The All Encompassing AQUAMAN Movie Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Aquaman does debut in the JL (even as a cameo), I would then like the Aquaman solo movie to take place afterwards, while giving us the origin via flashback (Batman Begins style, sort of).

I still like the idea of having the movie be about Arthur's reintegration to the mainland after the events in JL to work as a hero above surface for the first time.

Ultimately have the movie be about the relation of home and duty. Aquaman feels distant from both the mainland (due to his lack of family before, and later also due to his reception as a Superhero from the mainlanders) and by Atlantis (as he's a half-human, and 'unworthy' to be King). He has to overcome prejudice, lack of respect, keep a thick skin, etc, ultimately accomplishing all this by taking his rightful place as their King, saving both the mainlanders and the Atlanteans.

-----

-The flackbacks should begin with a teenaged Arthur, who we learn later had a tough time growing up, especially without his mother, trying to commit suicide by tying his legs to a heavy weight and tossing himself over a shallow bridge into the sea. (overdramatic? Perhaps. But I imagine it to be quite attention-grabbing, especially if it's the first shot/scene of the movie)

-He sinks to the bottom . But when he can no longer hold his breath, he realizes that he's not drowning. He wished for death, but is instead, through it, granted a unique ability, and reason, to live.
-Cue montage of an emotionally rejuvenated Arthur spending a lot of his time under water, away from his real life.
-After a fight with his father (regarding his Mother, the truth about Aquaman's past, etc), he takes momentary solace undersea and has a surprise encounter with an Atlantean who came to find him. Arthur willingly leaves to Atlantis.

-Here he meets his brother Orm, and discovers a real sense of home and belonging (at least at first). Orm is his guide through Atlantis, helping him learn who he is, what his powers, are, etc (think Ra's Al Ghul).
-There are subtle hints of prejudice against him from others, as well as rumblings of anti-human sentiment, though Arthur shrugs it off.
-Years later, Aquaman fails in some training exercise/under water attack/whatever, etc, leading to the death of one or several beloved Atlanteans, losing him respect/trust from the Atlantean community.
-He leaves Atlantis voluntarily out of shame, despite Orm's pleas, back to the mainland.
-Tells the narratee that he said he's going to try his luck on the mainland instead, where he's welcome and respected. His 'real home' (he says unconvincingly). His first encounter was his prior appearance (in the JL movie, where he remained extremely private/mysterious).

-Cue rest of the present-day plot, with Arthur uncovering Orm's plot/scheming/framing of Aquaman to pit the mainland against Aquaman/Atlantis and Atlantis against the mainland, stopping Orm, reluctant as he is, and exposing him (perhaps the reason Orm found Arthur and brought him to Atlantis in the first place was for some long-term scheme). Arthur does some grand noble act, earning command of his Atlantean army, commanding them to leave, and thus earning the respect of the mainlanders.

Something like that. A version of the "Throne of Atlantis" storyline, with flashbacks thrown in.

And if they wanted to extend this theme of "belonging", they could later have Arthur find his true sense of 'home' with Mera, and/or the Justice League.
 
Last edited:
That sounds great. The only thing I'm wary of is Arthur's attempt at suicide...but that could end up being a really emotional scene.
 
It's indeed melodramatic.

But then again, Banner said he did it in the Avengers (though I found that to be a little melodramatic and out of place, mostly because it was spoken, not shown. "I got low...".). I think it always sounds more melodramatic in speech/writing; my previous post included.

I think all the suicide attempts in LOST are a good example of suicide scene's done right.

[YT]xlMCyrrLgvU[/YT]

I just think there's something... poignant/interesting/poetic?.. about a man who discovers his ability to breathe underwater by trying to drown himself. -- A man who had nothing, discovering that he is special, gaining a new appreciation of life and a purpose for living. Almost like fate wouldn't allow him to die.

There would have to ample reasoning for him to be driven to that though. Or else it would indeed seem melodramatic. Probably some combination of an emotionally distant father, no mother, siblings, or friends.

