5 Reasons Why ‘Aquaman’ Could Be the Next Big DC Superhero Movie

Published 2 years ago by , Updated September 4th, 2014 at 7:31 am,

Aquaman Movie Justice League Discussion 5 Reasons Why Aquaman Could Be the Next Big DC Superhero Movie

With the success of both Man of Steel and The Dark Knight Trilogy comes renewed evidence that DC Comics and Warner Bros.’ flagship superheros are respectively worthy of supporting big-budget movie franchises – but what about those other heroes like Wonder Woman, The Flash or even Aquaman?

The future of DC’s Movieverse is still uncertain – which is why we have plenty of time to discuss the merits of each and every one of these “second tier” heroes on the DC roster. In this installment, we’ll pitch you on 5 reasons that Aquaman could be THE next big DC/WB movie franchise.

Do you agree with our reasoning? Or is the “King of Fish” too silly for the big screen? READ ON and then decide for yourself…

The Story

Aquaman Justice League Jason Momoa Discussion 5 Reasons Why Aquaman Could Be the Next Big DC Superhero Movie

Part of the formula for success for DC superhero movies has been the adherence to telling character-centric stories set in a “real-world” context. In keeping with that formulaic blueprint, it’s not hard to see why Aquaman could be a winner.

At its core, the identity struggles of a man from two different worlds is relatable enough (see: Man of Steel) – but in a day and age where “the environment” is a hot-button term, and the wrath of the sea (hurricanes, tsunamis) are daily fears, Aquaman’s story can encompass topics and themes that no other superhero really can (mankind’s relationship to Nature, etc.).

Forget the silly CW pilot or that faux James Cameron film on Entourage – a serious-minded Aquaman movie could have something relevant and timely to say, given the chance.

The Characters

Aquaman Movie vs Ocean Master 5 Reasons Why Aquaman Could Be the Next Big DC Superhero Movie

There’s no good story without good characters, and Aquaman has good characters to spare. The man himself is an obvious metaphor for identity struggles (particularly in a modern world of increasing multi-culturalism), but Aquaman’s mythos is filled with strong female characters (Mera); alien races (Atlanteans, the Trench); an evil half-brother (Ocean Master); and even a black archnemesis (Black Manta). As far as “dramatis personae” go, Aquaman is pretty solid.

Moreover, thanks to modern creators like Geoff Johns, the characters in Aquaman have already been fleshed-out and modernized enough that they could attract a cast of high-caliber actors, with the central role open to any chiseled leading man on the brink of stardom (read our suggestions for actors to play Aquaman).

The Setting

Aquaman Movie Message Discussion 5 Reasons Why Aquaman Could Be the Next Big DC Superhero Movie

Aquaman would no doubt be set on dry land during Arthur Curry’s formative years (living with his human father, Tom Curry), but after a (now-standard) hop through his troubled adolescence (hearing sea creatures, being drawn like an addict to the ocean) we could literally dive into a whole new world for superhero films to explore: the deep sea.

Being a real-life quasi-hydrophobe, the thing that terrifies me about the ocean is that it’s literally an alien terrain whose full depths we have never fully uncovered. That mystery leaves infinite possibilities for imaginative Cinematic storytelling.

The beautiful lost city of Atlantis? Terrifying regions of the deep? Freakish creatures and beasts born of the ocean (see: recent Aquaman storyline “The Trench”)? This movie could have all of the above.

The Technology

Aquaman Movie Setting Discussion 5 Reasons Why Aquaman Could Be the Next Big DC Superhero Movie

If you haven’t heard, this guy named Jim Cameron is hard at work on some revolutionary technology for Avatar 2, a small sequel film that will try to bring the world visual effects related to the ocean and water that we’ve never seen before. While it’s a whole separate discussion what this new filmmaking tech will mean for the world of Pandora, one clear fringe benefit of Cameron’s tinkering could be revolutionary and kick-ass Aquaman movie experience (in 3D).

Again, the freaky (or fascinating) thing about the ocean is how mysterious it remains, even in modern times. Cameron will get first jump on showing action sequences set in much more realistic underwater settings, but DC/WB could be the first to really capture what it is for a superhero to use his ocean-based powers in combat. Aquaman kicking ass like the ‘Superman of the sea’ that he is? Yes please.


Justice League Movie Aquaman Matt Damon 5 Reasons Why Aquaman Could Be the Next Big DC Superhero Movie

The difficulty of the DC Movieverse going forward is not so much figuring out how to chronicle the origins of its major characters (the “Nolan approach” seems to be doing that just fine) – the real challenge from here on out will be figuring out how to position those individual character stories around one major milestone: the world debut of Superman.

Whether an Aquaman movie takes place before or after the events of Man of Steel, one good thing about it is that its unique setting (an underwater world) is an almost guaranteed way to side-step the annoying question of ‘Why doesn’t Superman just show up and handle it?’ Superman has a world to watch over – but it ain’t the world of the sea. An Aquaman saga could play out under the ocean without Superman intervention, and nobody would likely be bothered.

