmaker. Not only is it difficult for comics to be translated directly for the screen, but pleasing an existing and aging fan base is one thing, making a comic book property accessible to a new, wider audience is another. It's a fine line to strike and while "Man Of Steel" leaned further on the latter, it doesn't make me less interested in seeing a new interpretation of Justice League.

Hell, my preferred Justice League doesn't even have Cyborg in it, but I'm sure that a lot of other, younger comic readers are keen to see the character.

Starman, I agree with your statement, but only up to a point. While I by no means want a page to scene adaptation of a comic book, a good adaptation (be it comics, books, or whatever) should be able to keep the core foundations of the work... its soul, if you will, in order to be considered faithful. Now, I like Man of Steel, I honestly do enjoy it... but I do also agree that some core aspects of Superman's character were missing in MoS (that said, I do think the killing thing is there to underline why he doesn't kill again... it just should have been handled better on the editing room floor) and that the adaptation of the comic character is thus flawed. It's nothing I don't think could be overcome (again, I think the killing thing was supposed to work itself out), my issue is that I don't feel like we're getting that wiggle room for it to be done properly.

That said, I'm ok with Cyborg being on the league. He's an amazing character, I love what's been done with him in the latest issues of Justice League, and I'm sorry... there's no way the studio is gonna stand for an all-white Justice League. And if we're gonna have a black dude on the team, I'd rather it be a superhero that just happened to be Black, rather than just "the black Green Lantern."

QuoteThat said, I'm ok with Cyborg being on the league. He's an amazing character, I love what's been done with him in the latest issues of Justice League, and I'm sorry... there's no way the studio is gonna stand for an all-white Justice League. And if we're gonna have a black dude on the team, I'd rather it be a superhero that just happened to be Black, rather than just "the black Green Lantern."

I don't think anyone expressed a preference for an "all-white Justice League"?  :blink:

I don't like Cyborg because I find him boring. Personal preference. He's a guy with robot parts. John Stewart, on the other hand, is actually a pretty interestingly written character and one of DC's first black costumed superheroes, rather than "just the black Green Lantern". Skin colour aside, he's quite different, personality-wise, to Hal Jordan or Kyle Rayner.  :thumbup:

Ummm... no, Cyborg is a long standing DC superhero, a member of the new teen titans who has had a long history being in the DC Universe (hell, he was kind of a member of the league before John was, because he was actually in the last incarnation of Super Friends alongside Firestorm). Much of his character and motivations are related to his inner turmoil over having been turned into a Cyborg and coming to terms with that fact. The fact that he's black is a part of the character, but was never the sum total.

John Stewart, on the other hand, started as very much the "black Green Lantern" and owes much of his actual development and character to stories that came well after his creation (particularly the DCAU). His original personality was defined by his race (belligerent toward authority figures, and with a giant chip on his shoulder because of his race... Yes, because there are a lot of Marines out there who are soooo belligerent) many of the stories told with him and Hal were about his race (the very first involving a racist politician). He accidentally blew up a planet, got his wife killed, got confined to a wheelchair... Really, most of the positive development for the character came after he was included in DCAU's Justice League.

Does that mean I dislike John? Hell no. The Modern incarnation is great, and I loved that he was included in JL/JLU. But I do tend to prefer black and/or female characters who started with their own identity, over ones that I feel like are going to be constantly overshadowed and compared to their white male counterparts (if only because they came first).

QuoteMuch of his character and motivations are related to his inner turmoil over having been turned into a Cyborg and coming to terms with that fact.

Personally, that "motivation" has been done to death via characters across an array of media and it isn't interesting to me. I'd argue that it isn't interesting to quite a few people since Cyborg has never (as far as I'm aware) had a solo book or one where he is the primary focus.

No kidding that John Stewart was initially defined by his race ... he was introduced in 1972 as one of the first dominant African-American heroes in the pages of DC Comics! Cyborg started out as one of several cogs in a "teen team" book and his origin involved a pile of angry young 1980s African American youth issues (sports vs education, street gang fights, a friend involved in racially motivated terrorism) around 10 years later. Both characters dealt with racial issues, obviously just over different time periods.

Cyborg is a better character than John Stewart because John Stewart is a part of the Green Lantern Corp and was preceded in the role by a white character, right? So, if any of the numerous cyborg characters in DC Comics who preceded Vic Stone (like, say, Tharok from The Fatal Five) had actually been named "Cyborg", or if he had been a legacy character for a white hero ... that would cause you to appreciate Vic Stone a little less? I hope not.

QuoteUmmm... no

Dude.

I was taking issue with the "just a guy with robot parts" line, which is flatly nonsense and spits in the face of one of my favorite characters. Cyborg has had a long and varied history with the Wolfman/Perez Titans, has led several of the successive incarnations of the Titans, and even at one point became a planet sized monster who tried to eat the moon (long story). He's earned his spot on the League, and I'm just as happy to have him involved in the film. And yes, I admit I'm being dismissive of John in my arguments, but the sad truth is I'm so sick of DC trying to cram their token minority into the Green Lantern slot. They've done it four times now (Irish Guy Gardner, Black John Stewart, Mexican Kyle Rayner, Arab Simon Baz) and even though most of those characters turned out to be amazing (though some took longer than others), it doesn't stop it from being an obvious pattern, and one DC needs to move away from.

QuoteI was taking issue with the "just a guy with robot parts" line, which is flatly nonsense and spits in the face of one of my favorite characters.

Pure drama.

Yes, I can imagine seeing someone refer to a character called "Cyborg" as "just a guy with robot parts" must be infuriating. :doh: Please avoid reading the dictionary definition of "cyborg".

QuoteI'm so sick of DC trying to cram their token minority into the Green Lantern slot.

Okayyy ... this is turning into another discussion entirely about how you don't like minorities being Green Lanterns  :huh: At least Cyborg being on the Justice League doesn't seem to offend your sensibilities.

Seems to me that you are cherry picking the words out of Tomato's mouth so you can make a silly argument.

Tomato refers to Cyborg as MORE than a guy with robot parts & yet you point to the definition of the word "Cyborg". You lose this argument, sir. Cyborg is much more than a guy with robot parts. He has been more than that for over 25 years.

Quote from: TomatoI'm so sick of DC trying to cram their token minority into the Green Lantern slot

Looking at this from the actual comment Tomato left I can see his point. READ his post before holding him to the flame. There is nothing wrong with Jon Stewart or the other minority Green Lanterns. He is trying to say that FORCING a minority race into the Green Lantern costume is just as wrong as dropping a main character because he is white. There is no difference there.

I'm quoting him.

Cyborg as "a guy with robot parts" is my personal opinion. Explicitly stated. It's not an argument or a dramatic spitting in the face of whatever.

MJB, as for what Tomato is "trying" to say, please explain how "forcing" a non-white or mixed ethnicity character into a Green Lantern role is "wrong" and resulted in a qualitive decline in Green Lantern comics?

I'm also curious ... does this rule just apply to Green Lantern or characters like Blue Beetle as well? What about gender roles, like Renee Montoya as The Question? Also "wrong"?

Umm... again, YOU don't like Cyborg, so you're belittling the character in order to make your point, which is no better than what you're trying to get on ME for doing with John Stewart. You're ignoring 25 years of character growth to narrowly define him as "just a dude with robot parts" and that is NO BETTER than me calling John Stewart "the black Green Lantern"

My problem with the John Stewart thing is that I'm juuust old enough to remember fans complaining about it not being Hal/Kyle in the Green Lantern slot. For the first few years, everything John did as a character was compared to his white counterparts. John Stewart wasn't so much a character in his own right, as he was a replacement for what some fans wanted to see (or worse, that he was just a cheap appeasement character for black fans)... Dini and co. eventually broke through that and established him as his own character, but for awhile, that is ALL fans were concerned with. And now, only a few years after Hal Jordan was in a live action film, and has had his face plastered all over the comics? It would be FAR WORSE.

THAT is what I'm talking about when I say I'd rather have a character with his own identity that happens to be black, rather than the black version of another hero. I don't want to see a good character torn apart because he wasn't the boring white-bread model.

Warning, unflattering discussion of MoS below:

Holy Hannah!  Okay, *deep breath* let's take a stab at a response here:

Quote from: SickAlice on May 05, 2014, 10:04:17 PM
And yeah Benton, already told you I'm having trouble with my browser and apologized for it. Basically on my end I'm typing into what looks like the search box for Google. It has to do with a slow connection and not being able to update the browsers.

Sorry SA, I missed that. 

Quote from: SickAlice on May 05, 2014, 07:27:54 AM
As for the Cracked link...I remember reading barely, I get there stuff in my FB feed, but their a comedy site and I rarely consider proof of anything and especially not authority. Funny articles, well not so much these days I think.

I didn't cite the Cracked article as some type of objective proof.  Try reading their first entry here:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-common-movie-arguments-that-are-always-wrong/
It's a humorous explanation of why the 'big dumb action movie' defense is illogical.  Their argument is brief but solid, even if it is funny.  I linked it primarily because it was enjoyable.

Quote from: SickAlice on May 05, 2014, 10:04:17 PM
I digress, I'm detecting I'm inciting a bit of abrasion and snarkiness where I'm only attempting to explain the logistics of the process from my view inside the industry itself. I get it, you passionately loathe the film. It's a laxative to me anyways. But I just have to leave at that I think your wrong in your reasoning and acknowledge you feel the same towards me, and I get the why's of that and concede to bow out of the discussion for fear it will turn into something I consider this forum to be above as well fall into repetition and redundancy. My respect for either of you pretty much exceeds my desire to convince you of where MoS actually rates anyways. Sorry to hear your not feeling new movies coming out and that the ones that have grate on you. Wish there was something to do for that. Happy spring if your experiencing it your areas (snowstorm here, BLUH!).

I appreciate your grace in wanting to preserve the collegial nature of FR, but I've got no ill-will towards you, nor have I intended to be snarky.  If my posts have come across that way, I apologize.  I do, however, think that you've rather misunderstood my point, so I am going to try to clarify here.  First, I don't loathe MoS, just a particular moment thereof.  If it weren't for the ending, I'd say that it was the best Superman movie made so far, though that isn't saying very much. Second:

Quote from: SickAlice on May 05, 2014, 07:27:54 AM
Your stance is that the Superman films weren't top notch. But your projection for the Justice League films potential to be bad is they were low grade, which they weren't.

Yes, I do argue that MoS wasn't top notch, and while I wouldn't exactly call it low grade, I would certainly call it very uneven.  I'm not claiming that it was poorly made in the same sense or degree as Catwoman (to continue using that film as our metaphorical punching bag), but there is a big range between something that terrible and a truly well-crafted film.  However, my reasons for such thoughts are different from the ones you seem to imagine.  Yeah, I think that their treatment of Superman was abominable at the end and not as interesting as he deserved to be throughout, (and so does the guy whose story they adapted for Snyder's overwrought ode to destruction porn) but the film has problems that are much more concrete.  It has plot holes, inconsistent motivations, clumsy deus ex machina like moments, and more.  These things are, objectively speaking, poor qualities for a story to have.  Flaws are not only visible strings or zippers in the monster costume, they are also the places where the structure of the story shows through and the viewer is pulled out of the movie.  It doesn't matter if not everyone saw it (everyone I've talked to about MoS saw its flaws, even if it took them some time), as a plot hole is a plot hole, whether you notice it or not.  The sky is no less blue if I fail to notice it.  MoS certainly had its fair share of such flaws.  It also had very nicely done special effects and some great performances.  Taken all together, that makes MoS, at best, an uneven film.  You can certainly argue that the good outweighs the bad, but that rather misses my point.

You see, I wasn't trying to argue that MoS was a bad movie or that Snyder was a bad director, specifically.  I don't think either is true, exactly.  Nor was my point that the Justice League movie is inevitably going to be terrible.  Obviously, we can't know that yet.  I have said that I don't hold out a lot of hope for it, and I've explained my reasoning on that front.  Yet, that is clearly very subjective.

No, my point was much more general.  What my last several posts have argued is that "big dumb action movie" is a poor excuse to create lousy art.  We, and by "we" I mean the movie going public in general, should insist on competent stories and storytelling in our entertainment.  We should realize that it isn't too much to ask for to have someone actually read a script to see if everything in it makes sense.  We should realize that giving our money to people who shovel out half-baked junk like, say, the Transformers movies, leads to more half-baked junk.  If we spend our money more wisely, we will in turn find that the powers that be will create a better class of film to target a more discerning audience.  Look at the incredible response that has followed the Marvel movies, a response that has spread to decidedly non-comic folks, and yet one which is filled with an enthusiasm that is really quite remarkable.  My wife, who is rather anti-comic, was anxiously awaiting Captain America, but I couldn't drag her to a DC movie, a Transformers flick, or the like if I tried.  You can argue that we're spoiled by good movies, but that doesn't wash.  We had good movies in the past, and even Adam West's Batman was well-made for what it was.  Despite that, we were just as able to reject bad, poorly made films.  Look at the reaction to Schumacher's Batman flick!

You see, the argument that profit makes a "quality" film is entirely incorrect.  Profit makes a profitable film, that's all.  It means a lot to the suits, but how much money a movie earns doesn't really mean that much in the long run.  Look at Fight Club!  It was hated by the suits because they didn't understand it (no surprise there), and they buried the movie before its release.  Surprisingly enough, it underperformed at the box office.  Yet, it's one of the most influential films of the last few decades.  My students today are still watching and talking about Fight Club over a decade and a half after its release!  It's indelibly imprinted on the minds of my generation, and it is, without a doubt, an amazing film, despite its commercial failure.  Heck, even Citizen Kane flopped at the box office!  I doubt anyone is going to argue that the Transformers movies are higher "quality" than Citizen Kane.  Compare that to the Transformer films themselves.  They made money, tons of money, but who is seriously going to say that they are "quality" films?  They are not.  Objectively, they are not.  Factually, they are not.  They have plot holes, they have inconsistent motivations, they are filled with deus ex machina.  They fail at the basic principles of storytelling.  Are they fun to watch?  In parts, yeah, and maybe you can argue that their good outweighs their bad too.  However, we should and can get more from our entertainment.  The Avengers is incredibly fun to watch, but it's also an incredibly well-made movie.  It is a "quality" film, as are most of the Marvel movies.  They are simply better crafted stories, and people recognize that.

