Has this movie redeemed Aquaman’s reputation?

[Aldebaran]

That's cool and all, except comic book movies aren't directly based on Greek Mythology, but the comic books (which yes, can be based on Greek Mythology, but they aren't the same), and if Aquaman is blonde in the comic books then that's the accurate way to portray him as that is the source material. Furthermore, even with your logic Momoa was a poor choice since he doesn't look Greek at all.

Many cultures have had a big connection with the sea. Point is, it's not something that only fits polynesian people. Aquaman being white/blonde wouldn't have taken anything away from the fact that he's an ocean based superhero.

Aquaman didn't need a new look. His "bad reputation" was blown out of proportion because people only remembered the silly Super Friends version, in which by the way, everyone was silly. There was actually nothing inherently wrong about the character. In fact the Aquaman from the comics was blonde and still was a badass:

View attachment 21311

View attachment 21313

Problem is most people ignore those versions and still remember Aquaman as the useless dude who talks to fish. If you look at Momoa's AM, he still talks to the fish and he still has the classic suit. So ironically, they pretty much kept everything that supposedly made Aquaman a joke. So the change of looks was unnecessary.

Like I said, Momoa worked mainly because he was playing himself, but that doesn't mean another actor couldn't have worked too.

Polynesian skin is slightly more darker from that of the proper Mediterranean people, Atlanteans are basically the descendants of the ancient Greeks. Ancient Greeks themselves descended from the middle east. Therefore Momoa is a good choice from that point. After all he's half polynesian.

The Fact that in the comics Aquaman has blonde hair, it does not mean it has to be so. Most movie goers don't read the comics and don't know that AM is a badass, for many he WAS the silly character of super friends Version. Therefore a change was BADLY needed.

Besides, If one has to stick to the comics, any aquaman sequel movie is screwed before its even filmed. One of the main problems with the Aquaman comics, is that it contradicts itself at every turn. First you have Arthur who wants to be Atlantean, than he tires and wants to live on the surface with Mera, yet he goes back to Atlantis to be king once again, leaves Mera alone on the surface, she rejoins him, again he walks out on Atlantis, but this time Mera stays as Queen. It is stated that he is unacceptable to Atlanteans because he's a half breed, while its ok for them to have a hated xebellian enemy as a ruler. Come on its all mixed up.
AM comics has serious flaws, sticking to it would have hampered the movie just as it can to any future sequel.

As you say, Momoa worked mainly because he was playing himself, any other actor would have been portrayed as the traditional AM, with the bad UNDESERVED reputation of AM, it would have turned to be a failure.
I have been a fan of AM all my life and honestly at times it has been hard to follow the comic version, especially when it had the potential of really being great, it was always dissipated. Just take The current comic issue, It's messed up pretty bad.

Hope any future AM movies don't follow the comic version or it will throw away the success it achieved.

 

[Claude_Speed]

Polynesian skin is slightly more darker from that of the proper Mediterranean people, Atlanteans are basically the descendants of the ancient Greeks. Ancient Greeks themselves descended from the middle east. Therefore Momoa is a good choice from that point. After all he's half polynesian.

The Fact that in the comics Aquaman has blonde hair, it does not mean it has to be so. Most movie goers don't read the comics and don't know that AM is a badass, for many he WAS the silly character of super friends Version. Therefore a change was BADLY needed.

Besides, If one has to stick to the comics, any aquaman sequel movie is screwed before its even filmed. One of the main problems with the Aquaman comics, is that it contradicts itself at every turn. First you have Arthur who wants to be Atlantean, than he tires and wants to live on the surface with Mera, yet he goes back to Atlantis to be king once again, leaves Mera alone on the surface, she rejoins him, again he walks out on Atlantis, but this time Mera stays as Queen. It is stated that he is unacceptable to Atlanteans because he's a half breed, while its ok for them to have a hated xebellian enemy as a ruler. Come on its all mixed up.
AM comics has serious flaws, sticking to it would have hampered the movie just as it can to any future sequel.

