Jason Momoa Says His Aquaman Costume Is Inspired by ?Pollution?

[LordLundar]

You do realise the last Avengers movie had one of the members creating Ultron and the team recruiting a terrorist. Not to mention they have Hulk and Black Widow as teammates.

Yes I do. I also realize that in EVERY MCU movie (also the cartoons AND comics) Marvel characters actively put effort to contain the collateral damage to as small of area as possible and STILL have people questioning whether they're heroes or sanctioned psychopaths. Contrast to the DCU where no character even bothers with containment, often times spreading out the destruction and being directly responsible for it, then praised while buildings are near collapse or collapsing.

 

[Lightknight]

Because it bastardizes DC's characters. They are paragon good characters facing classic evils. We have precious little of that and Marvel isn't doing that either. Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope, of man's best. It's only in the more recent variants that we're exploring hypocrisy or something like that. So the movies we're getting aren't true to DC so much as just variant explorations. That would be cool if we also got to see the true blue adaptations of the traditional characters too albeit in modern settings of course.

So not reading your mind and giving you exactly what you want to see is 'bastardizing' the characters. I don't see how approaching characters from different angles/perspectives is being disrespectful, especially when these characters have been around for so long and especially when comics often do reboots and make changes to characters (Marvel's Ultimate line, for example).

No, for example, they are making Emo Superman, they are not making Superman. It isn't just in my mind, it's present in their myriad box office failures.

 

[Cicada 5]

You do realise the last Avengers movie had one of the members creating Ultron and the team recruiting a terrorist. Not to mention they have Hulk and Black Widow as teammates.

Yes I do. I also realize that in EVERY MCU movie (also the cartoons AND comics) Marvel characters actively put effort to contain the collateral damage to as small of area as possible and STILL have people questioning whether they're heroes or sanctioned psychopaths. Contrast to the DCU where no character even bothers with containment, often times spreading out the destruction and being directly responsible for it, then praised while buildings are near collapse or collapsing.

Most of the people questioning the MCU heroes are the villains or straw man characters the audience isn't meant to take seriously ( the senator in Iron Man 2 who is revealed to be a Hydra member or pretty much any government agent in X-Men.)

The 'cheers' that Superman received in MoS amounted to one person saying "he saved us". The trailers clearly show the public outraged at his actions which actually will be an important part of the plot (as opposed to the MCU where it will be ignored save for a few throwaway lines).

You're gonna have to point to me where the Hulk is shown avoiding collateral damage. The Avengers only pull this off as a team against moons that ludicrously easy to defeat (Superman at least has the excuse of being inexperienced when fighting and being one man against an entire army).

I'm gonna assume you've only read a few DC comics and are assuming that the heroes don't try to avoid collateral damage or the fact that collateral damage can occur in SPITE of their efforts to stop it. to say nothing of Marvel characters being just as guilty when it comes to collateral damage. There are multiple scenes involving Spider-Man taunting opponents into smashing or shooting up surrounding environments, the Hulk rampaging across cities or the X-Men and the Brotherhood engaging in what may look like mutant gang wars to ordinary citizens.

Don't even get me started on the number of story arcs that revolve around Marvel heroes fighting each other over petty arguments. In fact, the MCU is adapting one of those stories right now. And who can forget Thor and Tony's pointless fight on the Avengers.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

Because it bastardizes DC's characters. They are paragon good characters facing classic evils. We have precious little of that and Marvel isn't doing that either. Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope, of man's best. It's only in the more recent variants that we're exploring hypocrisy or something like that. So the movies we're getting aren't true to DC so much as just variant explorations. That would be cool if we also got to see the true blue adaptations of the traditional characters too albeit in modern settings of course.

So not reading your mind and giving you exactly what you want to see is 'bastardizing' the characters. I don't see how approaching characters from different angles/perspectives is being disrespectful, especially when these characters have been around for so long and especially when comics often do reboots and make changes to characters (Marvel's Ultimate line, for example).

No, for example, they are making Emo Superman, they are not making Superman. It isn't just in my mind, it's present in their myriad box office failures.