Notice, none of what I have said is about how comic-accurate a particular production was.  That's because my point was not that a movie is only good when it is source-accurate.  No, films are good when they are actually made well, but what's interesting is what the last decade has taught us.  Look at the cinema landscape during the superhero explosion and you will find that the best films we've gotten have been good in part because they have been comic-accurate.  It's true that being faithful to their sources is the last priority for a lot of filmmakers, but look at what such folks produce.  Yet, when someone approaches one of these projects thinking, 'you know, this character has been around for 70 years, I wonder if there is any reason for that,' they generally end up bringing the things that make these characters and ideas special to the big screen and, surprisingly enough, those very concepts that resonated with people for most of a century continue to do so today.

That's obviously not the only factor, but it certainly it must help when you don't have to reinvent the wheel. :)

You see, I believe that these things actually do matter, at least to a degree.  Better stories (in all senses) make us better people.  I believe in the power of good literature (of course, I know you're all shocked), and the more we have quality stories to consume rather than just disposable trash fiction, the better off we'll be.  That, combined with my love for these characters and settings, means I want the few, precious chances we have to get good stories with them to amount to more than 'big dumb action movie.'  In the context of this conversation, it matters because: as goes the first, so go the others.  The financial success of a flawed film will likely give us more of the same.

Is the Justice League movie going to be terrible?  Obviously I don't know.  I hope not.  I hope that it does turn out to be wonderful, but that wasn't really what I was talking about over the course of my last few posts.  I'm nervous because there is a lot riding on this movie, in terms of the future of DC film adaptations, and I don't see many positive signs so far.  Yet, it is early; that is very true, and much could still happen. 

Okay, so I hope that clears things up.


As for this new dust-up.  Let's take a breath, guys.  I love John Stewart largely because of the Timmverse.  He's a fantastic character, and his worth is not diminished because it took time to find the core of who he was, just like the Question.  Both of them (and many others) came into their own in the Timmverse, and they settled into roles that fit so perfectly, it was like they were made for them.

I understand 'Mato's point about DC's treatment of minority characters, but once again, I don't think their origins necessarily should be held against them.  I realize that you're arguing that such antagonism may follow them regardless of its justification, but I don't think that is entirely inevitable  Many of them became great characters in their own right, and they are worthwhile, John among them.  It's like Ryan Choi.  The poor guy had a raw deal in his intro into comics, but he transcended those origins.  Good stories, especially those of the Timmverse, smoothed things over.  I was pretty unhappy when JLA first started for precisely this reason.  I thought, 'hey, what the heck!?  They've replaced Green Lantern with a black guy just to add diversity!"  Of course, I was wrong, and John was his own character that deserved that slot just as much as Hal.  I came around because of good storytelling. :)

I like Cyborg too, but I'm in the camp that would rather see someone else in the League because he's a Titan to me and doesn't really belong with the big guns.  Of course, what I really want is a classic Big Seven League with Hal and Barry, but I recognize that it would never fly in this day and age.

Modern DC  needs to make up for how racist  classic DC  was.  It makes zero sense that all superheroes are white. If that means reimagining  existing characters as  being minorities (Nick Fury in the movie universe is an excellent example,  something Sony  should've done in the Spider-Man reboot),  introducing new minority characters (John  Stewart is and always has been a great character),  or bringing previously  minor characters to the forefront (Cyborg  in this movie). It is insane thatall the Avengers  are white, that's not how it would happen in real life. I don't want to see a JLA  movie with all  white people, that would be ridiculous, most people aren't white.

Agreed. Hollywood doesn't see it this way apparently. Just look at the cast for Avengers 2.

Eh, same stance here and same for you and that's okay. Like I said I put down what I have. Sorry for blasting off hard both you anyways, I felt bad about it since. This kind of reaction isn't normal for me. Pushing my pain limit and I probably shouldn't be trying to get social when I'm that abrasive. And not to denote your opinions. JL may actually end being weak sauce or worse still mustard. I can't tell the future either. Actually though as long as Guardians Of The Galaxy doesn't somehow turn out a flop I probably don't care about all else. Like I said at the end of the day, personally I'm at least happy just to see it happen and if it happens in style then even better.

I agree with MJB on the Avengers... at least with Justice League, I can acknowledge the difficulty in finding notable black heroes (which is a problem in and of itself, frankly) but Marvel has a wealth of heroes to pull from, a few of whom we've already seen done well in other films (War Machine, Falcon). I was actually thinking about Panther earlier, since he's basically Marvel's Batman. I don't know why he hasn't been adapted already

Quote from: Tomato on May 08, 2014, 02:03:14 AM
I agree with MJB on the Avengers... at least with Justice League, I can acknowledge the difficulty in finding notable black heroes (which is a problem in and of itself, frankly) but Marvel has a wealth of heroes to pull from, a few of whom we've already seen done well in other films (War Machine, Falcon). I was actually thinking about Panther earlier, since he's basically Marvel's Batman. I don't know why he hasn't been adapted already

Well Rhodey is reportedly appearing in Age of Ultron in some capacity. I wouldn't be surprised if Falcon appears in Avengers 3, and there's lots of rumours about a Black Panther film for the Phase 3 films. So baby steps at least.

Falcon was one of the best things about Cap 2, so Marvel is moving in the right direction, for sure.  You know, it's just that most of the classic, iconic heroes were created in a time where the common conception of America was decidedly single-shade.  Of course when they start bringing characters to the big screen, it only makes sense that those characters will reflect the era that created them. 

Pod, I'll be glad to see Rhodey in Av2.  That would be cool. :)

Yeah, we definitely need a Black Panther movie.  That could and would be awesome.  We're quickly going to reach saturation level on the Avengers line-up in movie terms, though.

Quote from: Tomato on May 06, 2014, 05:39:22 AM
And you can't say that these films are only bad for FANS, because that's blatantly not true. I watched the first Transformers movie as a complete and total outsider to the fandom, and after watching it? I wanted nothing to do with them. I hate the look of the Bay Transformers, I hate the story of the Bay Transformers, and I have zero interest in spending money on anything related to that series. It's sad, because I kinda want to know more about the series (just as a toy collector) but I'm so afraid of having to deal with the movies again that I end up doing little more than dipping my toe in before I manage to find something else to occupy me.

'Mato, if you have some interest in seeing some actually good Transformers stories, try the excellent Dreamwave Transformers: Generation 1 series.  The first arc is a bit uneven, but it becomes quite great as it goes on.

Quote from: Tomato on May 07, 2014, 03:47:11 PM
Umm... again, YOU don't like Cyborg, so you're belittling the character in order to make your point, which is no better than what you're trying to get on ME for doing with John Stewart. You're ignoring 25 years of character growth to narrowly define him as "just a dude with robot parts" and that is NO BETTER than me calling John Stewart "the black Green Lantern"

My problem with the John Stewart thing is that I'm juuust old enough to remember fans complaining about it not being Hal/Kyle in the Green Lantern slot. For the first few years, everything John did as a character was compared to his white counterparts. John Stewart wasn't so much a character in his own right, as he was a replacement for what some fans wanted to see (or worse, that he was just a cheap appeasement character for black fans)... Dini and co. eventually broke through that and established him as his own character, but for awhile, that is ALL fans were concerned with. And now, only a few years after Hal Jordan was in a live action film, and has had his face plastered all over the comics? It would be FAR WORSE.

THAT is what I'm talking about when I say I'd rather have a character with his own identity that happens to be black, rather than the black version of another hero. I don't want to see a good character torn apart because he wasn't the boring white-bread model.

Tomato, there is big difference between me saying I find a character's schtick boring and you saying a character is just an example of racial tokenism. If you had described John Stewart as "some guy with a magic ring", that would have been no better than me calling Cyborg "just a dude with robot parts".

Now you are saying:

QuoteI don't want to see a good character torn apart because he wasn't the boring white-bread model

... when only a day ago you said ...

QuoteI'm so sick of DC trying to cram their token minority into the Green Lantern slot. They've done it four times now (Irish Guy Gardner, Black John Stewart, Mexican Kyle Rayner, Arab Simon Baz) and even though most of those characters turned out to be amazing (though some took longer than others), it doesn't stop it from being an obvious pattern, and one DC needs to move away from.

Those are two very different statements ... although I'm curious as to what the obvious pattern is and why DC needs to move away from it?

Starman, I'm not going to continue this. You're focusing in on only the statements you want to read to make your point, and it's making what should be an intelligent debate on the ethics of DC turn into a personal attack. Believe it or not, I am capable of liking a character AND seeing the reality that DC abuses the hell out of him as one of their token black characters (of which there are embarrassingly few). I'm being dismissive of DC's tokenism, not of the character himself.

Quote from: SickAlice on May 08, 2014, 01:43:19 AM
Eh, same stance here and same for you and that's okay. Like I said I put down what I have. Sorry for blasting off hard both you anyways, I felt bad about it since. This kind of reaction isn't normal for me. Pushing my pain limit and I probably shouldn't be trying to get social when I'm that abrasive. And not to denote your opinions. JL may actually end being weak sauce or worse still mustard. I can't tell the future either. Actually though as long as Guardians Of The Galaxy doesn't somehow turn out a flop I probably don't care about all else. Like I said at the end of the day, personally I'm at least happy just to see it happen and if it happens in style then even better.

SA, I didn't think you were 'blasting off hard,' so no worries. 

Like I said, my point wasn't that JLA is or isn't going to be good or bad, but that it isn't irrelevant if these movies are good, bad, or flawed and that you can make certain relatively objective judgments of stories in general and films specifically.

Yeah, Guardians of the Galaxy is probably the diciest Marvel project yet, in terms of its marketability, at least to my mind.  Yet, if Thor can hold up a film franchise, it seems entirely possible, however unbelievable to those of us who remember when Schumacher was making superhero films, that GoG can succeed.  I certainly hope so!

Tomato, they are statements you made. I didn't have to focus very hard to point out how contradictory those statements have become in your efforts to dig yourself out of your hole.

You said DC needs to stop cramming "their token minority into the Green Lantern slot" ... now you are backsliding and saying "DC abuses the hell out of him as one of their token black characters (of which there are embarrassingly few)". Is it too many or too few "token" characters now?

By using the word "token", you are saying that John Stewart, a character created 43-years ago that has had his own standalone series, is only used by DC Comics for the sake of having a minority - an African American - in the mix. Kyle Rayner, who was the Green Lantern for 10 years, is only there because they needed a half Mexican. Simon Baz, a Lebanese-American character selected to become a Green Lantern because he has overcome great cultural fear in America post 9/11, is just an Arab. That is your own opinion, not "DC's tokenism". A lot of people would simply call it diversity, and say that John Stewart, Kyle Rayner, et al are "relevant" characters, often tackling topical issues and that we don't really need more "token" characters in comics.

Anyway, I'll let this discussion go so this topic can get back on track.

Btw, people seeking an "intelligent debate" don't begin their replies with a passive aggressive "Umm..." That is school yard stuff.

Well, I adored MOS, so I'm stoked big time. That being said, I'd rather see John Stewart than any of the other lanterns myself. it also seems idiotic to not use an interesting established character that could help your diversity issue. I like Cyborg but he'll never be a leaguer to me. I'd much rather see Martian Manhunter  myself but I can deal with Cyborg instead. he's a interesting character also.

Of course , I'm such a Timmverse fan , I'd rather see their lineup but I know that's not going to happen.

John Stewart was created 43 years ago? Boy do I feel old.

Well, if I can't get Hal, I'd certainly get rather John than anyone else as GL.

Yeah Steam, I feel the same way about Cyborg.

There's been rumors that John Stewart will be appearing in BvS and Justice League. Dwayne Johnson and Denzel Washington were both mentioned but nothing even remotely solid yet. A good bet Stewart will be in it.

I've always found it interesting how DC (Geoff Johns) are really pushing Cyborg as a JL member. I get the diversity angle, but it didn't have to be Cyborg, there are other options. "Why'd you pick him?" is what I always ask myself. He does work well I think. He reminds me of Oracle in the current JL book and that's always useful for a team.

One thing I'm wondering is whether WB will actually pick up Stephen Amell to be Green Arrow. He's said a couple of times that he wants to do it and it would really be a boost to their television franchises. Personally I'm all for it, but I'd probably keep his role small.

New rumor, this time from Kevin "Silent Bob" Smith:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/27/kevin-smith-says-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-is-the-beginning-of-one-massive-justice-league-story-spanning-five-or-six-movies/

Everyone rumor I read is betting "Bats vs Supes" is a Justice League prequel more than a Man of Steel sequel....

Personally, I'm hoping for John Stewart as GL.  I've just never been a fan of Hal.

(http://images.classicalite.com/data/images/full/5346/stephen-amell.jpg?w=600)

Totally  ^_^

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/TAP43/BniMm-vCQAAQ5n8.png) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/TAP43/media/BniMm-vCQAAQ5n8.png.html)

Saw this and had to share it, I thought it was funny

Haha, neat Tap!

Heh, I just saw that the other day... Apparently it's actually a response to a tweet Gail Simone made about how the new costume looked like Catman.

Just heard about this, and I have to say, I'm not exactly thrilled, for a couple of reasons. 1.I did not like MoS. 2.The Justice League usually has at least seven members, which is even more than Avengers had, and yet, Avengers had time to previously develop most of it's characters by giving them multiple movies. Justice League has MOS, the upcoming Batman/Superman film, and that's it. I get the feeling that most Leaguers won't be developed all that well, and that in any case, Superman and Batman will likely dominate the movie. At this point, I just think it'll wind up being a film that still has great technical value, but at the same time. isn't going to have much in terms of story or character, and if MOS is any indication, then the JL film might also have a host of other problems that I won't really get into here.