As you say, Momoa worked mainly because he was playing himself, any other actor would have been portrayed as the traditional AM, with the bad UNDESERVED reputation of AM, it would have turned to be a failure.
I have been a fan of AM all my life and honestly at times it has been hard to follow the comic version, especially when it had the potential of really being great, it was always dissipated. Just take The current comic issue, It's messed up pretty bad.

Hope any future AM movies don't follow the comic version or it will throw away the success it achieved.

I think you're reaching to make Momoa fit your logic. Again:

1-Momoa is half polynesian, half white. He doesn't look greek.
2-The movies are based on comics not the Greek mythology so either way point #1 is irrelevant.

Yeah Aquaman doesn't need to be blonde, just like Superman doesn't need to be white and have black hair, just like Victor Stone doesn't need to be black. You can change everything from the comics but you will end up having a very poor representation of them, and at the end of the day that's the source material these movies are based on.

There's a reason Chris Evans had his hair dyed blonde to play Cap, Hemsworth wore a wig to play Thor (for several films), Cavill got his hair dyed black, Scarlett Johansson had her hair dyed red, etc. and that is to portray the characters like they're in the comics as accurately as possible.
Sure they can change characters and they can still work, but I'm not a fan of it. If you're going to change everything about a character, then why not make him another character?

"Most movie goers don't read the comics and don't know that AM is a badass, for many he WAS the silly character of super friends Version. Therefore a change was BADLY needed."

You're missing the point entirely. The character was ALREADY changed from the Super Friends version. He was already a badass in the comics. The only thing he needed was exposure in a CBM so that people got to know that badass version of him. The movie could have respected the source material and still have a badass Aquaman. He didn't need to be turned into a wild, loud, macho, surfer, bro to be badass. You'd have a point if the Aquaman from the comics was lame, but he wasn't.

"AM comics has serious flaws, sticking to it would have hampered the movie just as it can to any future sequel."

Again you missed the point. I'm not talking about adapting the comic book storylines to the movie. I'm OK with the movie having it's own story. After all, movies and comics work very differently story-wise.

"any other actor would have been portrayed as the traditional AM, with the bad UNDESERVED reputation of AM, it would have turned to be a failure."

A blockbuster's success or failure is rarely defined by it's lead actor. Superhero movies often make money because of factors, like visuals, action, entertainment factor, trends, etc. So no, it wouldn't have failed if Momoa was changed by an actor who could fit the role. Also, other actor could have portrayed Aquaman as the badass he is in the comics.

Furthermore (and this is a bit unrelated to the argument), I don't even think Aquaman's silliness would have been a problem from a financial stand-point. Silly can sell a lot these days. Look at Marvel. They've made a lot of money with movies that have a talking tree and raccoon, and people loved them. They made a superhero who shrinks and rides insects work. Thor was silly in Ragnarok and the movie was a hit. The Aquaman movie also had a lot of silliness and still made over 1B. At the end of the day, most people go to the movies to have a good time.

I don't think many people who are looking to be entertained would go like "A talking racoon? No, that's stupid, I'll pass. A guy who talks to fish? no, I'll pass", but all the opposite. I think irreverence can sell a lot these days. I think Aquaman, even if he was still silly could have worked perfectly if the movie was good. There's a difference between being silly and being boring/uninteresting and Aquaman was never boring. In fact, I've seen many more people calling Superman boring.

Badass or not, I think if Aquaman was a good and entertaining movie, could have still been a massive success. That doesn't mean I prefer a silly Aquaman over a badass one, but I'm just pointing out I don't think it would make that much of a difference.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I think the mixed race justification is silly as most athlanteans look like regular white people. If Aquaman's father was white then Momoa looking of mixed race would make no sense. In the movie, his father was polynesian to justify Momoa's appearance, however if he was white, then Aquaman being blonde would make sense, and it wouldn't mean he's not of mixed race, because again athlanteans look the same as white people.