Or perhaps it's the planned suicide that's melodramatic, opposed to an impulsive one brought on my an emotional situation.
Perhaps an argument with his secretive father (regarding his mother, etc) leads to Arthur driving, emotionally distraught, and accidentally driving over the highway boundary over the cliff and into the sea; perhaps in the moment, when the car is sinking and filled with water, Arthur consciously decides to stop holding his breath.

(I also think this would make an interesting opening scene/shot, a speeding swerving car avoiding another oncoming car and going over the cliff, and a young man, surprisingly calm, seemingly dying underwater, before cutting back to present day (for it to be fully addressed later, regarding how/why he ended up there, when he narrates his entire backstory to somebody).
 
Last edited:
What color should Aqua's shirt be? Both choices are to be made out of fish scales, though.

Shiny orange?

5628_a_full.jpg


or gold?

4729018033_5018093420_z.jpg
 
I would say a much darker orange. But then again I'm visualizing something that's akin in tone to MAN OF STEEL and any brighter color scheme contrary to that would seem off-putting. I wouldn't look past gold though. Also the second pic looks much closer to what I'm visualizing.
 
I think I'm leaning more towards a bronze-ish color.
 
Look at the fonts in the word Aquaman in the pic below!
It's bloody f***ing briliant, one of the most awesome things I've seen, and I would give just anything to have it be used for a solo film.

Do the creators of Entourage hold the rights to them? Or Cameron? Will it never be possible to use the same fonts, like ever?


aquaman_ad.jpg
 
Last edited:
Atlantis may be on Earth, but that doesn't keep it from being otherworldly. The best term would be "ultraterrestrial." Its physically located on Earth, but in terms of environment, inhabitants, and culture, its basically alien.
 
Atlantis being alien and otherworldly would be created because of this:
Isolation, surface doesn't know about it and the two worlds cannot connect to share ideas.
Plant life and animals, our animals and plants cannot grow and live there (dogs, cats, gorillas, Christmas trees.) And their animals and fish and plants cannot live on land.

Therefore their culture would develop apart from ours, different influences than ours leading to different developments in their culture. They wouldn't have the same advances in technology that we have because their environment would have forced them to develop in different ways. Their laws and morals might even be different from ours. While killing would still be morally wrong, maybe their punishments would differ.

But the similarities are that they are still Earthbound like us, and can only use what they have access to on Earth. Same minerals, same resources like oil, electricity, sun light, air, water, etc. Unless some special concept was invented like Vibrinium was created for Wakanda's Black Panther, or how Young Justice has shown that magic is used in Atlantis. So unless such resources are created and pointed out in the film (which would be easy enough, to say Atlantis found untapped power at the bottom of the sea, since we are discovering new species of fish all the time) they should probably not be shown to have any.

Things can still seem otherworldly and different from our own, but within the grounded reality that would be set up.

How would their construct their world under water? Would it be like the Little Mermaid and they would have built their homes in the mountains and into the walls of the sea? Or like us would they build structures with support beams and compartmentalized homes and powered with lights and such? Maybe since they are on the ocean floor their city is lit up using some power source, because otherwise their kingdom would be pretty dark I'd imagine. What do you guys think about how their world should be?
This sort of stuff would also effect their clothing, I doubt being under water they would wear anything loose fitting or flowing like a skirt or a cape. Their isolation, being under water, and divergent development would effect everything from their clothing to their buildings to their inventions, maybe even their code of ethics.
Would everyone just swim everywhere? Or would they develop a mode of faster transportation like we have cars as apposed to walking everywhere?

adaptations-ocean-plants-1.1-800x800.jpg
plants-in-the-ocean-9.jpg


plants-in-the-ocean-5-400x287.jpg


I love thinking about this stuff. All this is stuff visual development is about. Creating worlds, characters, objects and inventions.
 