Furthermore, the emergence of the Man of Steel and world-altering events of the Kryptonian invasion are all events that could catalyze events in an Aquaman story, by serving as the inspirtation of an Atlantean attack on the surface, or Superman inspiring Aquaman to make a choice about his identity etc… In short: this character would be easy to position within the Justice League movie canon.

Justice League Movie Members New 52 5 Reasons Why Aquaman Could Be the Next Big DC Superhero Movie

Below you’ll find a quick recap of why we believe an Aquaman movie could be the next successful superhero blockbuster for DC Comics and Warner Bros. Do you agree with our reasoning? Let us know in the comments!

  •  The Story – Aquaman is a richly complex character with an epic origin story.
  • The Characters – They’re diverse, three-dimensional, modern and perfect star vehicles.
  • The Setting – Superhero action beneath the seas? Yes Please!
  • The Technology – Given where film tech is headed, the visual splendor of Aquaman could be unmatched by anything else in the genre.
  • Continuity – We need the next chapter in the Justice League saga, and this is a perfect fit.


We’ll Keep you updated on the status of the DC Movieverse as more information is released. For now, catch Man of Steel in theaters.

[All Artwork is the Property of DC Comics]

Follow Kofi Outlaw on Twitter @ppnkof
Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. An Aquaman movie = the ultimate character redemption ever to be seen in a movie

    • If DC/WB can accomplish that task they deserve the Nobel Prize.

    • Am I the only one that thinks Stephen Amell needs to be cast in one of these roles? I’m thinking Batman, but why not Aquaman? If you watch Arrow, he’s great! He’s definitely got some kick-a$$ skills and has the anti-hero role nailed down…. Better watch it or Marvel will snatch him up!

      • If he’s not a slightly bigger name, it won’t happen. they’ll need at least a B-Name actor to play Aquaman or the Flash to successfully get it off the ground. For example, Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, and Jeremy Renner already had established movie careers prior to their roles in the MCU. Chris Hemsworth is the exception, but his brother was already a bigger name, (due to romance movies granted), but Chris was in Star Trek, and he’s definitely a looker for the ladies. Usually TV actors don’t jump ship so quickly. And Arrow is so popular, Stephen will stick where he knows he works. It’s not a bad idea grant you, I could definitely see him as the Sub-Mariner, or even maybe Darkseid, but I don’t see WB asking him to quit a highly watched show in favor of a movie that would only have a 50-50 shot. Same goes fro MARVEL for asking him to totally switch sides. Just sayin.

      • Or maybe we could cast him as Green Arrow.

    • Geoff Johns has already accomplished the same in the comics with AQUAMAN in the New 52!

  2. +1 my friend ….and its first villian BLACK MANTA

    • Ocean Master.

      • I say have Ocean Master use the terrorist Black Manta to start a crisis in the Atlantis and thus opens conflict for the throne and war to the surface world

        • Agreed

  3. But Aquaman, you cannot marry a woman without gills. You’re from two different worlds. Oh, I have wasted my life.

    • CBG! nice.

    • “oh dear I’ve wasted my life-“

      • It’s “Oh, I’ve wasted my life.” There’s no “dear,” Atomic Gumshoe, and Brian missed the contraction.

        Clearly neither of you have wasted your lives nearly enough 😉

  4. Haven’t seen Superman yet (not out in Australia) but think I might of just stumbled across a spoiler in this article. But of warning next time? Cheers guys, love your work!

    • dont go bro just go watch it TRUST me

    • There are ZERO spoilers in the article. Nothing a ‘Man of Steel’ trailer hasn’t already shown.

  5. Want.
    Man o’ Steel had some very aquaman parts, saving kids from drowning and saving sailors.

    • Also that mention of something like Project/Operation “Trident”

      • My head went to Aquaman there! Not sure if that was intentional or not.

    • but hopefully the aquaman tale doesnt have to be an origin of him but one of him becoming king of atlantis and gaining his full power.

      • Make him the “villain” of MoS2 as he takes on the surface world for the damage the world engine did to his kingdom espacially the one superman fought.

        • They’ve tried that before (Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer), it didn’t work. It’s a decent thought, but I don’t see it working. Superman is Superman, and should be about Superman.

  6. actually tSPOLIER……………………when the world machine hit the india ocean they can have a scene in aquaman while fighting that machine goes off during their fight

    • the first thing i thought of was aquaman during that scene

    • Yes and in the Aquaman movie they could address why it a day time at both sides of the world

      • I thought it looked like the sun was on the horizon, like it was evening in Metropolis and morning in the South China Sea.

      • lmao that would be great. huge plot hole!

    • Plus, we see like a simulation of the gravity pulse crossing the planet’s core. Maybe that could be the event that triggers an Atlantis in chaos, resentment toward the surface world which has attracted greater conflict than before, and the awakening of creatures in the deep!

      • …You’re on to something. I like it.