So an alien with godlike powers who doesn't know where he comes from, who knows he'll always be different from the people who share the planet he calls home, wonders what his purpose in life is and weighs the consequences of the revelation of his existence... therefore, he's emo? Superman has every right to brood, moreso than Batman. This interpretation of Superman is just as valid as the versions you enjoy, so get over it.

 

[laggyteabag]

Meh, just seems like an excuse to do the dark gritty gritty again.

"And here we have Aquaman, one of DCs most colourful superheores"

"Well, that is great, John, but like, how do we make him look all... grey and boring?"

"Uh, well, sea pollution?"

"Perfect, John! You are getting a raise!"

 

[Lightknight]

So an alien with godlike powers who doesn't know where he comes from, who knows he'll always be different from the people who share the planet he calls home, wonders what his purpose in life is and weighs the consequences of the revelation of his existence... therefore, he's emo? Superman has every right to brood, moreso than Batman. This interpretation of Superman is just as valid as the versions you enjoy, so get over it.

Someone disagrees with you on the internet? Why don't you get over it (it being that I would prefer a mainstream portrayal instead of these director's "inspired versions")? Look, don't tell me what to do. Keep it at why you think I'm wrong. Let's keep this directed at our positions, eh?

He's emo because he hovers around in the dark and broods. Keep in mind I'm talking 2006, not 2013.

The idea is that they are shooting themselves in the foot. You may just adore emo superman and I'm glad they made movies that you enjoyed. But it clearly didn't work.

Then they made action hero superman which did work but for the wrong reasons (panned critically but fun to watch). It worked as an action film but it could have been any superhero that could fly and had super strength and absolutely place no value on the mass murder of humans during battles being fought.

So they're appropriating the brand name to carry out a drastically different version of Superman. You're right that it's their prerogative to do so as they please, but they are evidently missing out on a significant market opportunity of traditional fans. Customers who have gone a tremendous way to reward Marvel for their work. Now, perhaps Marvel's characters just lend themselves to film well. Maybe, but it'd be nice to see a movie once in a while where the hero is just a good guy and the bad guys are just bad. There's a lot of fun to be had by demonstrating the superman of wonder and love of mankind. There's a lot of meat on those bones that I don't think have ever been tackled.

Batman, I understand why he's where he's at and I'd say his darker form has always been under the surface even in Adam West days even though the comics white washed everything to the point of extreme campiness. The flash on TV is doing a pretty darn good job of the Flash along those lines. A little brooding here over his past and the we're back to the story and his humor.

If they're just going to take Aquaman and make him into Namor, then so be it. At least they're doing it with a very unpopular character (to the point of being a laughingstock) and before Marvel gets to it.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Wasnt there a skit in Family Guy where Aquaman washes up on a beach after have got his head trapped in them plastic 4 pack holders? lol

 

[Cicada 5]

So an alien with godlike powers who doesn't know where he comes from, who knows he'll always be different from the people who share the planet he calls home, wonders what his purpose in life is and weighs the consequences of the revelation of his existence... therefore, he's emo? Superman has every right to brood, moreso than Batman. This interpretation of Superman is just as valid as the versions you enjoy, so get over it.

Someone disagrees with you on the internet? Why don't you get over it (it being that I would prefer a mainstream portrayal instead of these director's "inspired versions")? Look, don't tell me what to do. Keep it at why you think I'm wrong. Let's keep this directed at our positions, eh?

He's emo because he hovers around in the dark and broods. Keep in mind I'm talking 2006, not 2013.

The idea is that they are shooting themselves in the foot. You may just adore emo superman and I'm glad they made movies that you enjoyed. But it clearly didn't work.

Then they made action hero superman which did work but for the wrong reasons (panned critically but fun to watch). It worked as an action film but it could have been any superhero that could fly and had super strength and absolutely place no value on the mass murder of humans during battles being fought.

So they're appropriating the brand name to carry out a drastically different version of Superman. You're right that it's their prerogative to do so as they please, but they are evidently missing out on a significant market opportunity of traditional fans. Customers who have gone a tremendous way to reward Marvel for their work. Now, perhaps Marvel's characters just lend themselves to film well. Maybe, but it'd be nice to see a movie once in a while where the hero is just a good guy and the bad guys are just bad. There's a lot of fun to be had by demonstrating the superman of wonder and love of mankind. There's a lot of meat on those bones that I don't think have ever been tackled.