^Do we need 5 obligatory movies like Avengers did?I think 2 hours is enough for a good movie even if it has 7 main charachters.

Quote from: Spade on June 10, 2014, 02:26:45 PM
^Do we need 5 obligatory movies like Avengers did?I think 2 hours is enough for a good movie even if it has 7 main charachters.

By definition of "obligatory", we do need any "obligatory movie" :P

I'm thinking that they may do the opposite of what Marvel did, just to see how their characters pans out.  BvS is a prequel to the JL movie and depending on how the movie turns, they will make single hero movies.  For example in the JL movie you have Cyborg and Aquaman and they turn out to be 2 of the popular characters in the movie.  WB will say: "people like them and want to see more of them, let make a movie with them in it"  It's a risk, and my opinion, but I think that is what they are going to do.   

^That makes more sense then Marvels reverse order.

Kind of, but it's more a difference of style, really. And frankly, their whole project banks on Justice League being a good enough film that fans want to see more... and given the track record of David Goyer (who recently upset fans of She-Hulk and Martian Manhunter in one disgusting interview where he completely missed the point of both characters) and Zack Snyder (who lacks Nolan's finesse when if comes to film) that's still up in the air right now. I honestly do hope the movies are good enough to warrant introducing more solo films down the line, but there is legitimate concern that these films will bomb and that will never happen. It is a gamble, one which they might not succeed with.

Conversely, if Marvel has a "meh" film, it doesn't really impact them very much. You might not care for Iron Man 2 or Incredible Hulk (just using them as examples), but if you enjoyed Captain America or Thor you'll go see Avengers anyway. Sure, they took the long road, but given how many billions of dollars they've made, that's clearly a better strategy than trying to rush franchises out of other properties (ASM2, anyone?)

^Thor was made so non-comic readers wouldnt ask WHO IS HE while watching Avengers IMO.It just server to introduce Thor and Loki.
Thats just an example.
Nolan making JL ?Guy made Superman darker,come on.
But with Snyder we risk 300 style action scenes.

Nolan has nothing to do with Batman vs Superman OR Justice League. He's very obviously removed his name for anything beyond Man of Steel. From here on out, it's JUST Zack Snyder and David Goyer, and that is a serious source of concern.

^My thoughts exactly.
As somebody who has grown up watching Justice League I will be seriously dissapointed if they mess this up.

Quote from: Spade on June 10, 2014, 06:02:04 PMAs somebody who has grown up watching Justice League I will be seriously dissapointed if they mess this up.

You and just about anybody else who likes DC, myself included :P

Though, I'm not expecting too much from the movie.

Quote from: Tomato on June 10, 2014, 05:52:31 PM
Nolan has nothing to do with Batman vs Superman OR Justice League. He's very obviously removed his name for anything beyond Man of Steel. From here on out, it's JUST Zack Snyder and David Goyer, and that is a serious source of concern.

Only thing I have against Snyder is his editing. I thought MoS pacing was off. Has Goyer been tagged for the JL movie? Maybe they will use Chris Terrio instead.

Also a side note, Nolan won't be doing films for WB for quite a while.

@spydermann
Lets not be dissapointed before it even started,I mean it cant be worst than Iron Man 3.

Quote from: Spade on June 10, 2014, 07:42:52 PM
@spydermann
Lets not be dissapointed before it even started,I mean it cant be worst than Iron Man 3.

Hehe, hopefully not :P

This movie is going to be terrible because they cast Ben Affleck as Batman.  I've completely written this series off.  Even if they recast him for some reason, WB  has proven time after time that they can not do enough things right in a row to pull off something this ambitious.  Man of Steel was a good movie, but that could just be a fluke. Green Lantern was just garbage,  they're already going to have to reboot the character so what would make me think they'll get it right the second time around?  Nothing has changed,  Zack Snyder can  sometimes make a good movie but he is no Chris Nolan (who I'm certain had a significant role in making Man of Steel a success).No way WB can handle this.  I'd love to be proved wrong but I feel like I learned my lesson by getting so excited about Green Lantern.

BWPS, you sound like a boy who had a crush on this girl and when you finally have enough courage to ask her out, you found out that she's dating the captain of the football team.  I didn't know how hurt you were by the GL movie

Quote from: JeyNyce on June 10, 2014, 09:45:15 PM
BWPS, you sound like a boy who had a crush on this girl and when you finally have enough courage to ask her out, you found out that she's dating the captain of the football team.  I didn't know how hurt you were by the GL movie

Not only that but it was the captain of the football team who makes fun of me being poor and beats me up every day!

I actually think this is a low risk move by Warner Bros - and I'm talking financially and franchise building here. Batman and Superman can sell, teaming them up together should sell very well, and get the proper hype behind Justice League and it should sell even better (bonus points if it's actually a good movie). Coming out after Avengers during a time where superheros rule the cinemas there should be little resistance to movie goers wanting to see Justice League.

I think it would be riskier to go the solo route. One key movie (Green Lantern) can derail the entire plan. I've always held that Marvel got lucky that Iron Man took off like it did. Even when you make a good film that's no guarantee of the financial success that has made the Marvel Cinematic as we know it possible.

If I was WB I would keep the League small for the first film. Five or six members, with maybe others in smaller roles. The real concentration should be on finding a way to tell a solid compelling story, something that can build a franchise not just of Justice League but for solo films as well.

Granted I think this also an all or nothing gambit. If a Green Lantern or Aquaman solo film fails then you just regroup and try again with Green Arrow or Wonder Woman. If Justice League fails, you're in a tough spot to get things going again.

^I dont think there will be Green Arrow in this movie.Im actually cool with that because Arrow is THE Green Arrow adaptation.
Im just hoping for a good story,not some generic alien invasion.
Any words on the story?

Quote from: Spade on June 10, 2014, 07:42:52 PM
@spydermann
Lets not be dissapointed before it even started,I mean it cant be worst than Iron Man 3.

Comparing my 2nd favorite CBM of all time  (MOS) to my least favorite big hyped CBM of modern times ( IM3) so to speak. I am really so excited even Be Affleck can't bring me down.   

Sadly, I don't have a lot of faith in the Justice League movie.  I'm not a fan of the Ben Affleck casting, David Goyer is a twit, and Zach Snyder is competent, I guess?  A movie like this needs better than competent.  I hope it works out, and surprises me - Batman v. Superman will be the real litmus test.  If it's good, Justice League has a chance; if it's not, Justice League is doomed.

Quote from: Talavar on June 11, 2014, 01:49:28 PM
Sadly, I don't have a lot of faith in the Justice League movie.  I'm not a fan of the Ben Affleck casting, David Goyer is a twit, and Zach Snyder is competent, I guess?  A movie like this needs better than competent.  I hope it works out, and surprises me - Batman v. Superman will be the real litmus test.  If it's good, Justice League has a chance; if it's not, Justice League is doomed.

They've already been doomed; didn't you see the animated film? ;)

Was it ever confirmed that Flash & Arrow were in the same universe as Supes, Bats & WW?

Quote from: JeyNyce on June 11, 2014, 03:57:24 PM
Was it ever confirmed that Flash & Arrow were in the same universe as Supes, Bats & WW?

CW series are not part of the movie universe.

^I dont think any1 ever claimed that.

Jeynyce was asking the question not two posts ago. Midnite even quoted it.

^Let me rephrase that for you:
Who of us said that this film is in Arrow-verse?
Questio was formed like somebody here claimed it.

Quote from: kkhohoho on June 11, 2014, 01:52:26 PM

Quote from: Talavar on June 11, 2014, 01:49:28 PM
Sadly, I don't have a lot of faith in the Justice League movie.  I'm not a fan of the Ben Affleck casting, David Goyer is a twit, and Zach Snyder is competent, I guess?  A movie like this needs better than competent.  I hope it works out, and surprises me - Batman v. Superman will be the real litmus test.  If it's good, Justice League has a chance; if it's not, Justice League is doomed.

They've already been doomed; didn't you see the animated film? ;)

Touche!

Quote from: Spade on June 11, 2014, 04:48:48 PM
^Let me rephrase that for you:
Who of us said that this film is in Arrow-verse?
Questio was formed like somebody here claimed it.

Nobody here claimed it, but it has been brought up before.  I think before you joined Spade.  Anyway, this is why I'm bring it back up

http://screencrush.com/arrow-stephen-amell-justice-league/

http://screenrant.com/arrow-dc-superheroes-movies-tv-shows/

I know it's old news, but with everything going on with BvS and the JL movie, I have a feeling this topic is going to be brought up again.  Enjoy!

^Like I said there is no way for that.
But nobody can play Green Arrow like Stephen Amell.

Breaking News!!

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/06/12/report-justice-league-in-may-2017-and-other-dc-films-to-be-announced-at-comic-con/

THEY'RE MAKING SANDMAN BEFORE AQUAMAN!?

:banghead:

Quote from: spydermann93 on June 12, 2014, 10:30:07 PM
THEY'RE MAKING SANDMAN BEFORE AQUAMAN!?

:banghead:

Well Duh, you have to go to the beach before you get to the water..... :lol:

Quote from: JeyNyce on June 12, 2014, 10:31:54 PM

Quote from: spydermann93 on June 12, 2014, 10:30:07 PM
THEY'RE MAKING SANDMAN BEFORE AQUAMAN!?

:banghead:

Well Duh, you have to go to the beach before you get to the water..... :lol:

What if you come from Atlantis? :P

Quote from: spydermann93 on June 12, 2014, 10:33:51 PM

Quote from: JeyNyce on June 12, 2014, 10:31:54 PM

Quote from: spydermann93 on June 12, 2014, 10:30:07 PM
THEY'RE MAKING SANDMAN BEFORE AQUAMAN!?

:banghead:

Well Duh, you have to go to the beach before you get to the water..... :lol:

What if you come from Atlantis? :P

Touche!  :P

Quote from: spydermann93 on June 12, 2014, 10:33:51 PM

Quote from: JeyNyce on June 12, 2014, 10:31:54 PM

Quote from: spydermann93 on June 12, 2014, 10:30:07 PM
THEY'RE MAKING SANDMAN BEFORE AQUAMAN!?

:banghead:

Well Duh, you have to go to the beach before you get to the water..... :lol:

What if you come from Atlantis? :P

What do you think is holding up all that water?  Sand!

;)

 :lol:  Okay okay, before this gets too crazy....  What do you guys think?  Can WB really pull this off and do you think that it's pretty bold of them to announce all of these movie so soon?  My biggest question is who is going to play Sandman and is he going to be part of the same universe as the others?

Quote from: JeyNyce on June 13, 2014, 08:11:18 PM
:lol:  Okay okay, before this gets too crazy....  What do you guys think?  Can WB really pull this off and do you think that it's pretty bold of them to announce all of these movie so soon?

No and yes. They did Batman right for three of the greatest movies of all time, and I can't ignore that. However Christopher Nolan had a lot of control and he is a master, and those weren't traditional superhero movies. With those their track record is pretty bad. They were going to do Justice League several times before, attaching some terrible writers and directors to making all kinds of JLA character films with only one getting made. Green Lantern was their chance to just put out a good superhero movie and there were some bad decisions made and it was (well you know how I feel about it). Beyond that we're looking at movies like Jonah Hex, Catwoman, Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Steel, Superman Returns (which I kinda don't hate but it still sucks). Casting f%@!ing Ben Affleck shows a huge disconnect with the fanbase and the character. Why even cast someone that's going to get that kind of backlash? I know I stay attached to Christopher Nolan's nutsack, but it seems like he's the only reason DC has had any success, and he's gone. What's to be excited about? So they make Man of Steel (with Nolan doing god knows how much for it) and it's good so they think "Oh, we can do the Marvel thing now!" But what has really changed? I like Zack Snyder more than most people, but even I don't think he has the golden touch that would be needed to fix something that is clearly very wrong with WB's approach to DC movies.

Oh wait, ignore all that. I actually just meant to say. "Ben Affleck sucks, all these movies are going to suck."

^Didnt they learn anything from the Daredevil movie?
Ok no Christian Bale,but Ben,seriously?

Quote from: Spade on June 14, 2014, 05:17:08 AM
^Didnt they learn anything from the Daredevil movie?
Ok no Christian Bale,but Ben,seriously?

Where is ALL of the Ben Affleck hate coming from?!?!.. really, folks.. Ben did Daredevil in 2003.. That's 11 years AGO!!! And it was a FOX movie production.. far outside the level of quality that Marvel Studios is putting the Netflix version under. Really, Daredevil was ALL Ben Affleck's fault? Not the writers who came up with the teter-totter fight or ripping off The Crow with the Daredevil burning logo or just the horrible romantic dialog between Matt and Elektra?

Ben won an oscar for his acting in ARGO and a Director's Guild award (from his own peers.. like Spielburg for goodness sake) for ARGO as well. Warner Brothers is practically kissing Ben's feet that they could even get Batman vs Superman AND Justice League into the same conversation of success that ARGO made for them as a studio. Did anyone see The Town? Also a great film that Ben played a darker conflicted character. Nope, everyone remembers him in Daredevil... because it was the only time he did a superhero before and it bombed. Watch Argo and The Town then come back to the "Ben Sucks" conversation.

Plus, Ben Affleck and Kevin Smith have said that the new Batman is based on The Dark Knight Returns version and they are working together to make sure he is ready for the role. The Frank Miller version where Batman spoke with his fists and only said something when it needed to be said and usually did it in such a way that his opponents usually weewee in their pants. Now, Bruce Wayne on the other hand is a perfect match for Ben's personality because he can do the carefree rich guy mentality and even showing off his detective skills under humor of being totally clueless of what is going on around him.

I'm just waiting like everyone else for the first trailer and then we can start second guessing Ben as Batman.

- CQ

^Im not saying he couldnt improved over the years.It IS hard to imagine him as Batman,but Im giving it a benefit of doubt.

