Aquaman movie

[Andrew NDB]

Saw that early screening of "Aquaman" (well, early for the U.S., anyway). Hey, pretty good! I should say "surprisingly" good. The previews -- to me, particularly the first one -- made it look cheesy and dumb. A real feel good movie, and I was really worried. Everything they tried to do in this worked for me, and even all (I think? I'm pretty sure) the jokes landed. It's definitely an unintentional answer to "Black Panther" in many ways, and with even more CGI. So, so much CGI... it's pretty staggering towards the end (but what are you gonna do? 80% of the movie is all underwater). Which sounds worrisome, but they make it work. Easily as good as Wonder Woman even if it isn't as "important" of a movie, and maybe -- probably -- even better. As far as the DCEU goes, to me, it probably ranks just below "Man of Steel," which I still dig despite its weaknesses (which to me are nowhere near the level of weaknesses in any DCEU movie except for maybe WW).

Only bad thing I would say is... maybe too big? Nothing didn't work for me and the pace seemed right, but... I don't know that they needed to shoot for the stars quite so high with this. All the cards are laid out: giant disaster movie stuff, thousands fighting each under in giant undersea battles, Aquaman traveling the globe, etc.... it could have been smaller in scope and lost nothing at its core.

Sad thing is, even suspecting now that this movie will be a relative hit... what is it really going to benefit in the DCEU? JL already sunk the ship. I mean, it will improve the chances of an Aquaman 2, but what about Man of Steel 2? Or anything that matters in terms of damage control? I dunno. Give James Wan Man of Steel 2, I say. But nothing is really going to fix a dead-wrong Barry Allen or a Cyborg who shouldn't even be there, or the complete absence of a Green Lantern.

They get about as much mileage out of Nicole Kidman as they did with Michelle Pfieffer in Ant Man & The Wasp, except they let Kidman really kick ass in this (or her stuntwoman, but still). One really cool rooftop continuous shot chase/fight scene stands out with Mera and Aquaman. Wowed the whole crowd.

I also notice Geoff Johns squeezed in his recent "Trench" stuff from the comics into the movie. Decades and decades of Aquaman comics to pull from, and they just do that.

[Leo656]

I'll be blunt. People who don't read comics? Their opinions on comic book movies don't matter to me. Their opinions are ignorant and should be kept to themselves. People who read comics but view them as "silly kids stuff" only suited to comedies and children's entertainment? Same thing. I do not value their input, and I don't pretend to. Hot air with no point or meaning. If you don't know what you're talking about, how can you add anything to the conversation? "Well, I liked ____ and didn't like ___"? Fine, but that's you; it has less than nothing to do with what I think/feel as a person both familiar with and heavily invested in the source material. The least a person can do, IF they insist on having a STRONG opinion (and insisting those who disagree are fools), is have a basic understanding of whatever the subject matter is.

If a person has never read a comic book, then I don't care WHAT they think about the latest Superman/Batman/X-Men/Spider-Man/Whatever-Man movie. Liked it? Fine. Hated it? Fine. But don't act like you know jack from sh*t beyond that, because you don't. And absolutely don't presume to tell me MY opinion is right or wrong. My educated opinion on the subject weighs far more than your empty one. "Well, I don't know comics, but I know what *I* like." Fine. I don't care what you like, but don't tell me you're "better" or "smarter" than me if I like something you don't, or vice-versa. THAT is what's truly "arrogant". NOT me expecting people to actually have something to stand their opinions on top of, other than, "It's my opinion."

It's okay to be ignorant, just admit you are, and don't expect others to fall in line with your opinion, or else they're "bad people" or whatever. THAT is what I take issue with.

It's okay to like "Braveheart" as a film. It's completely ignorant to say it faithfully represents its characters or its story. It's a fun movie, but it does a terrible job representing what it's supposed to be about. Do we go around calling history professors "idiots" or "elitist assholes" because they point out that film has as much basis in history as a Bazooka Joe comic? No, we don't.