This is all correct. But I think the difference is that from a real-world perspective, Momoa actually is a mixed-race actor. Sure, a white blond Arthur would still have been "mixed race" in the context of the film itself, being half-human and half-Atlantean. But in our world, the white blond appearance has historical connotations that clash with the dramatic imperatives for a mixed-race character.

There's a reason why villains in movies, particular those who propound doctrines of racial "purity" and superiority, are often shown as having a white, blond appearance: because it echoes the Nazi ideal of the blond white Aryan superman. Draco and Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter series are good examples: their physical appearance reflects their obsession with racial purity and keeping wizards separate from Muggles, and their hatred of "mudbloods". Even if the villains don't have motives of racial superiority, we often see this appearance as visual shorthand: just think of the typical jock bullies in '80s teen movies.

In Aquaman, I believe it was Patrick Wilson who suggested that Orm have a white blond appearance. In part this was to provide a visual contrast to Momoa's Aquaman. But for the same reasons as the Malfoys, the Aryan appearance of Orm reflects the character's obsession with the purity of the Atlantean race and hatred of his "half-breed" brother. And this is also why I think having Arthur portrayed by an actor who is clearly mixed-race in appearance works better to visually convey that aspect of his character.

Now, an obvious counterargument to this is that we've also had heroic characters with an "Aryan" appearance that have worked quite well onscreen: Captain America and Thor. But I think there is a difference. In the case of Steve Rogers, his appearance works because the character was literally created to fight Nazis. It works well as an irony that a hero whose appearance embodies the Nazi racial ideal is, in the world of the Marvel universe, their most fervent opponent.

Thor, meanwhile, is inspired by Norse mythology. It makes sense for his character to resemble the typical "Scandinavian" appearance of blond hair, blue eyes, etc. And unlike Aquaman, the character himself is not of mixed race and so we don't need a visual shorthand to convey that.

As for a polynesian surfer working better for an ocean superhero, I disagree. I don't think it makes any more sense than having a white/blonde man since many white people have had historically a big connection with the sea. Vikings, british, irish, icelanders, etc.

Fair enough.

To me that's just a poor justification, but I understand your opinion since you don't like the comic book version.

It's not that I don't like the comic book version, it's more that I'm unfamiliar with him. I meant to read Aquaman comics in the leadup to the movie, but never got around to it. For better or for worse, the film was my first major exposure to the character. And for that reason, Momoa is my Aquaman.

But that's also why I completely understand your point of view here. If I had a long attachment to the Aquaman comics, I too might have an issue with the movie significantly departing from his traditional comic appearance. So while I'm just explaining my perspective here and why I think Momoa works well for Aquaman—and in fact is an improvement on the comic version—I can totally see why a longtime fan of the Aquaman comics would disagree.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think you're reaching to make Momoa fit your logic. Again:

1-Momoa is half polynesian, half white. He doesn't look greek.
2-The movies are based on comics not the Greek mythology so either way point #1 is irrelevant.

Yeah Aquaman doesn't need to be blonde, just like Superman doesn't need to be white and have black hair, just like Victor Stone doesn't need to be black. You can change everything from the comics but you will end up having a very poor representation of them, and at the end of the day that's the source material these movies are based on.

There's a reason Chris Evans had his hair dyed blonde to play Cap, Hemsworth wore a wig to play Thor (for several films), Cavill got his hair dyed black, Scarlett Johansson had her hair dyed red, etc. and that is to portray the characters like they're in the comics as accurately as possible.
Sure they can change characters and they can still work, but I'm not a fan of it. If you're going to change everything about a character, then why not make him another character?

"Most movie goers don't read the comics and don't know that AM is a badass, for many he WAS the silly character of super friends Version. Therefore a change was BADLY needed."

You're missing the point entirely. The character was ALREADY changed from the Super Friends version. He was already a badass in the comics. The only thing he needed was exposure in a CBM so that people got to know that badass version of him. The movie could have respected the source material and still have a badass Aquaman. He didn't need to be turned into a wild, loud, macho, surfer, bro to be badass. You'd have a point if the Aquaman from the comics was lame, but he wasn't.