I'm staying out of the whole "Ben sucks" issue.  I thought Heath Ledger was a terrible choice to play the Joker until I saw the movie and I was like "WOW! HE'S THE BEST JOKER EVER!!!"  So, you'll never know, Ben may be this best Bats out there.

Any news on the story of the movie?

The only recent news I heard is this
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/06/14/report-jason-momoa-will-play-aquaman-in-batman-v-superman-and-justice-league

Not a bad choice, I imagine he will not look like Khal Drogo when playing Aquaman :) As for the story I think we can expect many nods to Dark Knight Returns, since Snyder is a fan of the story.

QuoteWatch Argo and The Town then come back to the "Ben Sucks" conversation.

I'm back! I hated both those movies and it really irritated me how much praise they got. Anyway I know I'm beating a dead horse so I'm officially not talking about Ben Affleck until the movie comes out. And I'm still going to see it ASAP so it's not like WB should really care if the movie is bad they'll still make money.

Quote from: bat1987 on June 14, 2014, 01:57:30 PM
The only recent news I heard is this
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/06/14/report-jason-momoa-will-play-aquaman-in-batman-v-superman-and-justice-league

Not a bad choice, I imagine he will not look like Khal Drogo when playing Aquaman :) As for the story I think we can expect many nods to Dark Knight Returns, since Snyder is a fan of the story.

He's also been in Baywatch.

So, y'know, perfect.

Oh ya Baywatch Hawaii. Totally forgot about him being there.

Would it be wrong of me to point out the fact that the Aquaman that I know has been blonde-haired and blue-eyed for the last 34 years of my life?

Why is that hard?

Because dying ones hair blonde is completely impossible to do as an actor.

Quote from: Tomato on June 14, 2014, 09:39:11 PM
Because dying ones hair blonde is completely impossible to do as an actor.

And giving him blue contacts......

Limiting casting decisions by eye colour is ridiculous.  If Aquaman having brown eyes is the worst thing Justice League gets wrong, I'll be astonished.

We can say the movie has a weird casting.

Quote from: Tomato on June 14, 2014, 09:39:11 PM
Because dying ones hair blonde is completely impossible to do as an actor.

I guess... I mean it worked so well for Jessica Alba.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 15, 2014, 06:19:09 AM

Quote from: Tomato on June 14, 2014, 09:39:11 PM
Because dying ones hair blonde is completely impossible to do as an actor.

I guess... I mean it worked so well for Jessica Alba.

Are Chris Evans or Chris Hemsworth naturally blond? I might be wrong but I don't think so, so I think they'll be okay on Aquaman.

But they're also white guys so...

He'd look absolutely ridiculous with blonde hair. Aquaman's blonde hair is sexy but I think Kal Drogo is a cool choice and since he's a freak of nature that will make him look more exotic like an Atlantean might.

Trying to change his hair and eye color would not work well.  As others have said, he's not caucasian in appearance and it really would look right on him, plus he's never going to look like his comic book counterpart anyways short of changing his skin color and that they aren't going to do.

I'm familiar with him from Stargate Atlantis and he seems to be very good at playing strong warrior types.  This is actually good, since it signals that they plan on making Aquaman the warrior king type.  He also, while not looking like comic Aquaman, does have an exotic look about him which would be good for an Atlantean and he definitely looks physically imposing.  No one's going to laugh at his version of Aquaman.

So unlike some of these casting choices, I have no problem with this.  If only I had any confidence that he's have the writing and directing to back that up.

Eh, it depends. I agree that bleach blonde, Draco Malfoy level is a bit on the crazy side, but I don't think a dirty, almost brown type of blonde would look too bad on him. And remember, the Blonde isn't supposed to look right on him, it's why he was cast out in the first place.

Quote from: bat1987 on June 14, 2014, 01:57:30 PM
The only recent news I heard is this
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/06/14/report-jason-momoa-will-play-aquaman-in-batman-v-superman-and-justice-league

Not a bad choice, I imagine he will not look like Khal Drogo when playing Aquaman :) As for the story I think we can expect many nods to Dark Knight Returns, since Snyder is a fan of the story.

I only have one question. Where is Benton on this matter? It's been nearly two days and he hasn't weighed in yet. What's going on!?  :lol:

Quote from: hoss20 on June 16, 2014, 08:11:24 AM

Quote from: bat1987 on June 14, 2014, 01:57:30 PM
The only recent news I heard is this
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/06/14/report-jason-momoa-will-play-aquaman-in-batman-v-superman-and-justice-league

Not a bad choice, I imagine he will not look like Khal Drogo when playing Aquaman :) As for the story I think we can expect many nods to Dark Knight Returns, since Snyder is a fan of the story.

I only have one question. Where is Benton on this matter? It's been nearly two days and he hasn't weighed in yet. What's going on!?  :lol:

I think he's on vacation :P

He's out partying because Aquaman actually got to be in something.

Every GoT fan is runing the Khal Drogo is Aquamen meme.
But I dont see whats the big fuss,the movies isnt coming out soon.

I'm excited. I think he'll make a pretty hardcase Aquaman. Here's a guy you can't make fun of. It will be interesting to see Benton's reaction though.

One thing I'm worried about is Aquaman's origin was he was banished because he had blonde hair and blue eyes.

Knowing Benton i don't think he will be very fond of the idea of Conan em.. i mean Momoa playing Aquaman.

^Or Khal Drogo or the guy from Red Road.

I like the Aquaman casting.  I think it's a great move.  I would list some reasons why...but I'm too tired.

It's funny if you think about it:
No trailer
No idea what the story is about
Not everybody is cast yet, but this is one of the most talked about movies this year.  WB must be doing something right

Doesnt Superman VS Batman comes out first?

See, I think the confusion is that it's not being billed as Superman/Batman. It's being billed as "The Justice League prequel"

^Agreed.

Quote from: Tomato on June 18, 2014, 05:41:53 PM
See, I think the confusion is that it's not being billed as Superman/Batman. It's being billed as "The Justice League prequel"

It's not even billed as Man of Steel 2, because that will come out later on.

What does Benton think?  Take a wild guess.  Haha, I'm pleased that I've become so synonymous with my favorite character that y'all were asking that question.  Well, Benton was on vacation (you were right about that Spyder), ha, and I just got back recently.  So, allow me to catch up.

Good heavens...where to start?  How's about the fact that THIS is Aquaman:
(http://media.bestlittlesites.com/images/users/gallerypictures/57452L.jpg) (http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_medium/6/65423/1923730-aquaman_01_04.jpg)
While THIS is a very poor Conan:
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/1630_konan_3194.jpg) (http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/142/4/3/conan_the_barbarian__by_jodeee-d50ppub.jpg)

See the difference?

Those of you who scoff at complaints based on appearance are way off on this one.  Yeah, Chris Evans' hair was dyed and he looked great as Cap.  Sure, there is a lot that can be done to make an actor look like a character, but casting someone like this fellow just indicates that the empty suits have no desire to even try to match the comics.  Yeah, they could dye his hair and give him contacts, but he'd look ridiculous.  Folks talking about the stupid blonde hair-outcast origin from the PAD days are only adding layers to the terribleness. :P

Now, since Stargate Atlantis I haven't seen this guy in anything other than the few minutes of the new Conan that I turned off because it was so bad.  Maybe he's gotten much, MUCH better since then, but in what I've seen he couldn't act to save his life.  So, great, we've got a guy who looks nothing like the character AND who's only acting skill is to look generically menacing?  Fantastic.

I really, REALLY have grown to hate WB.

On the positive side, what there is of it, he looks darn imposing and grim.  That indicates that they intend this...version of the character to be taken seriously.  That's good, I suppose.  And yes, there is value in Aquaman being included in a JLA movie at all.  It seemed much more likely that he'd be left out, to begin with.  However, this whole announcement just takes me back to the conversation from earlier in this very thread.  This just feels like a terrible waste of a very rare (and therefore precious) opportunity.  Aquaman is going to get to be on the big screen.  They actually have the opportunity to show an entire generation of people that he's not just the lame guy from Super Friends.  If they do that by sacrificing everything that makes the character who he is (and I'm not saying that is the case), then we've lost more than we've gained.  Every piece of news that emerges just leaves me feeling increasingly sad for what seems to be the wasted potential of this movie.

In a perfect world, who would you cast, Benton?

Shot in the dark, but I'm thinking he'd go with an actor that could conceivably pass for the character.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 25, 2014, 03:57:27 AM
Shot in the dark, but I'm thinking he'd go with an actor that could conceivably pass for the character.

Haha!  Ohh man, that made my night! :D

Reep, I'm not sure.  I'm not great with that type of thing, but my wife and I were actually talking about this question earlier.  She had a good observation.  If Chris Hemsworth wasn't already playing Thor, he'd actually make a pretty great Aquaman.  I think an unknown would be best.  It isn't like there's a shortage of talent around.

Wel, as luck would have it, BG, Chris Hemsworth has a brother who's every bit physically imposing as he is.

(http://www.theplace2.ru/archive/liam_hemsworth/img/liam_hemsworth_2.jpg)

Come on... How hard would it have been to give this guy some fish scales?

QuoteFolks talking about the stupid blonde hair-outcast origin from the PAD days are only adding layers to the terribleness.

...Or, it could be that they actually like the 'stupid blonde-hair outcast origin from the PAD days,' which, IMO, is the opposite of stupid. ;) (It makes more sense if you read the fantastic Atlantis Chronicles miniseries, believe me.)

In his defence,hes probably gonna look like he does in Red Road,and not like Conan.About hair color,is that really such a big deal?

Quote from: Spade on June 25, 2014, 05:02:07 AM
In his defence,hes probably gonna look like he does in Red Road,and not like Conan.About hair color,is that really such a big deal?

Can you imagine a blonde or Mexican Punisher?

Dying Dolph Lundgrens hair wasnt the best choice,either.
But hair color isnt everything guys.Or maybe they are trying to reinvent the charachter.

Quote from: Spade on June 25, 2014, 08:33:46 AM
Dying Dolph Lundgrens hair wasnt the best choice,either.
But hair color isnt everything guys.Or maybe they are trying to reinvent the charachter.

This look blonde to you?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/05/The_Punisher_Soundtrack.jpg)

^Hes naturaly blond,he dyed his hear for Punisher.And it looked unnatural.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 25, 2014, 06:04:09 AM

Quote from: Spade on June 25, 2014, 05:02:07 AM
In his defence,hes probably gonna look like he does in Red Road,and not like Conan.About hair color,is that really such a big deal?

Can you imagine a blonde or Mexican Punisher?

I can now. Now I'll never be happy with the original again.

Quote from: Spade on June 25, 2014, 10:06:53 AM
^Hes naturaly blond,he dyed his hear for Punisher.And it looked unnatural.

Kind of my point.

And you really didn't answer the question, though.

Aquamen is already memed enough.
About blonde Punisher,thats not SO huge,about Mexican Punisher...hardly.
Im guessing they went with a different motif for Aquamen,maybe hes Indian here?
(http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-feed/jason-momoa-game-of-thrones-punch-list.jpg)

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 25, 2014, 04:07:09 AM

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 25, 2014, 03:57:27 AM
Shot in the dark, but I'm thinking he'd go with an actor that could conceivably pass for the character.

Haha!  Ohh man, that made my night! :D

Reep, I'm not sure.  I'm not great with that type of thing, but my wife and I were actually talking about this question earlier.  She had a good observation.  If Chris Hemsworth wasn't already playing Thor, he'd actually make a pretty great Aquaman.  I think an unknown would be best.  It isn't like there's a shortage of talent around.

What do you think about Josh Holloway? I think he would make a good Aquaman.

Even though it isn't as major as Ben Affleck being Batman, the way you guys are talking here, I can see this conversation about Aquaman heading that way.  This only proves my theory that there are a lot of "In the closet" Aquaman fans! :D 

Quote from: kkhohoho on June 25, 2014, 04:29:40 AM

QuoteFolks talking about the stupid blonde hair-outcast origin from the PAD days are only adding layers to the terribleness.

...Or, it could be that they actually like the 'stupid blonde-hair outcast origin from the PAD days,' which, IMO, is the opposite of stupid. ;) (It makes more sense if you read the fantastic Atlantis Chronicles miniseries, believe me.)

Haha, perhaps Kk. :)  I've heard good things about the Atlantis Chronicles, but the Tarzan underwater origin just doesn't do it for me.  You lose half of what makes Aquaman who he is with that version.  No, this is Aquaman to me:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Go_URG8KdTo/TIU_I-w27eI/AAAAAAAADhg/zEgfMgAu9UY/s1600/AquamanOrigin.jpg) (http://37.media.tumblr.com/c26a3bdd9ab811f911c6827bc062e19c/tumblr_mujh7jWLFR1rom810o7_1280.jpg)

It's one of the great origins, archetypal, pure, and classic.

Shogunn, I could get behind that.  :)

Spade, as I've said many times before, eys, hair color is something of a big deal when you're dealing with characters who are visual in their presentation.  Comics are a visual medium, Superman is as much a guy in red and blue as he is the Last Son of Krypton.  Imagine a blonde Superman or a red headed Batman.  It just wouldn't be the character, because the character is their appearance, in part.  As others have pointed out, Momoa isn't just the wrong hair color, he's completely the wrong look.

Midnite, I've heard his name mentioned a few times.  I can see why folks would think of him, but to me he's always got too much of a shifty look about him to be Aquaman. ;)

Haha, right JeyNyce!

A blonde Superman would be wonky, but I don't think any of the Batman actors have had the comic-book traditional Black hair/blue eyes.  That isn't to say Momoa is a good choice (I have no idea, and it's hardly my biggest concern about this film), but there is some wiggle room in casting actors outside how much they look like a drawing.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 25, 2014, 06:04:09 AM

Quote from: Spade on June 25, 2014, 05:02:07 AM
In his defence,hes probably gonna look like he does in Red Road,and not like Conan.About hair color,is that really such a big deal?

Can you imagine a blonde or Mexican Punisher?