A LOT of people on this forum are the "comics are silly, the movies should be silly" types, so it's no shock we disagree. It SHOULD be fine to simply disagree, but the eternal, "You like that thing I don't like, you're stupid" bullsh*t is what I can't stand about this place. Especially where it comes from, which is, again, Ignorant People convinced their word is all that carries weight, or that because it's consensus HERE, it's consensus everywhere.

TMNT fans, of all people, should never lecture ANYONE about their tastes. Not in movies, not in anything. "I'm a huge TMNT fan!" and "I know good entertainment from bad entertainment!" are 100% mutually exclusive statements. Sorry to be an "arrogant douchebag" about it, but it's worth pointing out. Just given the fact that this fanbase excels at NOTHING more than swallowing whatever sh*t they're given in the hope there's a nugget of ice cream in there. But by all means, tell people their standards are "lesser" than yours.

Nobody's "right", you're just dicks being dickish because you outnumber someone in the room, opinion-wise. When it's flipped around on you, though, you cry about it. Funny how that has worked, historically.
---------------

No, Sumac, we can't have "conversations" because you're the type who tries to get people riled up on purpose, otherwise you would have jumped off the conversation a long time ago or taken it private when I asked you to. You're just a dick, trolling people for "the lulz". Again, your very first interaction with me was to flame-bait on my "wall", which tells me everything I need to know about you as a person. That, and how you repeatedly ignored my requests for a respectful private conversation, in favor of... This. So DON'T act like you're anything other than a rag. You had a chance to prove you weren't, but you turned it down.

If I talk down to you, or anyone - which I absolutely do and won't deny - it's because they've earned it. Again, I've long given you the benefit of the doubt, and even defended you at times even though I knew better, if for no other reason than I don't like seeing people ganged up on. Recent experience has simply proven that when people go ahead and show/tell me who they are, I should definitely listen.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Saw that early screening of "Aquaman" (well, early for the U.S., anyway). Hey, pretty good! I should say "surprisingly" good. The previews -- to me, particularly the first one -- made it look cheesy and dumb. A real feel good movie, and I was really worried. (

This is good to hear, as I've had similar concerns. I think Mamoa's great in the role, though, so I figured even if I didn't love the material I'd at least enjoy his performance of it.

We're gonna go next weekend, in between all the last-minute Christmas shopping and whatnot.

I share the confusion about what the success of this movie could mean for the future, but truthfully - and keep in mind, I'm not a CEO or shareholder of a billion-dollar franchise - I don't think things are as shot as people think. I strongly feel they could have had, and could still have, a decent set-up but WB as a company is just far too over-reactionary with everything they do. If something doesn't make MCU money or get MCU rave reviews, their first instinct is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. You'll NEVER get ahead with that kind of approach. You have to "stay the course" sometimes, which is something they don't know how to do.

It's not even new to them. They've been meandering in their approach to super-hero films ever since "Batman Returns" confused and divided the audience, and they immediately did a complete 180 and responded with those lousy Schumacher flicks. I do love DC, but I've long wished they were owned by someone with a better business approach than WB.

Let's face it, the company that gave the world "Space Jam" is NEVER going to be capable of creating "high art", or even settling on a long-term creative direction. That's simply not what Warner Bros. does. And that's incredibly frustrating, sometimes. But it's why I generally fault the company, not individual directors (although the fact that I happen to enjoy their work in general does factor in, obviously). It's just not a good business environment. Especially not in a field where they jumped in "second" and were going to eternally play catch-up.

I don't know. It's a mess. But I still think if they actually sat down with Cavill, Affleck, etc., they could still figure everything out (and they really need to fight to keep those guys, because anyone else is a huge step backwards). But they'd have to completely shut out what The Competition is doing, and focus totally on themselves. And I have no faith in them to do that, because... that's what they started to do. For 5 whole minutes, and two whole movies, before they panicked, and now we're here.

Ah well. At least this sounds promising. I've always said, "Aquaman can't work as a movie", so it's nice to be proven wrong.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I'll be blunt. People who don't read comics? Their opinions on comic book movies don't matter to me. Their opinions are ignorant and should be kept to themselves.