"AM comics has serious flaws, sticking to it would have hampered the movie just as it can to any future sequel."

Again you missed the point. I'm not talking about adapting the comic book storylines to the movie. I'm OK with the movie having it's own story. After all, movies and comics work very differently story-wise.

"any other actor would have been portrayed as the traditional AM, with the bad UNDESERVED reputation of AM, it would have turned to be a failure."

A blockbuster's success or failure is rarely defined by it's lead actor. Superhero movies often make money because of factors, like visuals, action, entertainment factor, trends, etc. So no, it wouldn't have failed if Momoa was changed by an actor who could fit the role. Also, other actor could have portrayed Aquaman as the badass he is in the comics.

Furthermore (and this is a bit unrelated to the argument), I don't even think Aquaman's silliness would have been a problem from a financial stand-point. Silly can sell a lot these days. Look at Marvel. They've made a lot of money with movies that have a talking tree and raccoon, and people loved them. They made a superhero who shrinks and rides insects work. The Aquaman movie also had a lot of silliness and still made over 1B. At the end of the day, most people go to the movies to have a good time.

I don't think many people who are looking to be entertained would go like "A talking racoon? No, that's stupid, I'll pass. A guy who talks to fish? no, I'll pass", but all the opposite. I think irreverence can sell a lot these days. I think Aquaman, even if he was still silly could have worked perfectly if the movie was good. There's a difference between being silly and being boring/uninteresting and Aquaman was never boring. In fact, I've seen many more people calling Superman boring.

Badass or not, I think if Aquaman was a good and entertaining movie, could have still been a massive success. That doesn't mean I prefer a silly Aquaman over a badass one, but I'm just pointing out I don't think it would make that much of a difference.

If Momoa was just any normal guy, he could pass as a Mediterranean fellow(Greek, Sicilian or Maltese) without any problem. When I first saw him in Justice league I thought he was Italian.
Superman/Thor etc had no image problem, therefore they needed no change, Aquaman on the contrary had an image problem. Most movie goers ignore Aquaman comics and whatever he stands for or looks like. To them he's was that silly character in super friends.
Despite all the success achieved by the movie, there is still lot of hate towards AM. The recent issue by the haters regards the bad dialogue in the movie, as if this was some Shakespeare adaptation and not one from the comics.

That's why WB must be careful, as these people will be out in force to destroy the sequel before it even makes it to the theaters. WB and DC must exploit the success achieved by Wan, Heard, Momoa etc in this movie, Audiences worldwide have embraced it and the characters. However with WB and DC you never know, one would have expected them to exploit the success of the movie with the comic version, instead as I wrote previously its pretty messed up.

 

[Claude_Speed]

This is all correct. But I think the difference is that from a real-world perspective, Momoa actually is a mixed-race actor. Sure, a white blond Arthur would still have been "mixed race" in the context of the film itself, being half-human and half-Atlantean. But in our world, the white blond appearance has historical connotations that clash with the dramatic imperatives for a mixed-race character.

There's a reason why villains in movies, particular those who propound doctrines of racial "purity" and superiority, are often shown as having a white, blond appearance: because it echoes the Nazi ideal of the blond white Aryan superman. Draco and Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter series are good examples: their physical appearance reflects their obsession with racial purity and keeping wizards separate from Muggles, and their hatred of "mudbloods". Even if the villains don't have motives of racial superiority, we often see this appearance as visual shorthand: just think of the typical jock bullies in '80s teen movies.

In Aquaman, I believe it was Patrick Wilson who suggested that Orm have a white blond appearance. In part this was to provide a visual contrast to Momoa's Aquaman. But for the same reasons as the Malfoys, the Aryan appearance of Orm reflects the character's obsession with the purity of the Atlantean race and hatred of his "half-breed" brother. And this is also why I think having Arthur portrayed by an actor who is clearly mixed-race in appearance works better to visually convey that aspect of his character.