A Mexican Punisher??? Goodness gracious!  :o Everyone knows that only blonde, brunette, or black haired Irishmen, Swedes or Americans of various heights and builds can play The Punisher. It's a very specific role.

QuoteImagine a blonde Superman or a red headed Batman

Val Kilmer was light brunette Batman.

As for Aquaman, since the guy has had so many different looks over the years (long hair, bearded, clean shaven, buzz cut, tentacle faced etc), so many different costumes, and so many different hands (magical water hands, hook hands, hand hands), I think that Zack Snyder has a lot of material to choose from for his Justice League look. If they think Aquaman's comic fanbase is going to rebel and cost the film money at the box office, I'm sure they'll do something about his hair.

I think we have to like it or lump it that Zack Snyder's Aquaman isn't going to be the classic version, in the same way that neck-snapping Superman and (probably) Batman aren't the classic comic book characters. At a guess, he'll probably be an amalgam of the tougher bearded hook-hand Aquaman and the warlord-ish Flashpoint Aquaman.

I'm really keen to see some big budget underwater action, though ... I think Snyder will make Atlantis and Aquaman's powers look sweet. The one (and only) thing you can rely on Synder for as a director is some tasty visual spectacle.

Quote from: BentonGrey on June 25, 2014, 10:26:12 PM

Quote from: kkhohoho on June 25, 2014, 04:29:40 AM

QuoteFolks talking about the stupid blonde hair-outcast origin from the PAD days are only adding layers to the terribleness.

...Or, it could be that they actually like the 'stupid blonde-hair outcast origin from the PAD days,' which, IMO, is the opposite of stupid. ;) (It makes more sense if you read the fantastic Atlantis Chronicles miniseries, believe me.)

Haha, perhaps Kk. :)  I've heard good things about the Atlantis Chronicles, but the Tarzan underwater origin just doesn't do it for me.  You lose half of what makes Aquaman who he is with that version.  No, this is Aquaman to me:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Go_URG8KdTo/TIU_I-w27eI/AAAAAAAADhg/zEgfMgAu9UY/s1600/AquamanOrigin.jpg) (http://37.media.tumblr.com/c26a3bdd9ab811f911c6827bc062e19c/tumblr_mujh7jWLFR1rom810o7_1280.jpg)

It's one of the great origins, archetypal, pure, and classic.

Perhaps, but on the other hand, PAD's version, with the Atlantis Chronicles behind it, gave Aquaman a heck of a heritage, though there were probably ways to work that in while still having him be half-human, so I'll give you that. (Seriously, ignore the second half of the last issue if you have to, (since that's the only chapter  that directly deals with Aquaman's origin, and it's only 20 pages or so,) but if you're interested in the history of DC's Atlantis, Chronicles is a must-read.)

Guys,guys just chill.Lets see how this goes.I mean nobody complained that Thor was Australian.And besides I doubt much of the movies action will be underwater.

Quote from: Spade on June 26, 2014, 03:56:02 AMAnd besides I doubt much of the movies action will be underwater.

If it's done well, it very well could be :P

We know absolutly nothing about story but setting it underwater would be hard for the rest of the JL.And with Henry Cavills Superman and Ben Aflecs Batman,Aquamen is not the biggest issue here.

Since they have confirmed Aquaman is in the JL films.. I'm still hoping they acknowledge that the Oil Rig fire in Man Of Steel was an attack by Aquaman or at least Black Manta.

- CQ

Quote from: crimsonquill on June 26, 2014, 04:33:50 AM
Since they have confirmed Aquaman is in the JL films.. I'm still hoping they acknowledge that the Oil Rig fire in Man Of Steel was an attack by Aquaman or at least Black Manta.

- CQ

Or Orm.  I think Aquaman would've handled it with greater finesse :P

Quote from: Starman on June 25, 2014, 11:28:08 PM
As for Aquaman, since the guy has had so many different looks over the years (long hair, bearded, clean shaven, buzz cut, tentacle faced etc), so many different costumes, and so many different hands (magical water hands, hook hands, hand hands), I think that Zack Snyder has a lot of material to choose from for his Justice League look. If they think Aquaman's comic fanbase is going to rebel and cost the film money at the box office, I'm sure they'll do something about his hair.

In which variation did Aquaman look like the Apache Chief?

Aquaman has had long hair, a beard, muscles and warrior-style costume before. I don't think Jason Momoa being a Hawaiian with light tan skin and dark hair makes him "Apache Chief"...  :blink:

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 26, 2014, 09:39:24 AM

Quote from: Starman on June 25, 2014, 11:28:08 PM
As for Aquaman, since the guy has had so many different looks over the years (long hair, bearded, clean shaven, buzz cut, tentacle faced etc), so many different costumes, and so many different hands (magical water hands, hook hands, hand hands), I think that Zack Snyder has a lot of material to choose from for his Justice League look. If they think Aquaman's comic fanbase is going to rebel and cost the film money at the box office, I'm sure they'll do something about his hair.

In which variation did Aquaman look like the Apache Chief?

All I can say to this is wow.  :thumbdown:

Its Aquamen,its not like hes gonna do something.So just chill.

Quote from: Spade on June 26, 2014, 02:46:26 PM
Its Aquamen,its not like hes gonna do something.So just chill.

Ok, that made me laugh a lot. Thanks, Spade.

Kk, ha, fair enough.  I do want to read the Atlantis Chronicles one of these days.  I've heard great things about them.  I just wish they hadn't screwed with Arthur's origins.

Quote from: Starman on June 25, 2014, 11:28:08 PM

QuoteImagine a blonde Superman or a red headed Batman

Val Kilmer was light brunette Batman.

As for Aquaman, since the guy has had so many different looks over the years (long hair, bearded, clean shaven, buzz cut, tentacle faced etc), so many different costumes, and so many different hands (magical water hands, hook hands, hand hands), I think that Zack Snyder has a lot of material to choose from for his Justice League look. If they think Aquaman's comic fanbase is going to rebel and cost the film money at the box office, I'm sure they'll do something about his hair.

I think we have to like it or lump it that Zack Snyder's Aquaman isn't going to be the classic version, in the same way that neck-snapping Superman and (probably) Batman aren't the classic comic book characters. At a guess, he'll probably be an amalgam of the tougher bearded hook-hand Aquaman and the warlord-ish Flashpoint Aquaman.

I'm really keen to see some big budget underwater action, though ... I think Snyder will make Atlantis and Aquaman's powers look sweet. The one (and only) thing you can rely on Synder for as a director is some tasty visual spectacle.

Yeah, and Val Kilmer is also probably the most forgettable Batman, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

I think you're stretching a lot to justify this type of thing, Starman.  Aquaman has only really had three looks.  Everything else has been a variation on one of those themes, and only two of those three saw any enduring usage.  Of course, he's got the classic costume, of which there have been plenty of variations, but the basic idea has always remained the same.  It's also worth noting that this looks is so iconic and memorable that pretty much all other versions of the character at least have to do address and reference it, even if they don't use it.  Other than that, there's the blue camo, which disappeared immediately, and then there's the bearded, bedraggled loser version of PAD's run.  Even that one occasionally wore things reminiscent of his classic look.  That one lasted several years, but even so, think about it this way: You've got somewhere around six years of that look out of roughly 75 years and change that featured, mostly, his classic look.  Yeah, sometimes he's got a hook, sometimes he's got a water hand, and sometimes he's got a regular old hand, but that's a secondary detail.  You may as well say that Superman has a lot of looks, so it's fine if they cast an Indian woman to play him. :P  Ha, I know, that's a straw man, but my point is that just because a character has had some variations, and all of the successful ones have, that doesn't mean they don't have a definitive look.

That look is part of their identities.  This is a visual medium, after all, so it does matter.  Now, if they take this guy and put him in gold scale mail, at least they'd be splitting the difference.  Choices like this just speak of contempt for the characters, though, and that is what frustrates me.

Also, Spade:
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/10/109662/2661633-aquavsuper1.jpg)
Nah, he won't do anything.  Except be awesome. :D

QuoteYeah, and Val Kilmer is also probably the most forgettable Batman, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

Even if that was the case, what would that have to do with his hair colour???

QuoteYou've got somewhere around six years of that look out of roughly 75 years and change that featured, mostly, his classic look.

Superman, Batman, Green Lantern ... none of them have worn their classic costumes in the movies. I grew up with the Neil Adams blue and grey Batman. Superman's underpants on the inside "Man of Steel" look is only a few years old.

I'm not stretching anything ... I just don't have any blinkers on regarding adapting a comic book character for a movie (or TV. Old school Green Arrow fan). Bentongrey, you are looking at Aquaman as a fan and saying your personal favourite look is his "definitive" look. Comics are a visual medium but it's a different visual medium to film ... I'd be more concerned with the filmmakers capturing what defines Aquaman as an interesting character rather than what colour his pants are.

Consider the reality that Aquaman hasn't been as popular a character as the rest of the Justice League with the mainstream audience in quite awhile and, because of his perceived uselessness out of the water, has been a bit of a pop culture joke for years. The filmmakers have to overcome that ... they aren't going to achieve that with a clean-cut blonde Superman-type in orange scalemale and green tights, riding a giant seahorse and hitting baddies with an oar. LUCKILY, Aquaman has had a lot of visual iterations and they can make him formidable-looking enough to stand toe-to-toe to Zack Snyder's hulking Man of Steel Superman and the Ben Affleck Batman while still referencing one of his comic book looks.

QuoteChoices like this just speak of contempt for the characters, though, and that is what frustrates me.

No idea where you are getting the "contempt" from. It's in the filmmakers best interest to revitalize the character on-screen and make audiences take him seriously. If anyone has contempt for the character, it's the people who don't read comic books and only know Aquaman as that useless goofball from SuperFriends and all the internet memes that show inspired.

Speaking as someone who is fairly neutral here (I like my Aquaman in orange and green, but I'm also not violently opposed to the casting) I think you're both being kinda silly here.

Benton- I know you're just getting your nerd rage on, but be reasonable here: we don't even know what this guy will look like in costume, we don't know where they're taking influences from. I hate the 90s shirtless costume too, but even in that era there were some amazing stories being told with Aquaman (I love the 90s JLA run. It's my favorite rendition of the league). All we know is that they've cast Momoa, and honestly... we could go back and forth about his acting chops all day, but I think the fact that they cast this guy at least proves they're taking the character seriously... and whether it's a great performance or not, if we get a serious Aquaman in this, that will go a loooong way towards finally removing the stain of the Super Friends Aquaman. We can worry about nuance when it comes time for him to get his own movie.

Starman- You keep saying it's more important that they keep the defining attributes of the Aquaman character, but then you say that they're better off basing him off of Flashpoint Aquaman or his 90s appearances... and I'm sorry, but I'm with Benton here: That is NOT the core of who the character is. Aquaman had some great stories in the 90s, but many writers kept portraying him as a poor man's Namor... which he isn't. And if my position on Flashpoint isn't clear from previous discussions, let me make it clear now: The Aquaman in that stupid reality is NOT Aquaman, he is completely devoid of honor and integrity and the fact that he allowed a war to break out over an affair he allowed to happen proves exactly that.

I'm not so hardened against MoS I'm not willing to see what's actually going to be done, but what you have suggested is exactly what Benton and I are afraid of.

QuoteYou keep saying it's more important that they keep the defining attributes of the Aquaman character, but then you say that they're better off basing him off of Flashpoint Aquaman or his 90s appearances... and I'm sorry, but I'm with Benton here: That is NOT the core of who the character is. Aquaman had some great stories in the 90s, but many writers kept portraying him as a poor man's Namor... which he isn't. And if my position on Flashpoint isn't clear from previous discussions, let me make it clear now: The Aquaman in that stupid reality is NOT Aquaman, he is completely devoid of honor and integrity and the fact that he allowed a war to break out over an affair he allowed to happen proves exactly that.

No, this is what I said:

QuoteI think we have to like it or lump it that Zack Snyder's Aquaman isn't going to be the classic version, in the same way that neck-snapping Superman and (probably) Batman aren't the classic comic book characters. At a guess, he'll probably be an amalgam of the tougher bearded hook-hand Aquaman and the warlord-ish Flashpoint Aquaman.

Jason Mamoa playing an aggressive Aquaman, rather than the benevolent Silver Age version, doesn't equal a literal adaption of Flashpoint Aquaman with his entire Flashpoint backstory, motivations and attitude.

This is kinda pointless.Like I said Superman was played by an English man,and Thor was Australian and nobody cared.Why is so important with Aquamen?

Yeah but you can still see the core aspects of those respective characters.

While I am a fan of Hook Hand Aquaman in Morisson's JLA run and his DCAU counterpart, well that's not the Aquaman everyone knows, loves, and ridicules.
Plus Brave and the Bold Aquaman is the best representation of that Aquaman, they managed to embody the core aspects of him without having to add some "bad-arse" characterization.

Spade, it really, REALLY isn't. The blonde thing is important to comics lore, but "blonde" is a much broader term than most people think. For example, this (http://menhaircutideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/mens-haircuts-blonde-hair.jpg) is still acceptably blonde, as is this (http://cdn.stylisheve.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Blonde-Hairstyles-2012-for-Men_03.jpg) and neither would look that out of place on Momoa. The whole "OMG He'd look silly as a bleach blonde" thing is silly.

Tre, I actually disagree with that... BatB Aquaman is, in my mind, too far on the other end... he's not ridiculous like SF Aquaman, but he also isn't meant to be taken seriously either. It's a generally positive portrayal, but not one I'd want emulated in film. Morrison's Aquaman is actually far closer... when I'm referring to more "Namor"/90s type stories, I'm referring to stories in other books from that same time period (The 90s was kinda bad about that). Much of his appearances Morrison JLA stuff was pretty spot on (despite the silly costume), but I also think the modern stuff by Geoff Johns in both Blackest Night and the ongoing Aquaman has been pretty balanced as well.