Last edited:
A cultural note, for worldbuilding ways in which Atlantis would be different: in human society, we have for beasts of burden horses, oxen, and donkeys, by and large. Their usage shaped society in all kinds of ways up to the 20th century, really. Obviously, Atlantis wouldn't have any of those, so the question becomes, what beasts of burden *do* they have?

If they have none, then that would mean more stuff would rely on "human" power: people would walk/swim, push/pull/lift the heavy weight, etc. Given that Atlanteans are almost always portrayed as superhuman, this wouldn't necessarily be a handicap. It would also likely encourage the development of machines, to maximize human power first, and later replace it.

If, OTOH, they do have beasts of burden, then you have to consider which ones they are. If they tame whales, then they have a *giant* source of power, which would help explain their economy. Tame sharks or similar sized fish could provide rapid mounts. In all cases, though, their beasts of burden would be capable of moving in three dimensions. If its in the ocean, they can go to it.

Note that this relates to the "aquatic telepathy" power. If Atlantean society is not, by and large, capable of taming sea life, then you have the former case. . . but anyone with aquatic telepathy can, within their purview, apply the latter scenario. That's a pretty useful ability for a royal bloodline to possess.
 
A cultural note, for worldbuilding ways in which Atlantis would be different: in human society, we have for beasts of burden horses, oxen, and donkeys, by and large. Their usage shaped society in all kinds of ways up to the 20th century, really. Obviously, Atlantis wouldn't have any of those, so the question becomes, what beasts of burden *do* they have?

If they have none, then that would mean more stuff would rely on "human" power: people would walk/swim, push/pull/lift the heavy weight, etc. Given that Atlanteans are almost always portrayed as superhuman, this wouldn't necessarily be a handicap. It would also likely encourage the development of machines, to maximize human power first, and later replace it.

If, OTOH, they do have beasts of burden, then you have to consider which ones they are. If they tame whales, then they have a *giant* source of power, which would help explain their economy. Tame sharks or similar sized fish could provide rapid mounts. In all cases, though, their beasts of burden would be capable of moving in three dimensions. If its in the ocean, they can go to it.

Note that this relates to the "aquatic telepathy" power. If Atlantean society is not, by and large, capable of taming sea life, then you have the former case. . . but anyone with aquatic telepathy can, within their purview, apply the latter scenario. That's a pretty useful ability for a royal bloodline to possess.

I like the way you think. :up:
 
A cultural note, for worldbuilding ways in which Atlantis would be different: in human society, we have for beasts of burden horses, oxen, and donkeys, by and large. Their usage shaped society in all kinds of ways up to the 20th century, really. Obviously, Atlantis wouldn't have any of those, so the question becomes, what beasts of burden *do* they have?

If they have none, then that would mean more stuff would rely on "human" power: people would walk/swim, push/pull/lift the heavy weight, etc. Given that Atlanteans are almost always portrayed as superhuman, this wouldn't necessarily be a handicap. It would also likely encourage the development of machines, to maximize human power first, and later replace it.

If, OTOH, they do have beasts of burden, then you have to consider which ones they are. If they tame whales, then they have a *giant* source of power, which would help explain their economy. Tame sharks or similar sized fish could provide rapid mounts. In all cases, though, their beasts of burden would be capable of moving in three dimensions. If its in the ocean, they can go to it.

Note that this relates to the "aquatic telepathy" power. If Atlantean society is not, by and large, capable of taming sea life, then you have the former case. . . but anyone with aquatic telepathy can, within their purview, apply the latter scenario. That's a pretty useful ability for a royal bloodline to possess.