  7. I think the idea that there have always been these races and stuff under the sea is kind of corny but I think if it could somehow be aliens coming to earth and surviving in water because water is there a natural habitat than that could be right for an Aquaman movie story line and let me in DBD Atlantean storyline but I think the idea that all of this is always existed under the sea would be kind of corny…. Maybe aliens coming here and setting up shop under the And iimbuescreatures with abilities that would be something

  8. As Jeff Dunham says in his act.. “Aquaman?? He has the same powers as Sponge Bob”

    Not interested in this….

    • Many people are uninterested in what Jeff Dunham has to say.

      • Haha.

        Snip snap Cody!

      • +1 Including me.

  9. Because Marvel hasn’t introduced Sub-Mariner to screens YET. Marvel will have Quicksilver on screens before DC could get the Flash, so they need to stake a claim.

    I know, I know they are “completly different” characters. But to movie audiences it won’t matter.

    • Most of Kofi’s bullet points could apply to Namor as well. Namor is more compelling and complex. However, that of what you say is the trump card. WB/DC would, in fact, get an upper hand in this area.

      • It’s obnoxious insofar as the Flash is the original, and Quicksilver the copy, but on the other hand Namor is the original, and Aquaman the rip-off.

      • Flash is more universally recognized though.

        • Yeah, but we’re gonna see Quicksilver in a movie first; and any Flash movie is probably going to be compared to the Avengers 2 now, because WB hasn’t given us Flash yet. Kinda gets in my craw. And characters relative popularity can change over time; just ask Captain Marvel (SHAZAM!).

  10. I’m sorry but it’s really hard for me to get on-board with underwater humaniods being involved with anything claiming to be serious.

    If you want to stay “grounded in reality” and have “science based” arguments for super-powers… I really, really want to see how underwater people are spun.

    Underwater people is about as dumb as it gets.

    I have eyes that blink, arms and legs, feet and hands, my head is on-top of my shoulders, I am in no way shape or form adapted to be underwater but… LOOK I’M UNDERWATER!

    It’s lame. I understand the enthusiasm for the way the new 52 has spun the character, but it still doesn’t change why Aquaman is the butt of a joke.

    • Lolol agreed. It is, aquaman should be ignored for the live action movies. Superman, batman, wonder woman, GL and flash seems like plenty for a start (trilogy even). Why keep adding more and more characters? Martian manhunter, hawkman, cyborg, aquaman… Meh who cares.

      • Joss Whedon just heard you he said that Black Panther and the twins won’t be appearing on the Avengers anymore, he’ll stick to Iron Man movies.

    • No more “dumb” than Kryptonians evolving on another planet to look exactly like earth people IMO. Or that 18,000 year old Kryptonian technology is essentially the same as the most recent tech, and can interact with it flawlessly.

      I didn’t like MOS, but non-adherence to logic wasn’t the reason. I’m willing to set aside a good chunk of rationality and try and enjoy a SH movie.

      • As would I… no doubt…

        … just have never been a real big fan of the concept is all.

        • That’s understandable. I never understood any appeal of Thor, but I do think he worked in the ensemble.

          But the “realism” route is an invitation to scrutiny, I’ll agree.

      • Its a time paradox thing. Something about a wormhole and the bending of time. The prequel comic hinted at Supergirl so who knows.

    • You know what? Just make it simple and grounded. Make Aquaman an actual human (HomoSapien) that is able to live underwater because of his civilization’s advanced technology. Most underwater species can communicate through sound waves. What if Atlantis had this technology to decode the language to recognize when sea animals are endanger from the surface world. The breathing under water could be a device that imprinted in the throat that filters oxygen out of the water (we can do that now) because water is just H2O (Hydrogen and Oxygen in a bond). The “Superpowers” could be adaptations from living under the sea. The water pressure caused Aquaman – and the people of Atlantis – to develop robust strength, amazing swimming ability. Atlantis wasn’t always underwater (according to theory). Make Atlantis with a dome around it, using the sea water surrounding the dome as a source for air.

  11. SPOILER!!!!!!!!

    Actually someone on Atlantis could have caused the oil platform explosion at the beginning of the MOS film

    • the oil rigged perdiction is soooooo epic kudos to you @beto

    • Or BP! 😉

      • Pretty sure they changed their name to DP now, right?

        • Oh, that’s right! I’m sorry…

          I’m sorry…




      • Good One

    • That’s stupid because causing an explosion to oil rigs means a lot of oil in the ocean itself causing a lot of harm to marine life. That kind of defeats their purpose in preserving the worlds habitat don’t you think?

      • Black manta did it to spread the oil in the ocean so that aquaman would get angry and blame the surface world. Aquaman attacks the surface world and a weakened atlantis gets invaded by black manta. It writes itself, though personally i hope the whole people living under the sea doesnt exist in the new DC live action reality

        • Or maybe not absolutely everything that happens happens because of Aquaman and Friends.