Well to my defence, there isn't really much representation of that Aquaman. Sure Superman TAS had his classic look but he felt like a carbon copy of Namor there to me...... then there's Superfriends. I'd say his YJ Appearance is pretty spot on but since it is a show focusing on younger heroes, he wasn't really focused much on. I'm reeeeaaaalllly hoping they get him right too on the Throne of Atlantis animated film.

Brave and the Bold Aquaman was an attempt to create an Aquaman that would be laughed at because he was funny and not because he was incompetent.  The best way to wipe away a memorable negative impression of something is to create a memorable positive impression of the same thing.  It was never intended to go beyond the cartoon and would never work in live action anyway.  I like that version of the character, but he can stay in that light-hearted cartoon where he belongs.

Quote from: trebean on June 29, 2014, 06:55:13 AM
Well to my defence, there isn't really much representation of that Aquaman. Sure Superman TAS had his classic look but he felt like a carbon copy of Namor there to me...... then there's Superfriends. I'd say his YJ Appearance is pretty spot on but since it is a show focusing on younger heroes, he wasn't really focused much on. I'm reeeeaaaalllly hoping they get him right too on the Throne of Atlantis animated film.

On Superman TAS, not so much, but when he showed up on Justice League, definitely. He looked like Aquaman, or at least the shirtless, bearded, hook-handed variant, but there was none of Aquaman's actual character from the comics; none of his personality. He was basically Namor with Aquaman's body pasted on. And don't get me wrong, I really like Namor, but Aquaman isn't Namor, and shouldn't have to be Namor.

No, he was pretty Namor-y in Superman as well. And while he certainly had moments of that in JLU(The whole United Nations thing was very Namor), I would counter that the whole ordeal with saving his son by cutting his own hand off... that actually IS Aquaman.

Quote from: Spade on June 29, 2014, 04:53:08 AM
This is kinda pointless.Like I said Superman was played by an English man,and Thor was Australian and nobody cared.Why is so important with Aquamen?

Well, they're white, Anglo and not that much of a stretch to play a fictional alien or God.  But you're not going to cast an iconic character racially different than what they've been historically and not have problems with some folks.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 29, 2014, 04:13:07 PM

Quote from: Spade on June 29, 2014, 04:53:08 AM
This is kinda pointless.Like I said Superman was played by an English man,and Thor was Australian and nobody cared.Why is so important with Aquamen?

Well, they're white, Anglo and not that much of a stretch to play a fictional alien or God.  But you're not going to cast an iconic character racially different than what they've been historically and not have problems with some folks.

Frankly,that sounded weird.And come on guy is just tan,not ... I dont know...green?

What's so weird about it?  Chris Hemsworth, Henry Cavil, they are white.  Anglo.  Of European descent, Caucasian.  That's what they are.  Likely for far more than two or three generations.  That's not Jason Momoa.  His father is a Native Hawaiian.  They are of Asian descent. That's not a tan.  That's skin pigmentation.  His blood has a different level of Melanin than your or mine.  Can't just say the dude has a tan.  That's... Insulting.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 30, 2014, 04:30:37 PM
What's so weird about it?  Chris Hemsworth, Henry Cavil, they are white.  Anglo.  Of European descent, Caucasian.  That's what they are.  Likely for far more than two or three generations.  That's not Jason Momoa.  His father is a Native Hawaiian.  They are of Asian descent. That's not a tan.  That's skin pigmentation.  His blood has a different level of Melanin than your or mine.  Can't just say the dude has a tan.  That's... Insulting.

...

Wow. Just... as a phlebotomist (IE: the person in the hospital who draws blood) that's just... ugh.

Ok, whole blood contains quite a bit, that's true. There are red blood cells (which contain varying levels of oxygen, potassium, iron, and proteins), leukocytes(WBCs), platelets, and plasma (which itself contains about 50 different things including sugar, potassium, sodium, protein, tsh, alt, ast, bilirubin, etc.). NONE OF THAT includes melanin, which is a SKIN PIGMENTATION. That's the equivalent of saying I've got brown dye in my bloodstream because MY HAIR IS BROWN. So not only was that comment racist (and despite your protestations, it kinda is), it's ignorant of some fairly basic knowledge of human anatomy.

Yes, the fact that Aquaman is blonde haired is part of his background. But it is ALSO a BIGGER part of his background that he is ATLANTEAN, which is in most typical depictions of the story, an island that was submerged centuries ago due to some catastrophe. Casting a Hawaiian, who are also islanders, is not THAT big a stretch here, and it helps to make the character stand out, ESPECIALLY if they do incorporate the blonde haired thing in there like I suggested. The fact that he's a blonde haired Atlantean is SUPPOSED to be off putting, that's why the Atlanteans cast him out in the first place.

Oh, I'm sorry.  Excuse my ignorant unscientific articulation.

You're right Spade.  Jason Momoa just has a tan.

I was just saying hes not...ah forget it.
Tomato has a point there,casting Aquamen as an islander is an interesting touch.
And Shogun,lets not take counting blood cells too far.

I say this half jokingly and half serious:  You fanboys can never be happy, first you give Aquaman no love and then you complain when you don't like the actor playing him!!!

So...you think Green Arrow will appear in this movie?

Quote from: Spade on June 30, 2014, 07:27:24 PM
So...you think Green Arrow will appear in this movie?

Given that there might already be 7 heroes in this movie, if he did make it, he'd likely be reduced to a straw liberal; in other words, his only personality traits would be rebelling against just about everything, and going on about how the Government's an evil conspiracy and how 'THE MAN!' is always trying to bring us down. (JK. Well, half-joking, anyway...)

They said Stephen Amell was announced for the role,but it was never confirmed.So Arrow will probably not appear.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 30, 2014, 05:58:44 PM
Oh, I'm sorry.  Excuse my ignorant unscientific articulation.

You're right Spade.  Jason Momoa just has a tan.

:lol:

Quote from: Tomato on June 30, 2014, 05:39:49 PM

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 30, 2014, 04:30:37 PM
What's so weird about it?  Chris Hemsworth, Henry Cavil, they are white.  Anglo.  Of European descent, Caucasian.  That's what they are.  Likely for far more than two or three generations.  That's not Jason Momoa.  His father is a Native Hawaiian.  They are of Asian descent. That's not a tan.  That's skin pigmentation.  His blood has a different level of Melanin than your or mine.  Can't just say the dude has a tan.  That's... Insulting.

Ok, whole blood contains quite a bit, that's true. There are red blood cells (which contain varying levels of oxygen, potassium, iron, and proteins), leukocytes(WBCs), platelets, and plasma (which itself contains about 50 different things including sugar, potassium, sodium, protein, tsh, alt, ast, bilirubin, etc.). NONE OF THAT includes melanin, which is a SKIN PIGMENTATION. That's the equivalent of saying I've got brown dye in my bloodstream because MY HAIR IS BROWN. So not only was that comment racist (and despite your protestations, it kinda is), it's ignorant of some fairly basic knowledge of human anatomy.

Not if you have dermatitis...

...

... and you're a lizard.

:thumbup:

Also, isn't Melanin sourced from some of the Amino Acids in the bloodstream? Totally don't know for sure on that one. Which is why this font is so small.

Quote from: Shogunn2517 on June 30, 2014, 04:30:37 PM
What's so weird about it?  Chris Hemsworth, Henry Cavil, they are white.  Anglo.  Of European descent, Caucasian.  That's what they are.  Likely for far more than two or three generations.  That's not Jason Momoa.  His father is a Native Hawaiian.  They are of Asian descent. That's not a tan.  That's skin pigmentation.  His blood has a different level of Melanin than your or mine.  Can't just say the dude has a tan.  That's... Insulting.

QuoteIn which variation did Aquaman look like the Apache Chief?

Pot, kettle  :thumbdown:

Are we seriously doing this?I mean counting somebodys bloodcells to see if hes white enough?

Yeah... this is going in a very BAD direction. I think we can just end this topic and say some people are not happy with the nationality of the actor, and move on to another topic. I think we've had enough people shoving their foots down their throats for the rest of the year.

Absolutely...  But I would think you would know his NATIONALITY isn't the problem. 

That isn't what this is about.

Quote from: Starman on June 29, 2014, 01:44:20 AM

QuoteYeah, and Val Kilmer is also probably the most forgettable Batman, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

Even if that was the case, what would that have to do with his hair colour???

Nothing...or everything? ;)  Hah, I was just goofing around, but I wouldn't hold up anything from those films as a defense for good decisions. :P

Quote from: Starman on June 29, 2014, 01:44:20 AM
Superman, Batman, Green Lantern ... none of them have worn their classic costumes in the movies. I grew up with the Neil Adams blue and grey Batman. Superman's underpants on the inside "Man of Steel" look is only a few years old.

Superman and Green Lantern were pretty close to their classic costumes, and Superman was DEFINITELY worse for the changes. :P  I'm hardly unreasonable, Starman, and I'm not pretending that everything translates perfectly.  Captain America, Thor, and Iron Man all had changes to their costumes as well, but they all looked like the characters they were supposed to be.  Those films brought those characters to life in a holistic fashion that we've yet to see from DC.  I have no problem at all with adaptation, but I merely prefer such adaption is accompanied by the love and reverence for the source material that pervades the Marvel films and acknowledges that these concepts and characters that have endured for over half a century probably have something going for them.

Quote from: Starman on June 29, 2014, 01:44:20 AM
I'm not stretching anything ... I just don't have any blinkers on regarding adapting a comic book character for a movie (or TV. Old school Green Arrow fan). Bentongrey, you are looking at Aquaman as a fan and saying your personal favourite look is his "definitive" look. Comics are a visual medium but it's a different visual medium to film ... I'd be more concerned with the filmmakers capturing what defines Aquaman as an interesting character rather than what colour his pants are.

Hardly Starman.  Did you miss my comment about the roughly 60 years our of his 75 year existence during which Aquaman has worn basically the same costume?  I think that objectively qualifies as a definitive look.  Plus, for 75 years he's been blonde haired and blue eyed. 

I'm quite concerned with the filmmakers capturing the core of who Aquaman is as a character, but I have absolutely no hope that they will do so.  Whereas Marvel has earned the benefit of my doubt, WB has made me very, very wary.  It's hard enough for Aquaman to get any love in the comics, and the casting of a hulking gentleman with all of the acting chops of a brick does not exactly instill me with confidence.  It makes me think of the Namor-lite phase, which many of the others have mentioned.  While hot tempered outsider fighting "surface dwellers" is better than lame loser, it's still not Aquaman.  Now, I'm nto saying that this is what we WILL see.  If Momoa turns in a stellar performance of a great, subtly written and well-realized Aquaman, I'll be thrilled beyond belief.  I'm just not holding my breath.

Quote from: Starman on June 29, 2014, 01:44:20 AM
Consider the reality that Aquaman hasn't been as popular a character as the rest of the Justice League with the mainstream audience in quite awhile and, because of his perceived uselessness out of the water, has been a bit of a pop culture joke for years. The filmmakers have to overcome that ... they aren't going to achieve that with a clean-cut blonde Superman-type in orange scalemale and green tights, riding a giant seahorse and hitting baddies with an oar. LUCKILY, Aquaman has had a lot of visual iterations and they can make him formidable-looking enough to stand toe-to-toe to Zack Snyder's hulking Man of Steel Superman and the Ben Affleck Batman while still referencing one of his comic book looks.

I don't know.  I don't think it's too hard to translate something like the classic Aquaman into an epic character that would work with just the elements you dismiss.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d166/arcticfox2635/po212-aquaman_lee.jpg
Ha, I think an Avatar-esq undersea epic with Aquaman would be beyond awesome. :D  Anyway, I think there's plenty of room for adaption without ignoring the source material.  Keep in mind, we haven't seen anything about the actual costume he'll be wearing yet, so this is all rather premature.  My point earlier was that, if they can't cast someone who looks the part, I hope they'll at least dress him recognizably as the character.  If they do, great, but obviously we don't know anything about that yet.

Quote from: Tomato on June 29, 2014, 02:38:42 AM
Speaking as someone who is fairly neutral here (I like my Aquaman in orange and green, but I'm also not violently opposed to the casting) I think you're both being kinda silly here.

Benton- I know you're just getting your nerd rage on, but be reasonable here: we don't even know what this guy will look like in costume, we don't know where they're taking influences from. I hate the 90s shirtless costume too, but even in that era there were some amazing stories being told with Aquaman (I love the 90s JLA run. It's my favorite rendition of the league). All we know is that they've cast Momoa, and honestly... we could go back and forth about his acting chops all day, but I think the fact that they cast this guy at least proves they're taking the character seriously... and whether it's a great performance or not, if we get a serious Aquaman in this, that will go a loooong way towards finally removing the stain of the Super Friends Aquaman. We can worry about nuance when it comes time for him to get his own movie.

Hey, I'm a big fan of the Morrisson JLA run, man, you know that. In fact, pretty much the only thing that bothers me about those stories is the way DC kept screwing with what he wanted to do.  He wanted to put the band back together, but they kept giving him editorial fiats, Aquaman has to have the hook, Superman has to be electric, no Hawkman, etc.  If I had a zillion dollars, I'd hire an art team to go back and redo those books without the 90s gimmicks.  Ahh well, c'est la vie.

Anyway, you're right, in that a serious portrayal of Aquaman could do some good for the character, and I said as much in my previous post.  It is a good thing that he's in the movie and obviously being meant to be taken seriously.  Still, I also point you back to my previous argument about the rarity of such opportunities.  This may be better than nothing, but it's a crying shame that we have to settle for better than nothing.

Quote from: Tomato on June 29, 2014, 02:38:42 AM
I'm not so hardened against MoS I'm not willing to see what's actually going to be done, but what you have suggested is exactly what Benton and I are afraid of.

Right.  I know that Starman didn't mean to actually use the Flashpoint Aquaman, but the Namor-lite version of the character from the 90s is Aquaman in name only.  Here's hoping against hope that this isn't what we'll see.