Now, an obvious counterargument to this is that we've also had heroic characters with an "Aryan" appearance that have worked quite well onscreen: Captain America and Thor. But I think there is a difference. In the case of Steve Rogers, his appearance works because the character was literally created to fight Nazis. It works well as an irony that a hero whose appearance embodies the Nazi racial ideal is, in the world of the Marvel universe, their most fervent opponent.

Thor, meanwhile, is inspired by Norse mythology. It makes sense for his character to resemble the typical "Scandinavian" appearance of blond hair, blue eyes, etc. And unlike Aquaman, the character himself is not of mixed race and so we don't need a visual shorthand to convey that.



Fair enough.



It's not that I don't like the comic book version, it's more that I'm unfamiliar with him. I meant to read Aquaman comics in the leadup to the movie, but never got around to it. For better or for worse, the film was my first major exposure to the character. And for that reason, Momoa is my Aquaman.

But that's also why I completely understand your point of view here. If I had a long attachment to the Aquaman comics, I too might have an issue with the movie significantly departing from his traditional comic appearance. So while I'm just explaining my perspective here and why I think Momoa works well for Aquaman—and in fact is an improvement on the comic version—I can totally see why a longtime fan of the Aquaman comics would disagree.

I understand the mixed race reasoning, I just don't think it's necessary. At the end of the day these are fictional characters of fictional races. Superman is Kryptonian, yet he looks like regular human and there's no need to explain why. People can accept that he doesn't need to look different because it's fiction. Same with Aquaman. He can be of mixed race and be blonde because it's fiction and because (even in the movie) athlanteans look like regular people. The same applies to many other aliens, demons, mutants, etc.

As for villains beind blonde, that's a bit of a cliche in movies, but in comics plenty of superheros are blonde: The Flash, Green Arrow, Supergirl, Black Canary, Stargirl, Thor, Cap, Hank Pynk Sue Storm, Johnny Storm, Angel, Havok, Captain Marvel, Iron Fist, etc. Nothing villanous about being blonde. Especially not in comic books in which blonde superheros are pretty common.

In the MCU it's not just Thor and Cap, there's also Carol Danver, Sharon Carter, Iron Fist, etc. I think Marvel is simply trying to portray their characters more accurately, whereas in the DCEU they don't seem to care that much. I mean look at the Flash. He isn't blonde either. Why? Because they don't care.

 

[Claude_Speed]

If Momoa was just any normal guy, he could pass as a Mediterranean fellow(Greek, Sicilian or Maltese) without any problem. When I first saw him in Justice league I thought he was Italian.
Superman/Thor etc had no image problem, therefore they needed no change, Aquaman on the contrary had an image problem. Most movie goers ignore Aquaman comics and whatever he stands for or looks like. To them he's was that silly character in super friends.
Despite all the success achieved by the movie, there is still lot of hate towards AM. The recent issue by the haters regards the bad dialogue in the movie, as if this was some Shakespeare adaptation and not one from the comics.

That's why WB must be careful, as these people will be out in force to destroy the sequel before it even makes it to the theaters. WB and DC must exploit the success achieved by Wan, Heard, Momoa etc in this movie, Audiences worldwide have embraced it and the characters. However with WB and DC you never know, one would have expected them to exploit the success of the movie with the comic version, instead as I wrote previously its pretty messed up.

Again, the movie was based on the comics not greek mythology. You can pretend Momoa looks greek if you want (he doesn't), but that still doesn't make him more comic book accurate. Not sure why you keep ignoring this.

Again, he had already been changed. He was no longer silly in the comics. All he needed was to be shown to the public. A further change from the comic book version wasn't needed.

I'm not sure what your last point was about.

 

[chamber-music]

Aquaman was never a joke character to me (I've never seen superfriends and I don't let other people's opinions on something determine if I like or dislike something I'm unfamiliar with).

 

[Tg11]

Aquaman has more or less become the Thor of the DCEU so yes it has more led up to his reputation being strengthened

 

[GreenKToo]

I finally saw this a couple nights ago on pay per view.

Not bad.

I've never been a big fan of AQ, but I do like him a little more now.