Batman, I understand why he's where he's at and I'd say his darker form has always been under the surface even in Adam West days even though the comics white washed everything to the point of extreme campiness. The flash on TV is doing a pretty darn good job of the Flash along those lines. A little brooding here over his past and the we're back to the story and his humor.

If they're just going to take Aquaman and make him into Namor, then so be it. At least they're doing it with a very unpopular character (to the point of being a laughingstock) and before Marvel gets to it.

It's not as if dark stories are something alien (excuse the pun) to Superman comics. Kingdom Come, Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow, John Byrne's Superman run (which featured Superman killing Zod), Red Son etc. And again, MoS wasn't that dark. When I think of the darkest comic book movies I think Burton's Batman, V for Vendetta, the Nolan Bat films.

 

[Lightknight]

So an alien with godlike powers who doesn't know where he comes from, who knows he'll always be different from the people who share the planet he calls home, wonders what his purpose in life is and weighs the consequences of the revelation of his existence... therefore, he's emo? Superman has every right to brood, moreso than Batman. This interpretation of Superman is just as valid as the versions you enjoy, so get over it.

Someone disagrees with you on the internet? Why don't you get over it (it being that I would prefer a mainstream portrayal instead of these director's "inspired versions")? Look, don't tell me what to do. Keep it at why you think I'm wrong. Let's keep this directed at our positions, eh?

He's emo because he hovers around in the dark and broods. Keep in mind I'm talking 2006, not 2013.

The idea is that they are shooting themselves in the foot. You may just adore emo superman and I'm glad they made movies that you enjoyed. But it clearly didn't work.

Then they made action hero superman which did work but for the wrong reasons (panned critically but fun to watch). It worked as an action film but it could have been any superhero that could fly and had super strength and absolutely place no value on the mass murder of humans during battles being fought.

So they're appropriating the brand name to carry out a drastically different version of Superman. You're right that it's their prerogative to do so as they please, but they are evidently missing out on a significant market opportunity of traditional fans. Customers who have gone a tremendous way to reward Marvel for their work. Now, perhaps Marvel's characters just lend themselves to film well. Maybe, but it'd be nice to see a movie once in a while where the hero is just a good guy and the bad guys are just bad. There's a lot of fun to be had by demonstrating the superman of wonder and love of mankind. There's a lot of meat on those bones that I don't think have ever been tackled.

Batman, I understand why he's where he's at and I'd say his darker form has always been under the surface even in Adam West days even though the comics white washed everything to the point of extreme campiness. The flash on TV is doing a pretty darn good job of the Flash along those lines. A little brooding here over his past and the we're back to the story and his humor.

If they're just going to take Aquaman and make him into Namor, then so be it. At least they're doing it with a very unpopular character (to the point of being a laughingstock) and before Marvel gets to it.

It's not as if dark stories are something alien (excuse the pun) to Superman comics. Kingdom Come, Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow, John Byrne's Superman run (which featured Superman killing Zod), Red Son etc. And again, MoS wasn't that dark. When I think of the darkest comic book movies I think Burton's Batman, V for Vendetta, the Nolan Bat films.

Oh man, Red Son and/or Kingdom Come would be fantastic if they could afford that kind of production.

But this is exactly it. They happen as a special occasion. They aren't the standard of Superman. We have so many anti-heroes and Superman is really meant, above all else, to be THE paragon of heroes. We can have all of these dark Superman variants. But they took it too far in 2006 and got a slap on the wrist for it (in the form of not a very good ROI by their standards and having to reboot the franchise). Or, more like, they tried to pitch general mainstream superman as dark and that he aint. If they want dark or gritty, it's those other things they should do and I would eat them up. But Mainstream Superman should be a good and honest hero trying to do right against huge odds. Shit can go wrong along the way but at the end he should be the inequitable victor. Not "Oh, but tens of thousands of people died while he was failing and he didn't seem to care about being tossed through a skyscraper and so many people died or really even try to move the fight elsewhere like he does in the comics".