    • I can dig honestly.
      Black Manta is the cause. Divides Atlantis into factions. The rightful heir to the throne is in question. Civil conflict in Atlantis combined with threats from Manta, and escalated aggression towards the surface world.

      Then add the mysterious Trench creatures that may or may not have been awaken from some sort of gravity pulse that traveled between two different poles through the planet’s core. 😉

      Arthur Curry has his work cut out for him.
      Little does he know is that all of this is his half-brother’s schemes to climb the ladder of the ensuing chaos to become the true oceans’ master.

      Ambitious but I dig it.

  12. I hope they Cast Tim Curry… as Tom Curry. Easy win right?

  13. “With the success of both Man of Steel and The Dark Knight Trilogy…”

    Nice try. Man of Steel was financially successful but it was a critical and creative failure.

    • Thank you, Stephen Hawking. I’m so glad you know everything to the point where you can’t accept opinions or basic logic.

      People love MOS. Not everyone, but a good majority

      • +1

      • I would hardly consider 56% on Rotten Tomatoes “a good majority” unless you’re basing your facts on anecdotal evidence.

        • That percentage is only for critics not for audience. Most of the critics just can’t bare the idea of this not being an exact copy of Donner’s film and you can see that on their score for Superman Returns (75%). Do you think that Superman Returns is that good? because it only has 67% in audience liking it on the same page while MOS has 82% from audience.

          • MOS has a comparable Rotten Tomatoes rating to Bay’s original Transformers film- not only in from critics but from audiences as well. So yes, I will acknowledge that Man of Steel is equally successful to Transformers, but not any more so.

            • Not to the last one though, I actually liked the first Transformers, I don’t think it was bad like the sequels.

        • Audience Rating: 82%
          CinemaScore: A-

          I usually look at critics ratings on rotten tomatoes too, but for some comic book movies, critics can be pretty biased. Read some of the reviews, you’ll know what I mean.

          • You’re right, the reviews go like:

            “This is not as bright as Donner’s”

            “Superman wouldn’t had done that”

            “Superman caused too much destruction”

            I believe that this movie is actually very good and would deal with many cool things such as the world not accepting superman on the next one (after all he destroyed the city and Luthor would surely be the one to rebuild it)

            • More like

              “the editing is too disjointed”

              “the characters lack complexity”

              “the action scenes are repetitive”

              “the film lacks any humanity”

              • Agreed the pacing wasn’t very good, rushed a lot of things and there is quite a bit too much action. But again, read the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Some negative reviews are true, that’s for sure, but there’s a good chuck of them that refuse to have an open mind.

              • ur a HUGE TROLL if you don’t like it that IS UR opinion, but the vast majority of people that go to see MOS like it, ur opinion is urs and urs ONLY so stop trying to push your lame opinion on other ppl! NO ONE CARES about it at all.

                a really smart person told me once that opinions are like a$$holes everyone has one and they stink, but im starting to think ur the a$$hole!!!!

                • @I am Iron Man

        • @ Martell

          *Faora voice*

          YOU WILL NOT WIN

          • +1
            That was a VERY Good One!!! :)

          • Faora also brilliantly claims “history tells us that evolution always wins.” Don’t tell that to the 99.9% of every species that’s existed (on Earth not Krypton, I’ll grant) that is now extinct. Anyway, she’s talking about genetic modification, not the slow imperfect natural process of evolution. “Survival of the fittest” is actually an economic notion, not coined by Darwin.

            But anyway, I agree with Martel somewhat. It seems like whenever there is a so-so movie (MOS, Hobbit, ASM) that fans love, said fans spend more energy coming up with all kinds of reasons why anyone could dislike their beloved movie than reasons they actually like it, other than it’s “epic.”

            If you liked it, good for you.

            • Evolution is the reason those species don’t exist anymore, professor.

              • Oh, because evolution is a slow natural process that can’t always produce optimal modifications in an organism in time for it to adapt to abrupt changes in it’s environment?

                I’m picturing Charles Darwin riding the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, like Slim Pickins riding that bomb in Dr. Strangelove.

                That bad ‘ol EVILlution.

                • You either evolve to survive or you don’t. So yes, evolution always wins.

                  • Listen, it’s a stupid Hollywood missuse of a the term “evolution,” conflating it with “survival of the fittest” idea. That it is used as a villain’s line, and it takes place in Kansas (which often has school boards wanting to ban teaching evolution or “balancing” it with the creationism-in-disguise). It rubs me the wrong way, and scripts are rife with all kinds of misuses of scientific and legal and religious representations that rub someone somewhere the wrong way. That’s life. I’m not going to insist that it rub you the wrong way as well.

                    But basically to say “evolution” wins is like saying “tornados win” or “starvation wins” as if some natural process has consciousness or intent. What the line is saying is “the strong survive.” Again, it’s a misuse of the word evolution, simply because evolution doesn’t always produce heartless strength. Many species have evolved to cooperate and care for the young AND sick and old (not only humans, who have also evolved), simply because it has proven to be advantages to survival. Very few species have evolved to be individualistic and selfish. That of course does result, but it eventually works against the goal of passing one’s genes on.

                    It’s a stupid line. I know what it is supposed to be expressing. It bothered me for stated reasons. If it doesn’t bother you, I’m fine with that. But don’t try to convince me that it made any kind of sense. You aren’t making any sense by taking that stance.

                    • Actually, evolution (or education level or bigger size or whatever the given factor happens to be at the time) has been used down through the ages to justify aggression, whether it be simple bullying or the conquering of one civilization by another.

                      Considering Faora is the one who said the line about evolution and considering why she said it, the line was not only appropriate, it was a brilliant reflection of these Kryptonians’ particular attitudes and motivations.

                      The superior force will ALWAYS assume that they are MEANT to win.

            • I could give detractors a laundry list of reasons why I think MOS was a resounding success critically. But I won’t. I’ll let the film speak for itself. And if critics can’t catch them, well then that says more about the critics than it does MOS. This is by no means Citizen Kane, but to say it’s a bad or just average movie is disingenuous. Flawed or unpolished is the best way to describe it.

              • You know, I’m fine with people liking it. It’s great to like a SH movie and be excited about it. But, for me, it was “average” and it kind of faltered into “bad” territory. I’m not being disingenuous. I would rather have had a movie I did enjoy. And, I’ll concede that there a lot of reviewers that are not judging this movie based on it’s own intentions, but rather on the “classic Superman” take. But I don’t believe that accounts for the amount of unfavorable reviews. The movie had enough problems strictly on it’s own terms.

                To be perfectly honest though, I believe that there is plenty of disingenuousness on the side of the fans. I think that with these movies that are supposed to be the beginnings of a new series, fans willingly overlook all kinds of flaws. Or else they acknowledge the flaws, but still give it high marks for creating a solid foundation for future movies. To me that sort of assessment is something I reserve for TV shows (in fact I think ASM and especially Hobbit looked and felt like TV shows, and could argue they are created as such). But movies are supposed to stand on their own. Nobody ever said the Godfather was clumsily directed and had a lot of silly scenes, but that it managed to lay the foundation for the next movie (which WILL be good).

                Finally the fans DO spend a lot of time attacking any and all counter opinions. Some were irate that Kofi gave the movie a 4 instead of a 5. I like plenty of SH movies that many others don’t like, but I usually argue the positives IMO, and don’t resort to blaming and name calling anyone who sees otherwise. It’s like some Tinkerbell mentality where everyone has to say “I believe” or she’ll die. And in the end it’s about BO success. Fans want this movie to make money so that we’ll have JL, etc. They’re willing to overlook how average to poor it is.

        • You’re deluded if you think RT forms ‘a good majority’ of the moviegoing public. I doubt all their critics combined even make up 0.0001% of the audience.

          Try IMDB. 8.1 from almost 80,000 audience viewers worldwide.

          • Those polls don’t represent “the moviegoing public” They represent a subset of moviegoers made almost entirely out of fans who went out of their way to pay to see Man of Steel in the theaters the first week. I would argue that the review aggregators are more indicative of what a cross section of the public would think of this film.

            • WTF are you talking about? It doesn’t represent the movie going public. It is the movie going public. GTFO.

              • +1

              • You think 8,500 IMDB users constitutes the entirety of the moviegoing public? Not just a subset? LOL! Math wasn’t your subject, was it?

                • …and “it IS the movie going public” does not mean he’s including EVERY single person who supports the film, just that the number CONSISTS of those who enjoyed the film.

                  Clearly, writing and succinct,effective expression were not YOUR strong points in school.


            • Who else would use sites like Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB other than the movie going public?

              I would argue that critics, a subset of the movie going public with a level of influence over the rest of that population, are entirely made of men or women who, like the rest of men or women in power throughout history, have a problem of embracing something new. Their careers and reputation depend on their opinions. I would argue they do not represent a full cross section of the public.

              If anything, review aggregates only show which opinions and what consistent praise or complaints are the majority. Rotten Tomatoes think 60% is a majority. True but also anything above 50. Film has 56%, a majority and a score that is 4% away from being deemed fresh.

              • The critics were far more approving of the Dark Knight Trilogy which took far more liberties with the source material when compared to the relatively conservative Man of Steel. Then again the Dark Knight trilogy actually had sophisticated storylines and the actors didn’t turn into CGI every 5 minutes.

        • You actually listen to critics? What are you, a sheep with no opinion of your own? Both Iron Man 3 and Into Darkness got ridiculously high scores on Rotten Tomatoes and they are both complete messes of films which did a huge disservice to fans of both franchises. Just messes. Rotten Tomatoes shows you what the average film critic thinks. Think about that for a minute. The average film critic is a fool who cares nothing about comic books or genre films. They look down on them. They only like the ones that are “comic booky” or mindless fun. Time will recognize Iron MAN 3 and INTO DARKNESS as the turds they are. Meanwhile, as the DC universe grows, Marvel fans will wake up to the fact that the Marvel film universe is a house of cards build entirely on the charm of RDJ and it will all come crumbling down when RDJ stops making Marvel films and they recast Tony Stark. That’s going to be a real wake up call.