Quote from: JeyNyce on June 30, 2014, 07:20:39 PM
I say this half jokingly and half serious:  You fanboys can never be happy, first you give Aquaman no love and then you complain when you don't like the actor playing him!!!

I'd say that's a fairly legitimate complaint.  It's like if the plank of wood that is Kristen Stewart was cast to play Storm: Not only does she look nothing like the character, she's also a terrible actress.  There's no upside to that situation.  After all, just being on the big screen is not necessarily a good unto itself.  Did the Hallie Berry version of Catwoman do that character any favors?

As for the latest dust up here, awkward comments aside, it isn't racist to want an actor to be have the same look as the character they are supposed to be playing, it's just sensible.  I think we can all be adults when it comes to that conversation and realize that nobody is saying that the problem is the race of the actor, it's how closely they resemble the character.  I'd be just as annoyed if they cast Momoa (or Chris Hemsworth, for that matter) to play Ryan Choi. :P 

Anyway, we're suppose to get an Aquaman animated movie soon, so hopefully we'll get some classic Aquaman through that. :D

"I'm quite concerned with the filmmakers capturing the core of who Aquaman is as a character, but I have absolutely no hope that they will do so." Bentongrey, all that can be said is that maybe you should reserve judgement on your favourite comic book character's film appearance until you actually have something to base your complaints on. All of your complaints are based on a film that hasn't been made yet, an actor we haven't even seen in costume, a character who may just appear as a cameo, etc.

QuoteI don't know.  I don't think it's too hard to translate something like the classic Aquaman into an epic character that would work with just the elements you dismiss.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d166/arcticfox2635/po212-aquaman_lee.jpg (http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d166/arcticfox2635/po212-aquaman_lee.jpg)

I don't think any filmmaker is going to have Superman fighting a guy riding grimly towards him on a giant purple sea-horse. That is something which looks great on a comic book page, not so much on a movie screen.

QuoteI'd say that's a fairly legitimate complaint.  It's like if the plank of wood that is Kristen Stewart was cast to play Storm: Not only does she look nothing like the character, she's also a terrible actress.  There's no upside to that situation.  After all, just being on the big screen is not necessarily a good unto itself.  Did the Hallie Berry version of Catwoman do that character any favors?

Again, the Halle Berry version of Catwoman didn't do the character any favours because it was a bad film. Period. It had NOTHING to do with Halle Berry not physically resembling the character. Just like Val Kilmer's hair colour had nothing to do with his role as Batman.

QuoteHey, I'm a big fan of the Morrisson JLA run, man, you know that. In fact, pretty much the only thing that bothers me about those stories is the way DC kept screwing with what he wanted to do.  He wanted to put the band back together, but they kept giving him editorial fiats, Aquaman has to have the hook, Superman has to be electric, no Hawkman, etc.  If I had a zillion dollars, I'd hire an art team to go back and redo those books without the 90s gimmicks.

:blink:

QuoteAs for the latest dust up here, awkward comments aside, it isn't racist to want an actor to be have the same look as the character they are supposed to be playing, it's just sensible.  I think we can all be adults when it comes to that conversation and realize that nobody is saying that the problem is the race of the actor, it's how closely they resemble the character.  I'd be just as annoyed if they cast Momoa (or Chris Hemsworth, for that matter) to play Ryan Choi.

I don't think "a Hawaiian can't play an Atlantean!" is an adult argument, and doesn't compare to a Caucasian playing a Chinese role.

This is the difference between Chris Hemsworth playing Thor and Jason Momoa playing Aquaman: Hemsworth is a big, well-built, good-looking dude who has both worn a wig and dyed his hair for the role of Thor. He has white skin. Jason Momoa is a big, well-built, good-looking dude who has both worn a wig and dyed his hair for roles in the past and could conceivably do it again for the role of Aquaman. His skin is light brown.

(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e236/illustratedfish/RoseMcGowanLongHairstylesRetroHairstylehWkhISqQHQBl.jpg)

(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e236/illustratedfish/JasonMomoa1.jpg)

Quote from: Starman on July 02, 2014, 07:18:17 AM

I don't think "a Hawaiian can't play an Atlantean!" is an adult argument, and doesn't compare to a Caucasian playing a Chinese role.

That's fine.  Because no one is saying "a Hawaiian can't play an Atlantean."  Actually Benton, might be but that's due to the actor's actual ability, which has nothing to do with what he looks like.

What has been said is that a Half Hawaiian, half German/Irish/NATIVE AMERICAN actor wouldn't look right for the role he's been playing, a Caucasian, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Atlantean.  He doesn't resemble the character audiences and fans readily recognize as Aquaman.  Even if you you'd just dye is hair blonde or give him a wig.  It's already been discussed, even in this thread, about how other actors didn't look right with dyed hair in comic-book roles and it did have an effect on how people viewed those movies.  It is NOT a childish or racially insensitive argument to have similar reservations here.

How is it NOT an adult argument to desire an actor to LOOK like the character he's portraying.  I am almost positive if I were to go to every thread on this forum, I'd find a discussion about an actor looking like the character he's portraying.  Are these all not adult arguments now?

Looks aside, I have a couple of questions to throw out here:

1- Which version of Aquaman are they going to put in the movie?  (missing hand, I hate the surface world, the passive "super friends")

2- Do you think he can play the part?

I'm thinking they are going to go with the I hate the surface world Aquaman and make him moody.  It would be close to his character on Games of Throne

Shogunn2517, yes, I know you think he's more suitable to play Apache Chief and shouldn't be playing Aquaman because "his blood has a different level of Melanin than your or mine." Adult and racially sensitive commentary!

QuoteBecause no one is saying "a Hawaiian can't play an Atlantean." What has been said is that a Half Hawaiian, half German/Irish/NATIVE AMERICAN actor wouldn't look right for the role he's been playing, a Caucasian, blonde-haired, blue-eyed Atlantean.

:rolleyes:

Atlantis doesn't exist.

You are saying there is no way an actor with dark hair and a light tan complexion, even with hair dye, can play someone of a fictional race.

Chris Hemsworth played an Asgardian (also a fictional race!) with long blonde hair via hair dye and extensions. The only difference between Hemsworth and Momoa is that Momoa's skin is light brown. So basically your problem is either that you inexplicably don't trust Warner Bros hair and makeup department or you think Momoa is too dark skinned for the role? He doesn't look that dark skinned in those pictures I posted...

Anyway, is anyone else tired of discussing this and reading all these repetitive "arguments" yet?

^Yes,last 2 pages are kinda rassistic for a few moment.So lets disscus something else,pls.

Examples of Black and/or Asian actors playing roles that have traditionally been "white"/European to great effect:

Spoiler

(http://i.imgur.com/1bDZktQ.png)(http://i.imgur.com/AKmJWU3.png)(http://i.imgur.com/vgLU9re.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/4lX5dRb.jpg)(http://i.imgur.com/PGYozqB.jpg)

With the exception of Michael Clark Duncan's Kingpin(which suffered by being the first case, and by being in a film that wasn't very good), the race of these actors has not had any negative impact on the parts they've played for the majority of audiences. Indeed, many of these changes were positive... Heimdall has received nothing but praise from most non-fans I know, and a majority of that was Idris Elba's performance. Similarly, Dean Cain was cast, in part, because his partly-asian background gave him a sense of otherworldliness the other actors auditioning at the time lacked.

And again, the only one of these with ANY basis in the comics is Sam Jackson's Nick Fury, and even THAT goes against decades of Nick Fury being a character that modern audiences had always seen as a white dude. Sure, WE(fans) understood that it had to do with the Ultimate comics and how Mark Miller had reinterpreted the character from his building blocks, but for most modern audiences? Nick Fury was that white dude who kept showing up in Marvel Cartoons, or in that stupid David Hasselhoff movie.

And again, these are just the stark changes. The fact that a British actor is playing Superman, that an aussie is playing Thor has already been brought up here, and I'm sure if you really want me to I can bring up dozens of similar choices. What matters is the actors ability (which only Benton has registered legitimate complaints about, and is a worthwhile discussion), NOT his skin tone.

But again, if you want to go that route, I point you to pretty much every single post I've already made.

Quote from: Tomato on June 16, 2014, 01:51:46 AM
Eh, it depends. I agree that bleach blonde, Draco Malfoy level is a bit on the crazy side, but I don't think a dirty, almost brown type of blonde would look too bad on him. And remember, the Blonde isn't supposed to look right on him, it's why he was cast out in the first place.

Quote from: Tomato on June 29, 2014, 06:14:02 AM
Spade, it really, REALLY isn't. The blonde thing is important to comics lore, but "blonde" is a much broader term than most people think. For example, this (http://menhaircutideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/mens-haircuts-blonde-hair.jpg) is still acceptably blonde, as is this (http://cdn.stylisheve.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Blonde-Hairstyles-2012-for-Men_03.jpg) and neither would look that out of place on Momoa. The whole "OMG He'd look silly as a bleach blonde" thing is silly.

Quote from: Tomato on June 30, 2014, 05:39:49 PM
Yes, the fact that Aquaman is blonde haired is part of his background. But it is ALSO a BIGGER part of his background that he is ATLANTEAN, which is in most typical depictions of the story, an island that was submerged centuries ago due to some catastrophe. Casting a Hawaiian, who are also islanders, is not THAT big a stretch here, and it helps to make the character stand out, ESPECIALLY if they do incorporate the blonde haired thing in there like I suggested. The fact that he's a blonde haired Atlantean is SUPPOSED to be off putting, that's why the Atlanteans cast him out in the first place.

Again, "Blonde" is not as narrow a definition as everyone here is trying to make it. Even Game of Thrones makes a distinction between the characters who are "silver haired" (IE: bleach blonde/Draco Malfoy-esque hair) and those that are "blonde" (and speaking as someone whose family is heavily german, most actual blondes fall into the latter category).

So I say again, END THIS DISCUSSION. You want to focus on his acting ability, fine, DO SO. But this focus on the fact that "OMG AQUAMAN IS BROWN" is insanity.

Tru his performance as Conan was...meh.But his GoT and Red Road roles were great.

Take a hint and answer the questions  :doh:

Quote from: JeyNyce on July 02, 2014, 10:40:20 AM
Looks aside, I have a couple of questions to throw out here:

1- Which version of Aquaman are they going to put in the movie?  (missing hand, I hate the surface world, the passive "super friends")

2- Do you think he can play the part?

I'm thinking they are going to go with the I hate the surface world Aquaman and make him moody.  It would be close to his character on Games of Throne

Let keep it moving guys.... :D

(http://d2vo5twcnd9mdi.cloudfront.net/uploads_bcd1f64a-ffa2-456b-b0a8-fdcdb714402f-Justice_League.jpg)

Two on the left I agree with.

Is that The Flash from Injustice?

Quote from: JeyNyce on July 02, 2014, 02:53:17 PM
Is that The Flash from Injustice?

I think.

Of all the problems Man of Steel had, I don't think Henry Cavill was one of them.  He's a good look for Superman, and a better actor than most people to have ever played the role.

To me he was just...meh.Not too good,not too bad.

I think he was a very good Superman.  He comes second to Christopher Reeve.  The ladies like him (or his body) guys enjoyed him being Supes, He's a win-win in my book

http://batman-news.com/2014/07/02/jason-momoa-hints-anti-hero-aquaman-batman-v-superman-dawn-justice-video/

^He wanted to play Lobo,that actually makes sense.

Quote from: Tomato on July 02, 2014, 12:04:15 PM
With the exception of Michael Clark Duncan's Kingpin(which suffered by being the first case, and by being in a film that wasn't very good), the race of these actors has not had any negative impact on the parts they've played for the majority of audiences. Indeed, many of these changes were positive... Heimdall has received nothing but praise from most non-fans I know, and a majority of that was Idris Elba's performance. Similarly, Dean Cain was cast, in part, because his partly-asian background gave him a sense of otherworldliness the other actors auditioning at the time lacked.

And again, the only one of these with ANY basis in the comics is Sam Jackson's Nick Fury, and even THAT goes against decades of Nick Fury being a character that modern audiences had always seen as a white dude. Sure, WE(fans) understood that it had to do with the Ultimate comics and how Mark Miller had reinterpreted the character from his building blocks, but for most modern audiences? Nick Fury was that white dude who kept showing up in Marvel Cartoons, or in that stupid David Hasselhoff movie.

And again, these are just the stark changes. The fact that a British actor is playing Superman, that an aussie is playing Thor has already been brought up here, and I'm sure if you really want me to I can bring up dozens of similar choices. What matters is the actors ability (which only Benton has registered legitimate complaints about, and is a worthwhile discussion), NOT his skin tone.

But again, if you want to go that route, I point you to pretty much every single post I've already made.

Quote from: Tomato on June 16, 2014, 01:51:46 AM
Eh, it depends. I agree that bleach blonde, Draco Malfoy level is a bit on the crazy side, but I don't think a dirty, almost brown type of blonde would look too bad on him. And remember, the Blonde isn't supposed to look right on him, it's why he was cast out in the first place.

Quote from: Tomato on June 29, 2014, 06:14:02 AM
Spade, it really, REALLY isn't. The blonde thing is important to comics lore, but "blonde" is a much broader term than most people think. For example, this (http://menhaircutideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/mens-haircuts-blonde-hair.jpg) is still acceptably blonde, as is this (http://cdn.stylisheve.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Blonde-Hairstyles-2012-for-Men_03.jpg) and neither would look that out of place on Momoa. The whole "OMG He'd look silly as a bleach blonde" thing is silly.

Quote from: Tomato on June 30, 2014, 05:39:49 PM
Yes, the fact that Aquaman is blonde haired is part of his background. But it is ALSO a BIGGER part of his background that he is ATLANTEAN, which is in most typical depictions of the story, an island that was submerged centuries ago due to some catastrophe. Casting a Hawaiian, who are also islanders, is not THAT big a stretch here, and it helps to make the character stand out, ESPECIALLY if they do incorporate the blonde haired thing in there like I suggested. The fact that he's a blonde haired Atlantean is SUPPOSED to be off putting, that's why the Atlanteans cast him out in the first place.