Trimming the rest of the water, this sentence right here is incredibly hilarious and ignorant in itself.

Whether you have noticed it or not, your opinion right here is rather questionable, because, it implies that comic book movies don't have ANY value outside of how true they are to the source material. Vision of the director, script, actors - all of it doesn't matter, for you, or so you are saying.
Which basically means, that all work that those people put into the movie is meaningless for you.

It's basically saying that anyone who don't have knowledge of the source, shouldn't have or voice their opinion on the movie. It's arrogant, ignorant and plain elitist.
It's like saying that the only thing in the music that matters is a melody. Arrangement, lyrics, instruments - none of that matters. According to your theory it means that someone can take Bohemian Rhapsody, make an absolutely horrendous arragement of it on the empty beer cans and you will consider it a masterpiece, since it's the Bohemian Rhapsody!!

Honestly, I can understand devotion to the franchise, but this is really is puzzling.

Of course, there is possibility that I have misunderstood and you wanted to say something different, but I feel like it might not be the case.

Originally Posted by Leo656

If a person has never read a comic book, then I don't care WHAT they think about the latest Superman/Batman/X-Men/Spider-Man/Whatever-Man movie. Liked it? Fine. Hated it? Fine. But don't act like you know jack from sh*t beyond that, because you don't. And absolutely don't presume to tell me MY opinion is right or wrong. My educated opinion on the subject weighs far more than your empty one. "Well, I don't know comics, but I know what *I* like." Fine. I don't care what you like, but don't tell me you're "better" or "smarter" than me if I like something you don't, or vice-versa. THAT is what's truly "arrogant". NOT me expecting people to actually have something to stand their opinions on top of, other than, "It's my opinion."

Pretending that your opinion on the adaptation outweighs someone else's, because, you have knowledge of the source material is an epitome of arrogance.

It's like as if I've said: "My opinion on (another) Sherlock Holmes is supperior to yours, because, I know source material!!"

So what? How and why this should invalidate opinion of the people about a movie? Especially, if said movie, takes a lot of liberties with the characters and the setting?

It doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's okay to be ignorant, just admit you are, and don't expect others to fall in line with your opinion, or else they're "bad people" or whatever. THAT is what I take issue with.

It's not about knowledge.
It's about quality.

If adaptation is ****, the fact that it is an adaptation of the great story, won't save it. It SHOULD NOT save it. And defending questionable work by claiming it was adapted from a good source material is a deflection and actually removed from actual discussion about quality of the movie.

And applicable to that discussion: I am not criticizing MOS or BVS on the merit of their core stories. There are some interesting ideas here and there. And, under any other circustances I would have a great respect for the director who didn't fear to take such familiar characters and make a bold adaptation of some of their iconic stories.

However, in the case of those movies, great vision was impaired by multitude of imperfections, like actor perfomance, pacing, writing, which had buried all the potential greatness under a pile of clumsy.

There are many nuances in how you can make something. There is a difference between making story epic or self-indulging / arrogant / pretentious. Like making actors give over-the-top perfomance which is creepy and over-the-top which is hilarious and juvenille.

This is what my criticism of those movies about.
Not whether core stories were any good. But about those nuances.

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's okay to like "Braveheart" as a film. It's completely ignorant to say it faithfully represents its characters or its story. It's a fun movie, but it does a terrible job representing what it's supposed to be about. Do we go around calling history professors "idiots" or "elitist assholes" because they point out that film has as much basis in history as a Bazooka Joe comic? No, we don't.

I have a better question: do those professor call out moviegoers for liking this movie?

And do those prfessors say, that any opinion about this movie is invalid unless viewer had spend several years reading history books about an actual even and characters?

Originally Posted by Leo656

A LOT of people on this forum are the "comics are silly, the movies should be silly" types, so it's no shock we disagree.

Let me stop your needless elitist preaching right here and state that I've never EVER had said that comic book movies should be silly.

I can even go further and say that I do not consider comic books silly.