That being said, I am still looking forward to seeing him in Batman vs. Superman. That basically is like one of those Red Son varieties that I can suspend disbelief.

They can probably make several superman dark films and succeed if they get the right writing and director. But I must maintain that it won't do justice if we never get the paragon again either.

 

[Cicada 5]

So an alien with godlike powers who doesn't know where he comes from, who knows he'll always be different from the people who share the planet he calls home, wonders what his purpose in life is and weighs the consequences of the revelation of his existence... therefore, he's emo? Superman has every right to brood, moreso than Batman. This interpretation of Superman is just as valid as the versions you enjoy, so get over it.

Someone disagrees with you on the internet? Why don't you get over it (it being that I would prefer a mainstream portrayal instead of these director's "inspired versions")? Look, don't tell me what to do. Keep it at why you think I'm wrong. Let's keep this directed at our positions, eh?

He's emo because he hovers around in the dark and broods. Keep in mind I'm talking 2006, not 2013.

The idea is that they are shooting themselves in the foot. You may just adore emo superman and I'm glad they made movies that you enjoyed. But it clearly didn't work.

Then they made action hero superman which did work but for the wrong reasons (panned critically but fun to watch). It worked as an action film but it could have been any superhero that could fly and had super strength and absolutely place no value on the mass murder of humans during battles being fought.

So they're appropriating the brand name to carry out a drastically different version of Superman. You're right that it's their prerogative to do so as they please, but they are evidently missing out on a significant market opportunity of traditional fans. Customers who have gone a tremendous way to reward Marvel for their work. Now, perhaps Marvel's characters just lend themselves to film well. Maybe, but it'd be nice to see a movie once in a while where the hero is just a good guy and the bad guys are just bad. There's a lot of fun to be had by demonstrating the superman of wonder and love of mankind. There's a lot of meat on those bones that I don't think have ever been tackled.

Batman, I understand why he's where he's at and I'd say his darker form has always been under the surface even in Adam West days even though the comics white washed everything to the point of extreme campiness. The flash on TV is doing a pretty darn good job of the Flash along those lines. A little brooding here over his past and the we're back to the story and his humor.

If they're just going to take Aquaman and make him into Namor, then so be it. At least they're doing it with a very unpopular character (to the point of being a laughingstock) and before Marvel gets to it.

It's not as if dark stories are something alien (excuse the pun) to Superman comics. Kingdom Come, Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow, John Byrne's Superman run (which featured Superman killing Zod), Red Son etc. And again, MoS wasn't that dark. When I think of the darkest comic book movies I think Burton's Batman, V for Vendetta, the Nolan Bat films.

Oh man, Red Son and/or Kingdom Come would be fantastic if they could afford that kind of production.

But this is exactly it. They happen as a special occasion. They aren't the standard of Superman. We have so many anti-heroes and Superman is really meant, above all else, to be THE paragon of heroes. We can have all of these dark Superman variants. But they took it too far in 2006 and got a slap on the wrist for it (in the form of not a very good ROI by their standards and having to reboot the franchise). Or, more like, they tried to pitch general mainstream superman as dark and that he aint. If they want dark or gritty, it's those other things they should do and I would eat them up. But Mainstream Superman should be a good and honest hero trying to do right against huge odds. Shit can go wrong along the way but at the end he should be the inequitable victor. Not "Oh, but tens of thousands of people died while he was failing and he didn't seem to care about being tossed through a skyscraper and so many people died or really even try to move the fight elsewhere like he does in the comics".

That being said, I am still looking forward to seeing him in Batman vs. Superman. That basically is like one of those Red Son varieties that I can suspend disbelief.

They can probably make several superman dark films and succeed if they get the right writing and director. But I must maintain that it won't do justice if we never get the paragon again either.

Okay what is it about MoS Superman that makes him so dark? The feelings of isolation from others? Superman's been like that even in some Silver Age stories. Killing Zod? Again the comics have done that and killing off supervillains is so common thses days even Disney protagonists are doing it. The Avengers have been doing it for several movies now. The destruction? Most of that is Zod's fault and again this is a Superman with zero fighting experience.