But aren't the Atlanteans always portrayed as superhuman ON LAND, because their anatomy has evolved to complete basic human tasks in a basic human way under the stress of deep sea pressure. Which should also apply to their use of armor. I once said Atlanteans should use armor and someone argued that would be stupid underwater, but it should have the same effect on them as us wearing armor on land since that is their regular environment. I think their attachment to machines and beasts of burden should be mostly similar to their portrayal on land as far as cultural evolution. (unless that is what you said and I misread it, I feel like you were saying the opposite in a few places)
 
But aren't the Atlanteans always portrayed as superhuman ON LAND, because their anatomy has evolved to complete basic human tasks in a basic human way under the stress of deep sea pressure. Which should also apply to their use of armor. I once said Atlanteans should use armor and someone argued that would be stupid underwater, but it should have the same effect on them as us wearing armor on land since that is their regular environment. I think their attachment to machines and beasts of burden should be mostly similar to their portrayal on land as far as cultural evolution. (unless that is what you said and I misread it, I feel like you were saying the opposite in a few places)

What I am saying is more tangential: beasts of burden have a major influence on history, so one should take account of how the different ones available or not in Atlantis would effect their history. Even if they did originate on the surface and possessed a tradition of animal usage, for instance, its irrelevant once they go under. They'll have to adapt, and either succeed in domesticating new animals, or fail, either way producing effects.
 
Nobody else who's impressed by the fonts? I can't be the only one :huh:

Fir enough, but I like it a lot more than copper.
Can you do a manip with bronze color and whatever shade of green that you want, please? :)
 
What about having the letter A inside a circle like this. Should that be the design that's fronting the hero's belt?

 
He'd be likely to stab himself in the groin with the sharp ends of the "A".
 
But aren't the Atlanteans always portrayed as superhuman ON LAND, because their anatomy has evolved to complete basic human tasks in a basic human way under the stress of deep sea pressure. Which should also apply to their use of armor. I once said Atlanteans should use armor and someone argued that would be stupid underwater, but it should have the same effect on them as us wearing armor on land since that is their regular environment. I think their attachment to machines and beasts of burden should be mostly similar to their portrayal on land as far as cultural evolution. (unless that is what you said and I misread it, I feel like you were saying the opposite in a few places)
What I am saying is more tangential: beasts of burden have a major influence on history, so one should take account of how the different ones available or not in Atlantis would effect their history. Even if they did originate on the surface and possessed a tradition of animal usage, for instance, its irrelevant once they go under. They'll have to adapt, and either succeed in domesticating new animals, or fail, either way producing effects.
The movies can easily explain it the same way the Science of Superman explains their strength. That, like Superman, they exhibit great strength because they are so accustomed to moving under the great pressure of the water. On land, without that pressure, they move faster, easier, stronger, etc.
They would also be isolated so they would not have been influenced by immigration, so their beliefs and values, their religions, their customs, their clothing, architecture, etc, would not have been influenced in any way (besides minor ways) by the surface. Minor ways being our culture drifting into theirs by boats crossing over them, by boats crashing, and in recent years, by submarines, deep sea ships, plains crashing, etc. Oh, and by our trash floating in the water or sinking to the bottom.

Being isolated from our world there would be evolutions in different directions, the beasts of burden thing is true. Part of it at the very least, but I am sure more than that. And I would imagine that, for them, their way of life would seem normal and (being isolated and nothing to compare it to) they might find a way to make it easier. Perhaps using gravity, things that way less to help lift heavy objects, animals like whales to pull things, etc. But also, being under water they are always exposed to attacks from sea creatures, imagine if snakes or coyotes could fly. They would have to have ways to repel attacks from things like sharks. (and likewise, sharks would probably become accustomed to attacking humans since they now live under water.)(So, like tigers in the zoo who try to get at small children, sharks would most likely end up targeting the young, old, sick, or defenseless.) Perhaps this is where they might have evolved a semi telepathic power to sway the sea life. Or perhaps their kingdom is under constant watch or protection in some manner. Hey, maybe this is why they made Aquaman king. Because he has the power to keep the sea carnivores at bay.
What would they eat, by the way? On land we have cattle, but under water it would be hard to keep fish in one place. Do they still have to hunt for food every day? Or did they, like us, evolve to farm and keep schools of fish for food? Did they fatten them up like we do? Or do they not think like that? Maybe this is why they are stronger as well, because they either hunt for food all the time, and must know how to defend themselves at all turns from predators.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"