    • Let’s suppose your wisdom is spot on. Given that logic, was MoS a financial success or not, yes or no? I could have sworn you said it was. Even though I think it was better than what you deduce (it’s your opinion) let’s say you’re right. Why does Paramount keep making Transformers movies, which are annoyingly bad? Because with all the moans and groans from the critics, maybe even with the mudslinging from the internet fan corners, those films still made hand over fist. So with that logic, the new Supey movie could have been dumb as doornails, yet it made money and exceeded expectations.

      Why wouldn’t WB consider a sequel or the confidence to consider other possible hero franchises?

      • Critics can’t just let go of Donner’s films. They gave Spiderman 3 and Superman Returns higher ratings while the public disliked them. The audience has MOS with a 82% of liked it on the same page while transformers has 67% (the same as Superman returns). This movie was good but it had flaws but it has me thrilled because the sequel is going to deal with a lot of interesting things, it will certainly not be an Iron Man 2.

      • The film was a financial success, that’s a fact. However I think the article is editorializing by making claims that it proved Superman’s “worthiness” or that it’s “wowing audiences” and so forth when the reaction has been much more mixed that what is being implied.

        • “the reaction has been much more mixed that what is being implied.”

          RT Audience: 82% liked it.

          Sounds like you’ve got it the other way round.

    • Man of Steel to me was the single greatest achievement in Comic Book movie adaption history. It successfully grounded Superman in a realistic and understandable world, and will be remembered hereby as the greatest Superman movie ever made. Makes me wonder if you even saw it.

      • Ahem brother! Loved Man of Steel. My pet theory is that like sports fans, a lot of fans have gotten so wrapped up in the Marvel film series that they see any success by DC as a threat to Marvel. You can see it in their comments – it’s so transparent. It’s Marvel Zombies for real. It’s like Pixar or Apple fans or anyone who gets stuck on brand loyalty. You see it in the comics world. It’s now carried over into the film world. How else can you explain the pass that IRON MAN 3 got and the pummeling that the fanboys gave Man of Steel? How is that even possible? WTF??? It’s the Might Marvel Machine at work. Simple as that. I happen to love both universes – but hell if MAN OF STEEL didn’t raise the bar. Kudos to everyone at DC and WB films for making this happen! Bring on Man of Steel 2, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman and The Justice League!

    • did you see the BO numbers???? they say HUGE success. While it has flaws it is the best Superman movie ever made!! BY MILES AND MILES

    • While the film has flaws, public opinion outweigh the critics.
      Some of those critics are dead on, but most exaggerate that its not their preconceived notion of what the film is.

      Besides Man of Steel is on better standing than Green Lantern few years ago. That in context is much a success.

      You point to aggregate score of favorable vs unfavorable critical reviews of a film. But did you stop to consider the content of those reviews? As in from both sides? Or did you simply only use the negative critics reviews?

      I am not saying your opinion is wrong, but rather the evidence provided is very skewed.

      On rotten tomatoes a film can potentially get 100% aggregate score, but the rating of the film itself is in average range. I have noticed film that are considered fresh yet most reviews do not say it is anything more than cheap entertainment value. Same a rather great film can get a lower aggregate score but have rating be higher.

      Most negative reviews of Man of Still place the film in the “C” range, 2/4 stars, 2.5-3 stars out of 5. Most positive reviews place the film at B+/A- range or 4-4.5 stars such as Screenrant score.

      Besides, the line of the article you quoted just says successful, it was not referring to critical reviews or just financially. At the end of the day Man of Steel is a success. Not you, but in general.

      Again not bashing your opinion, but your evidence is faulty or at least the way you utilized it.

      Besides 56% is a still a majority. Audience reviews is a majority. Metacritic reflects the same. MoS is 4% away from FRESH rating.
      Is ‘Superman Returns’ or the ‘Star Wars prequels’ or ‘Indian Jones and the Kingdom of the Krystal Skull’ necessarily better films because they have a higher aggregate score?

      Note the content of the evidence you bring up thoroughly or otherwise people are going to attack you relentlessly. It is just better to state it was your opinion, which at the end of the day that it is all about, and continue the discussion at hand.

  14. They could have a city/dome underwater like …. ufff the Phantom Menace

    • While Phantom Menace should never be really looked for in terms of inspiration, this I agree with. Would solve a lot of issue production wise, and in-story realism.

      • Yeah and Injustic: Gods Among Us has Atlantis under a dome too.

    • That would be awesome. I was thinking that too while trying to think of any movies that did underwater sequences.

  15. in my own opinion ildris elba would be the perfect black manta man….thats epic man

    • I fully support that idea. Honestly though, If they could just get any good black actor that can copy Elba’s voice as Heimdall, I would be happy too, but Idris would be a great Black Manta.