Again, "Blonde" is not as narrow a definition as everyone here is trying to make it. Even Game of Thrones makes a distinction between the characters who are "silver haired" (IE: bleach blonde/Draco Malfoy-esque hair) and those that are "blonde" (and speaking as someone whose family is heavily german, most actual blondes fall into the latter category).

So I say again, END THIS DISCUSSION. You want to focus on his acting ability, fine, DO SO. But this focus on the fact that "OMG AQUAMAN IS BROWN" is insanity.

I can point you to the "Thor Movie" thread two years ago that actually discussed Hogun, Kingpin and Heimdall casting decisions.  Like I said, I can go to about every thread where there's a casting decision made and there's discussion about whether the actor looks like the character he's playing.  That is not an insane discussion.  If you think this discussion is MORE insane than Thomas Jane's dyed hair or Chris Hemsworth being too small or Hugh Jackman being too tall, JUST because there's a racial component to this discussion, then I'm sorry.  There is NOTHING racist about this discussion.  No one is saying Jason Momoa is an inferior actor to anyone with blonde hair and blue eyes because of his ethnicity.  That would be insane and stupid and nobody is saying that or even suggesting that.  It is not unreasonable or racist to discuss whether or not an actor looks like a character he's playing.

But you are more than welcome to not discuss it anymore at all.

Late to the party because I was on vacation. I think Mamoa was an outstanding Conan and I'd like to see that fire in his Aquaman. he could give us a TAS type hardcase Aquaman which I'd like. If you guys think TAS Aquaman is like Namor, then he sure out Namor's namor IMO.

Would it be nice if he looked more like the character? Sure it would. That would be the ideal. But I'm willing to see what happens.

Then again, for me only the Avengers outdoes MOS so I've got the faith.

Quote from: Tomato on July 02, 2014, 12:04:15 PM
So I say again, END THIS DISCUSSION. You want to focus on his acting ability, fine, DO SO. But this focus on the fact that "OMG AQUAMAN IS BROWN" is insanity.

Yes, because that's what I've been saying.  Thank you, 'Mato, for so succinctly and perfectly summing up my multi-faceted posts.

Alright, I'm starting to feel a bit like folks are not actually reading what I'm posting.  It's like people are talking at right angles to the conversation I'm trying to have.  I'll respond to Starman's points and then make some general comments.  On the wider topic, I don't understand how saying "he doesn't look like the character, which is not great when adapting a visual medium" is so controversial a thought.  I don't really see how the conversation on that topic has stretched so long, but when folks start misrepresenting my thoughts, I prefer to clarify.

Quote from: Starman on July 02, 2014, 07:18:17 AM
I don't think any filmmaker is going to have Superman fighting a guy riding grimly towards him on a giant purple sea-horse. That is something which looks great on a comic book page, not so much on a movie screen.

:rolleyes:  Starman, you're a creative guy, use a little imagination!  I wasn't suggesting that Snyder reproduce that image in this movie or even that Aquaman should be riding a giant seahorse on the big screen, I was pointing out that fantastic undersea creatures, a-la the visually spectacular fauna of Avatar, could make for a very epic surrounding in which to tell an Aquaman story.  There's plenty of room for the fantastic and the unusual in our entertainment, and folks who reject such ideas out of hand because they won't work haven't been paying attention for the last decade of cinema.  Again, this isn't specific to THIS movie; I was just making a general point.

Quote from: Starman on July 02, 2014, 07:18:17 AM
Again, the Halle Berry version of Catwoman didn't do the character any favours because it was a bad film. Period. It had NOTHING to do with Halle Berry not physically resembling the character. Just like Val Kilmer's hair colour had nothing to do with his role as Batman.

Right, because that's what I said.  The movie was terrible because Hallie Berry doesn't look like Catwoman. <_<  Come on Starman.  I was making two separate points.  Allow me to elucidate, since I was apparently being terribly unclear.  1) Casting an actor that doesn't look like the character is less than ideal, but it's really sad when they can't actually act.  There's no upside.  You can't say, well, at least they look the part or, well, it's okay because they're gonna' nail the role.  2) It is not an unequivocal good to have a character appear on the big screen.  You're right, Catwoman was a terrible movie, and that is exactly my point.  I imagine it will be a very long time before we'll see a solo Catwoman movie again. 

Aquaman isn't Superman or Batman, and the JLA has yet to prove its marketability the way the Avengers have.  WB has got one shot at this, (which is surprising and would be exciting if I hadn't seen their previous films) but they may not have more than one.  If they blow it, we aren't likely to see this idea revisited too soon.  Also, if we get Namor-lite Aquaman and the movie makes money, then that is ALL we'll see.  Look at the Bay-formers movies.  There isn't any chance we'll see the Cybertronians actually treated with some respect and love anytime soon because what Bay has done made more than the GDP of a few small countries.  Thus, that is all that will be allowed to grace the big screen for the foreseeable future.

Quote from: Starman on July 02, 2014, 07:18:17 AM

QuoteHey, I'm a big fan of the Morrisson JLA run, man, you know that. In fact, pretty much the only thing that bothers me about those stories is the way DC kept screwing with what he wanted to do.  He wanted to put the band back together, but they kept giving him editorial fiats, Aquaman has to have the hook, Superman has to be electric, no Hawkman, etc.  If I had a zillion dollars, I'd hire an art team to go back and redo those books without the 90s gimmicks.

:blink:

What?  Have you ever read those books?  They've got fantastic stories, but they are often covered in 90s stink in the art department.  There are mullets and gimmicks galore. :P  There are great bits, of course, but there are also less than stellar sections, and every scene with electric Superman just makes me shake my head.  It would be awesome to see those books done by the likes of Prado and Reis.

Quote from: Starman on July 02, 2014, 07:18:17 AM
I don't think "a Hawaiian can't play an Atlantean!" is an adult argument, and doesn't compare to a Caucasian playing a Chinese role.

This is the difference between Chris Hemsworth playing Thor and Jason Momoa playing Aquaman: Hemsworth is a big, well-built, good-looking dude who has both worn a wig and dyed his hair for the role of Thor. He has white skin. Jason Momoa is a big, well-built, good-looking dude who has both worn a wig and dyed his hair for roles in the past and could conceivably do it again for the role of Aquaman. His skin is light brown.

Nice job with the strawman.  So, skin tone is not part of physical appearance?  How silly of me.  Anyway, the guy just doesn't look like the character he's supposed to play.  Your dismissive disregard does not diminish the point.  Momoa doesn't look like the character, and I don't think anyone has actually argued that he does.  Can he still play the role?  Assuming he's a decent actor, (an assumption I've seen no evidence to support) obviously that's possible, but that doesn't mean that he magically fits Aquaman.  Can they make him look like the character?  I don't know, maybe, and if they do, great.  It just doesn't seem likely to me.  If I'm wrong, fantastic.  I'll be very happy to be wrong.  That possibility does not make the objections raised childish, irrational, nor racist, as the fact remains that, Momoa does not currently look the part.


'Mato, yeah, there have been some good portrayals by actors who didn't resemble the characters they played, and that's certainly a fair point.  It is absolutely possible to end up with a great, memorable, and even mostly faithful portrayal by an actor who doesn't look the part.  Yet, their success does not negate the objection in general.  When you're adapting from a visual medium, appearance is important.  It's obviously not the most important aspect of an adaptation, (and I don't think anyone has argued it is) but it isn't completely irrelevant. 

Idris Elba and Sam Jackson are tremendous actors, and I would expect them to excel in any role they are given.  Elba was great as Heimdall, and he fits in with the movie, but he's still a bit jarring to Thor fans at times because he doesn't look the part.  I love Jackson as Fury, and nobody can deny that he really is an excellent part of the Marvel movies (no surprise there), but even though I was pleased at his inclusion when the announcement was made because of the man's talent, I still wished that we'd get to see a classic version of the character.  That's still true, just because I'm a purist. 

A disconnect between the source and the adaptation (whatever shape it may take) is an obstacle to a successful (not necessarily financially) adaptation.  Such things can be overcome, and the Marvel movies are great examples of that, but they still exist.  Now, to be perfectly clear, I'm not complaining about the finished product, and I unreservedly love both the Thor flims and the Avengers.  For the most part, adaptations that don't match their sources are a mark against a project to me, but that's one facet out of many.  I think of these types of things in more or less the same terms most of us probably think of movies in general, positives and negatives of greater and lesser value.

Alright, I've said my piece.  Now, if no-one strawmans my thoughts or acts as if I'm spouting nonsensical madness, I'm happy to let the matter drop.


Momoa as Lobo...now THAT would be good casting. 

Steamteck, ahh, that's more or less exactly what I think most Aquaman fans are a bit hesitant about.  I'm sure it would be fun to watch, but it wouldn't be the character we love.  I will say this, though, if Aquaman gets to embarrass Superman and/or Batman at least once,  that would go a long way to assuaging my fears. ^_^

Bentongrey, your entire post is "this is what I actually meant by that last post!" and its just one big, difficult to read exercise in point-picking.

QuoteStarman, you're a creative guy, use a little imagination!  I wasn't suggesting that Snyder reproduce that image in this movie or even that Aquaman should be riding a giant seahorse on the big screen, I was pointing out that fantastic undersea creatures, a-la the visually spectacular fauna of Avatar, could make for a very epic surrounding in which to tell an Aquaman story.  There's plenty of room for the fantastic and the unusual in our entertainment, and folks who reject such ideas out of hand because they won't work haven't been paying attention for the last decade of cinema.  Again, this isn't specific to THIS movie; I was just making a general point.

You posted a picture of Aquaman, with a determined expression, riding towards Superman, also with a furrowed brow, on a giant purple seahorse. Maybe you should have selected a different picture to get your point across...

QuoteWhat?  Have you ever read those books?  They've got fantastic stories, but they are often covered in 90s stink in the art department.  There are mullets and gimmicks galore. :P  There are great bits, of course, but there are also less than stellar sections, and every scene with electric Superman just makes me shake my head.  It would be awesome to see those books done by the likes of Prado and Reis.

You either like 90s comics and the context of the art and writing or you don't. Comic art changes from decade to decade. As a comic fan and an artist, hearing someone who professes to love comic books suggest that a classic run of comics should be redrawn because, hey, it's not the 90s anymore! is ... baffling.

QuoteSo, skin tone is not part of physical appearance?  How silly of me.  Anyway, the guy just doesn't look like the character he's supposed to play.  Your dismissive disregard does not diminish the point.

1) All of the Avengers actors needed help to look like the characters they were supposed to play. Scarlett Johansson isn't a redhead, Chris Hemsworth didn't have long blonde hair and wasn't hugely muscular, etc, etc

2) You are seriously going to keep bringing up the actor's skin tone? To quote Tomato:

QuoteBut this focus on the fact that "OMG AQUAMAN IS BROWN" is insanity.

QuoteCan they make him look like the character?  I don't know, maybe, and if they do, great.  It just doesn't seem likely to me.  If I'm wrong, fantastic.  I'll be very happy to be wrong.  That possibility does not make the objections raised childish, irrational, nor racist, as the fact remains that, Momoa does not currently look the part.

No, that's not childish or irrational at all...

ENOUGH

Seriously, this has gotten insane. Several members have gone out of their way to move the discussion past this topic, and it keeps getting dragged back into it. And no, I'm not just talking about Shogun and Benton, because this has been just as much my and Starman's mess, if not more so. The fighting ends, RIGHT THE HELL NOW, or I am going to appeal to the forum moderators and have this thread locked. No more trying to get in the last word, no more explaining your position, IT'S OVER.

Three pages of this nonsense. Jesus.

FEEL FREE TO LEAVE THE THREAD....

As if there's some wrong with that.  No one's asking you to moderate Benton, Starman, Talavar and Me.

And please, Shogunn.  Two n's.

Quote from: BentonGrey on July 03, 2014, 02:57:58 AM
Momoa as Lobo...now THAT would be good casting. 

Steamteck, ahh, that's more or less exactly what I think most Aquaman fans are a bit hesitant about.  I'm sure it would be fun to watch, but it wouldn't be the character we love.  I will say this, though, if Aquaman gets to embarrass Superman and/or Batman at least once,  that would go a long way to assuaging my fears. ^_^

Honestly, and technically, Aquaman hasn't been cast so I suppose there is still the outside chance.  But at this point of the thread, I'm slightly confused.  Are we talking about The Superman/Batman movie or Justice League.  Because if we are talking about JL, why would they be talking about casting Lobo with this level of an actor?  I doubt he's the main villain and I doubt they'd be hiring a Jason Momoa this far out to play a secondary role.

Guys seriously, lets move on and talk about THE MOVIE and not just about Aquaman's race/ looks.  I even tried to hint at it to move on, but you guys had to bring it back up.  I don't want to lock the thread and/ or delete anyone's post, but it the whole thing about Aquaman comes up again, I will be force to.  Let talk about something else, Costumes, The Batcave, The Fortress of Solitude, is there going to be a watch tower, anything else, please!! 

So... uh...

How much is Ben Affleck going to suck as Batman?

Betfleck IS.GONA.SUCK.

I digress, I liked him in Argo and The Town, and while yeah DareDevil did suck, it was because of the poor directing, pacing, and script. I am actually quite optimistic on him being on set because that means they'll actually have a capable director on set (Not that I hate Snyder, but he glorifies almost every event needlessly making it "epic", that was one of my main problems with MOS, the gratious amount of destruction shots) plus his connections gave us a rewrite on whatever dark, cynical, carp Goyer's ego came up with

I'm very, very rarely disappointed with this community, but this conversation has left me so. 

By all means, please move the conversation on.

Chris Terrio to Pen Justice League (http://www.dcuopost.com/multiverse-news/chris-terrio-to-pen-justice-league/)

You mean that they still don't have a story yet?  What are they waiting for?  I figure after they finish writing BvS that they would have an idea of what they want in the JL movie.