The good. It had good to great action, and I loved the underwater scenes. It had really Good acting also.


The bad. Nit picks really. How did thousands ( hundreds of thousands?) Of Atlanteans stay hidden for so long, especially the trenchers.
They made it seem like there was almost as many atlanteans, trenchers, other intelligent beings, as there are surface dwellers.

Arthur ( for me) came across as more of a rough surfer dude than a reluctant king. I liked him tho.

I didn't care for how he let black manta's father die. That kinda stuff is batmanish.

And How do some of them seem to be able to breath air but others seem to "drown" in it?

Overall, 8/10.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I finally saw this a couple nights ago on pay per view.

Not bad.

I've never been a big fan of AQ, but I do like him a little more now.

The good. It had good to great action, and I loved the underwater scenes. It had really Good acting also.


The bad. Nit picks really. How did thousands ( hundreds of thousands?) Of Atlanteans stay hidden for so long, especially the trenchers.
They made it seem like there was almost as many atlanteans, trenchers, other intelligent beings, as there are surface dwellers.

Arthur ( for me) came across as more of a rough surfer dude than a reluctant king. I liked him tho.

I didn't care for how he let black manta's father die. That kinda stuff is batmanish.

And How do some of them seem to be able to breath air but others seem to "drown" in it?

Overall, 8/10.

There is simply more territory in the seas than there is on land. As you may or may not know the planet is covered in ocean. About 70% of the world is the oceans and it's depths. So... Not too much of a leap to think that in this fantasy set up that there could be even a large population of "Atlanteans" with their own civilization down there. To give some perspective the island Mauna Kea is actually the top of a mountain whose base springs from the ocean floor. It is technically the highest mountain on the planet and is actually taller than Mount Everest, over 10,000 meters, where Everest is 8,850 meters. The Ocean floor spreads out to greater surface area than dry land. Given those two factors alone, and that we honestly know less about the ocean floor of our own planet than we do of say, the moon, again, it's not too much of a stretch to have in a fictional story the idea of an unknown nation down there.

They also mention in the movie that the ability to breath air as well as water was a trait that was found only in those with "royal" lineage. So the average Atlantean which makes up the majority of the population couldn't survive on the surface where Arthur, Mera, the Queen and Orm being elite Royals did still retain the ability to live in our atmosphere.

 

[Micromind]

I finally saw this a couple nights ago on pay per view.

Not bad.

I've never been a big fan of AQ, but I do like him a little more now.

The good. It had good to great action, and I loved the underwater scenes. It had really Good acting also.


The bad. Nit picks really. How did thousands ( hundreds of thousands?) Of Atlanteans stay hidden for so long, especially the trenchers.
They made it seem like there was almost as many atlanteans, trenchers, other intelligent beings, as there are surface dwellers.

Arthur ( for me) came across as more of a rough surfer dude than a reluctant king. I liked him tho.

I didn't care for how he let black manta's father die. That kinda stuff is batmanish.

And How do some of them seem to be able to breath air but others seem to "drown" in it?

Overall, 8/10.

Well, most Atlanteans (except some with Royal lineage) can survive only under water, they cannot breathe in air, as explained in the movie (comic book movie logic), when Atlantis sunk to Ocean depths, some of them survived due to their new source of power and technology, (in Dc comics, it's due to magic), then some de-evolved into Fish people (fishermen kingdom), Trench humanoid monsters, Brine Kingdom (Crab like people), Desert Kingdom (when part of Sahara Desert was under sea) New Atlantis Kingdom and so on.

As most of them don't go to Surface they stay hidden.

 

[Micromind]

 

[unholyrevenger]

to the G.A.? mostly.

 

[Flint Marko]

Honestly if Aquaman's reputation was as bad as some feared, his movie never would have opened so big and eventually crossed a billion dollars. Sure he might have been regarded as a punchline for a few decades now but people showed up to see his movie and liked what they saw.

It proves that any property can and will work in the right hands. You just have to lean into what people already love about the characters.