Comic books are just another type of media, which can be anything. Funny or scary, thoughtprovoking or batshit insane.

You like to assume a lot, but you know what they say about people who assume to much...

Originally Posted by Leo656

"I'm a huge TMNT fan!" and "I know good entertainment from bad entertainment!" are 100% mutually exclusive statements.

Not really.
It might shock you, but people can enjoy things of dubious quality and admit that what they are enjoying is not perfect or even good.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Just given the fact that this fanbase excels at NOTHING more than swallowing whatever sh*t they're given in the hope there's a nugget of ice cream in there. But by all means, tell people their standards are "lesser" than yours.

Or people can just enjoy different things, without calling out others on "how dare you enjoy something that is not 100% true to the mood and canon of the HOLY SOURCE!!!!"

Originally Posted by Leo656

Nobody's "right", you're just dicks being dickish because you outnumber someone in the room, opinion-wise. When it's flipped around on you, though, you cry about it. Funny how that has worked, historically.

Whatever, dude.

Truth is, you've got all butthurt (again) when someone touched your precious Superman and this is what it's all about.

Originally Posted by Leo656

No, Sumac, we can't have "conversations" because you're the type who tries to get people riled up on purpose, otherwise you would have jumped off the conversation a long time ago or taken it private when I asked you to. You're just a dick, trolling people for "the lulz". Again, your very first interaction with me was to flame-bait on my "wall", which tells me everything I need to know about you as a person. That, and how you repeatedly ignored my requests for a respectful private conversation, in favor of... This. So DON'T act like you're anything other than a rag. You had a chance to prove you weren't, but you turned it down.

And a good helping of personal attacks.
You are the cutest.

I have my own personal style of arguing and it might (and usually will) ruffle few feathers here and there. If it is all that takes you to fly of the rails like this, boy, you do have a problem.

Originally Posted by Leo656

If I talk down to you, or anyone - which I absolutely do and won't deny - it's because they've earned it. Again, I've long given you the benefit of the doubt, and even defended you at times even though I knew better, if for no other reason than I don't like seeing people ganged up on. Recent experience has simply proven that when people go ahead and show/tell me who they are, I should definitely listen.

"I hurt people only when they've deserved it!"
Totally not arrogant.
Totally sane.

What your Superman would've said about such proclamation?

[Andrew NDB]

lol, what is it with you two? You get along so great about politics, it's just everything else...

To be fair, if TPTB did a picture-perfect adaptation of the Fred Wolf TMNT cartoon, I would say that was sh*t. Because the Fred Wolf TMNT is sh*t. But if someone were to tell me, "F*** you, Andrew, Fred Wolf TMNT is awesome and this is an awesome movie!" I guess that would be fair.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

lol, what is it with you two? You get along so great about politics, it's just everything else...

An art is more important than mere politricks!

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

lol, what is it with you two? You get along so great about politics, it's just everything else...

Just another person where, if I end up agreeing with them about anything at all, I know that I'm wrong, and have to re-evaluate everything.

Ignoring giant wall of flame-bait text, because this sh*t's ridiculous and circular.

It'd be fine if any person didn't like a movie, or a game, or ANY "thing", without adding all the "Only things that meet my criteria are Good, anyone who disagrees is a moron" bullsh*t. I've been railing against that nonsense for many years longer than This Guy's been here.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It'd be fine if any person didn't like a movie, or a game, or ANY "thing", without adding all the "Only things that meet my criteria are Good, anyone who disagrees is a moron" bullsh*t. I've been railing against that nonsense for many years longer than This Guy's been here.

I don't say that only things I say are good.
And when that something is not good, I can back it up, with more than "it is close to the source material, therefore it is good!"

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Sumac

I don't say that only things I say are good.
And when that something is not good, I can back it up, with more than "it is close to the source material, therefore it is good!"

Yeah, you kinda do lean on your opinion being all that matters, and dismiss anything other people think/feel, even when they explain what informs their position. That's not conversation.

I had a better reply but the forum ghosts ate it, and I have to go back to work.