  16. I love you for posting this Kofi. An Aquaman movie would be epic if done correctly. I love Aquaman and I’m sick of the haters.

    • Liking Aquaman is something that you do as a kid when you instantly understand how cool a concept he really is, without having to think about it. He’s strong as heck, lives underwater and can “talk” to sealife. Then, when you’re slightly older, you think he’s corny as heck in that costume of his and all that “talking” to fish business. Then, later in life, you realize you were an idiot for ever thinking that Aquaman was ever corny. Somehow, you were to uncool to realize how cool he was. It was like you were being self-conscious about it, because Aquaman was just for kids, right? Wrong! Now your brain finally wakes up to the fact – the FACT -mind you – that Aquaman is as cool as heck. He’s a bad@$$ who could kick your @$$. He’s one of the best superheroes there ever was and ever will be. Amen.

  17. These are all great points for why Aquaman would be great but there is one thing that would halt this character from coming soon and that is THE BUDGET. Aquaman would be very expensive to do it right. WB’s need more successful movies like MOS under their belt before investing into Aquaman but I would love to see it done right. He has a very rich world to immerse in.

  18. Daniel Craig for Aquaman, anyone?



    • He’s 45, he’s too old to start a cinematic universe also in that age range Jason Lewis may be better.

      Cavill is 30 and based on that I think that the actors of the JL should have the following age:

      Sups 30, duh
      Batman 35 – Fassbender is so perfect for this, it’s a shame that he’s on X-Men
      WW 27-30 – J Alexander is Thor’s Sif but otherwise she would be a wise pick
      Flash 27 – 30 – Scott Porter may pull it, can’t think of anyone better.
      GL 30 – 33 – Chris Pine is my pick
      MM 40’s – Henry Simmons

      • Hahaha missed Aquaman…

        Aquaman 30 – 33 also, What about Liam McIntyre?

        • I was thinking Chris Pine for Aquaman instead of GL. Reynolds is a fine choice, it was the movie that made him look bad

          • Yeah I know initially I thought that Reynolds would had been a better Flash but when he was cast I didn’t complain. Still the movie was bad and we need to get away as much as possible from that tone and Blacke Lively

        • How about Stifler from American Pie?

          • What??? NO! Have you seen Bulletproof Monk? Stifler tried to do a serious action movie. even if the movie was directed better, he still sucked in it. no offense to him, I love the guy, but he’s definitely a comedy actor.

            I would love to see Chris Pine as Aquaman or Green Lantern, but he has Jack Ryan and Star Trek to commit to for the next few years, realistically he won’t have time.

            My pick would be Liam Hemsworth for the Flash, Ryan Phillipe for Green Lantern, and Alex Pettyfer as Aquaman.

            As for Batman, I still think he doesn’t belong in a Nolan-verse Justice League movie. The Dark Knight Trilogy deserves to stand on its own.

            • Pettyfer might be too young, he needs more of a king presence.

          • ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND!?!?! what’s next? Adam Sandler for Batman?

      • Jason Lewis…I could get behind that idea. He definitely looks the part more than most of these fancasts.

  19. Sure, why not? Marvel’s been planning movies for Raccoon IN SPACE and freaking Ant-Man. Everything can be made into a movie now!

    • I’m not a fan of GOTG, but apparently some people are. As for Ant-Man…from a technology aspect, he seems crucial. A Hank Pym, but not an Ant-Man per say. Giant Man maybe, but I can see why he and Ant-Man didn’t make the cut in the first Avengers movie, even if he was a founding member. It would undermine more characters

      • Genetically altering and enhancing animals to be prison guards on a prison planet for the mentally disturbed is still a more believable concept than underwater people.

        • Not for me Raccoons don’t have the right vocal chords to speak or the expected hands to hold a gun. If GOTG is going that far one wonders why didn’t they used a bigger animal for attack, something at least as big as a dog.

          There’s also a three that talks

          • The racoon is modifed on a genetic level to have human vocal chords and be generally more anthropomorphically humanoid. As such they (racoon and other animals) gain human level intelligence and mannerisms (think island of Dr Moreaux … In space.

            • That is not more believable.

              What about the tree?

              I really don’t buy this, seems like puppets directed to kids for me. I can almost hear all the one-liners that this movie is going to have.

        • … I really can’t follow your logic here, Doc.

          • Because it’s about genetic modification in regards to adaptation.

            If Aquaman looked like the fish thing from Hellboy, then I wouldn’t have a problem with the concept.

            • I don’t see Thor having his right arm much more bigger than the left for the heavy hammer…

              or hulk having respiratory problems because of the frequent inflating-deinflating of his chest…

              or hawkeye explaining his super eye vision to hit targets from so far away…

              also did they put an actual human brain to that raccoon? and all the memories of a human being?

              • Let me try to explain it this way:

                Putting humans, or people who look like you and me, underwater and say that they live underwater is a concept that contradicts itself, and it’s exactly why the character exists in the first place.

                When you boil down everything about the character, shed away all his abilities and what he can do, and you ask the “why” about Aquaman… the very best I’ve ever been able to do with the character is this:

                “Why? Because f*** you that’s why.”

                • Seems like a cool idea. I think Injustice proved that, given the chance, Aquaman can be impressive to watch.

                • Well, how many worlds have this raccoon and tree have visited?

                  Do they all have the same atmosphere? No? I supposed so…


                  What do they breath? If they breathe oxygen and that’s what they put in their tanks then where do they get it? Oxygen is not precisely the most abundant element in outer space.


                  What about gravity? surely not all planets have the same gravity… I might think that some of these presures might crush a raccoon or even in a space suit how quickly can the suit and a living being adapt to a different atmosphere/space


                  It’s a raccoon!!!! they decided to use a raccoon!!!


                  CONCLUSION, Both films are NOT real, not even the stories or the characters but physics are not followed at many places. For example Aquaman people could use hands to hold weapons, they could live on domes under the ocean, the movie can actually make the atlanteans more fish like than Arthur… trust me if they can sell you this raccoon you can surely sell Aquaman.

                • Sorry about that. Still getting the hang of this site.

                  I did want to bring up a way that could help the Atlanteans seem more natural to you though.

                  They could merge the identity of Arther Curry with his successor Arther Joseph Curry, in that he was given an experimental procedure to give him gills. It’s a stretch, but keeping his body in water since birth could account for his ability to withstand ocean pressure and other such things.

                  As for Atlantis, I would have it be an ancient city (unnamed.) That simply exists from a society long-since forgotten. The inhabitants could be experimented families and individuals kidnapped, experimented on, and examined by Black Manta or Ocean Master experimenting with the serum that allows people to get oxygen from salt water. (The Sub-Diego storyline has more info on that.) Knowing they can’t return to land, and used to living in the water, Aquaman could lead them to a new home in the city I mentioned thus starting the race of Atlanteans. Though, this may require all this taking place before MoS.

                  • Something along those lines could work. I don’t think anyone would argue that this would be a tricky concept to pull off, which is why I doubt WB would even bother in risking it.

                    • Yeah, WB and risky don’t seem to be on talking terms.


    If they want to introduce Aquaman they blew a great opportunity. In Man of Steel there is a scene where Superman is underwater while whales swim around him.

    ….By the way can someone clear this up…are we to take from that scene that Superman was submerged for a long period of time. It was like he was asleep and he woke up and the whales were around him???? Does he not need to breath?

    The way it was shot might work well but talking could be a problem. The may have to incorporate some telepathy like in Independence Day but without the headache.

    • superman……..super lungs

    • They missed chances because they wanted to focus on Sups, they were doubting a lot. Look:

      Aquaman could appaear on the oil platform, on the whales scene or in the World Engine scene (the ocean was there).

      Carol Ferris could have appeared discussing you know “aircraft things”

      Steve Trevor is a pilor he could have appered there without a problem and end up missing in action (just to appear on Thecymira)

      Those 3 could have appeared briefly without disrupting the natural flow of the movie, Wayne or Martian Manhunter could have been included also but that would had required more time and would certainly alter the pace.

        • As far as I know she was credited as “Major Carrie Farris” and I really believe that she was a Easter Egg or a nod to fans not really a connection to a Green Lantern universe.

          Ferris owns a company, she is not a soldier. Still if they decide to change her name and profession I would be thrilled of knowing how they take on that story.

          • It could be what happen to her prior to her running her father’s company. Maybe she was also a pilot?

            Could be a written-in sister or something.

            Maybe I just want things to look like a universe already haha.

  21. Aquaman is my no.1 superhero !

  22. It should be Wonder Woman to finish the Trinity.

    Then probably Flash (you could even bring up the age old “Who is faster?” question between him and Supes).

  23. If this turns out to be true, then id like to see WB/DC beg Nolan/Goyer to knock this film outta the park.

    • They need different teams otherwise we will get only one movie every couple of years.

      Nolan could be the Whedon here without problem but Goyer can’t write everything, give the man a break he even is not entirely well liked after some flaws on MOS.

      Leave Zack for MOS only.

      Kathryn Bigelow for WW
      JJ Abraham could be perfect for GL but he is busy, how about Matthew Vaughn?
      Brad Bird for the Flash
      David Yates for Aquaman
      Darren Aronofsky for Batman

      If a Martian Manhunter movie ever turned feasible then Guillermo del Toro might nail it.

      • DUDEEE David Yates for Aquaman!!! Best idea on here, I totally forgot about him. Kudos for the Guillermo del Toro idea.

      • Alternately:

        Alfonso Cuaron for GL
        Neill Blompkamp for Martian Manhunter
        Del Toro for John Constantine and Justice League Dark

      • Maybe Nolan picks & choose which DC hero film he wants to be involved with. Goyer can write movies for DC but for some reason never could write movies for Marvel.

  24. The biggest royal blunder man of steel committed was not building up to the next dc character. