Skepticism on Aquaman Movie Thread

[Clark-Kent]

Post concerns you may have, or perceive others may have concerning new Aquaman movie!

 

[Black Narcissus]

Gee, I wonder when ya'll do it for mavel films and such. Nah, just dc. Ok, cool. lawd.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

I wouldn't expect anything less.

 

[KillerWolf]

What's with all those skepticism threads of yours? It's especially pointless for a movie that we know nothing about as it comes out in three years.

Fine, I'm skeptical about the seats in my cinema and I am pretty sure one will be hurting my butt during the entire experience. Hopefully it won't completely ruin the movie for me.

 

[Fallen Angel]

What the frick is wrong with this guy? he also opened up one for Cyborg for for frick sakes. That movie has no script,no director, no screenplay and is mother f'in 5 YEARS AWAY.

 

[KillerWolf]

And Wonder Woman forums as well. But, yeah, the one in Cyborg forums is the most nonsensical one.

Edit: Ah, I see there's one in Green Lantern forums as well. Seriously, what the hell?

 

[Reek]

...aren't these threads the same as the general discussions threads lol

Clark must have been bored.

 

[Clark-Kent]

...aren't these threads the same as the general discussions threads lol

Clark must have been bored.

I was a bit bored lol. However I saw the bvs skepticism thread, and didn't see it in the other DC movies forums. That's why I created the threads, it organizes the forums well imo.

 

[ManWithNoName18]

Really the only deterrent I see to an Aquaman movie is the whole Superfriends/family guy jokes. But just the way Momoa looks, and given he has two upcoming appearances to change public perception I say it will be moot by 2018

 

[Luke234]

It is funny that there's another skepticism one for DC . Lol. It's just like the critics ready to bash before seeing the movie. Marvel fans and critics are going to be more than ready than ever to bash this one because they think of just a guy who talks to fish and that's it. They're gonna tear this one to shreds.

 

[Shazam]

Is it against the law to be a skeptic or something?? Geez!


I wish Mamoa would cut that stupid hair of his......in that on short clip, he couldnt even see in front of him!! Hair was flowing in his face..... SMH


Artists and cartoons are drawn his his hair never in the way..... The real deal is what we saw.


Either cut the crap off or tie it back......

 

[Jake Cassidy]

There's nothing wrong with being a skeptic, but there should be skepticism threads on every movie forum here, not just DC. It's only fair.

 

[Martha]

I'm not sure how I feel about Momoa. I've only seen him in Game of Thrones and Conan, and he was basically playing the barbarian/warlord archetype. Not sure if that's necessarily the direction Arthur should be taken.

 

[BigSams50]

I feel like Momoa would have made a better Ocean Master than Aquaman. I dont know if he has the acting range to pull off Arthur

 

[Cosmic Blaster]

Momoa was great in GoT but that didn't really demand much in the way of acting, just a fair bit of posturing and a bit of grunting for good measure. But the casting and production team must have seen something in his auditions, so we just have to trust that they have made the correct decision

 

[Martha]

Momoa was great in GoT but that didn't really demand much in the way of acting, just a fair bit of posturing and a bit of grunting for good measure. But the casting and production team must have seen something in his auditions, so we just have to trust that they have made the correct decision

I'm not trying to write the guy off and say he is a terrible actor. My fear is more that they are intending to take his character in the direction of a barbarian/conqueror type, which is why they chose him for the part. I really don't want to see that kind of Aquaman.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

It's a shame skepticism has to be cast on Aquaman already.
He is a character that deserves more respect than he truly gets.
Only haters would go this far so early.

 

[Assassin32]

Skepticism this early is not unfounded. The project already has a director, and that director is James Wan. He's known for soulless Hollywood kitsch like Furious 7. That movie's existence is almost a sin. He's also made a bunch of financially successful horror movies. Some people like them, but I don't and neither do many other viewers who enjoy skillfully wrought horror like Don't Look Now, Eyes Without a Face, and The Exorcist.

Film is a director's medium, and this director doesn't sound promising.

Jason Momoa as the title character seems like an absolute home run, though. Great out-of-the-box executive decision. Not surprising that Wan had no say in that, of course.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Skepticism this early is not unfounded. The project already has a director, and that director is James Wan. He's known for soulless Hollywood kitsch like Furious 7. That movie's existence is almost a sin. He's also made a bunch of financially successful horror movies. Some people like them, but I don't and neither do many other viewers who enjoy skillfully wrought horror like Don't Look Now, Eyes Without a Face, and The Exorcist.

Film is a director's medium, and this director doesn't sound promising.

Jason Momoa as the title character seems like an absolute home run, though. Great out-of-the-box executive decision. Not surprising that Wan had no say in that, of course.

From what you are saying it all boils down to James Wan I guess. Momoa doesn't seem to be the problem, but Wan is.
I can understand a director might not inspire you with confidence.
But this early before we even know anything?
If anyone has a dislike for Wan that bad, then don't go see Aquaman.
Sometimes directors making films outside their genre will surprise you.

 

[Assassin32]

Most films all boil down to their directors. That's why auteur theory remains a staple of any respectable collegiate film program. You say we don't "even know anything," and yet, in the same breath, you admit that we know James Wan is at the helm. That's certainly something.

Here's hoping he can surprise by delivering a good movie. But, to date, Wan has exactly zero great films in his oeuvre. There are indeed grounds for skepticism here, and it looks like that's the subject of this thread.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Most films all boil down to their directors. That's why auteur theory remains a staple of any respectable collegiate film program. You say we don't "even know anything," and yet, in the same breath, you admit that we know James Wan is at the helm. That's certainly something.

Here's hoping he can surprise by delivering a good movie. But, to date, Wan has exactly zero great films in his oeuvre. There are indeed grounds for skepticism here, and it looks like that's the subject of this thread.

Indeed we do know something.
That something is Wan being the director.
You can be skeptical of his work but, we know about his body of work.
SO it boils down to you are not a fan of his, which is fair.
If you think he's a talentless hack, that's also fair.
Me myself ,without a finished product before us to judge, I won't crucify him yet.
Now if he does destroy Aquaman after so many years of waiting for him to shine on screen, I will join you in being an anti-Wan

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Also, if you are educated about auteur theory have you studied film making?

 

[Assassin32]

Yes. I blew a lot of money on some college degrees once upon a time, and luckily, a few great film classes fit into the curriculum.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

I will keep that in mind if I ever get a film maker interested in partnering up in the future.

 

[Eddie Dean]

will there be cool enough fish in movie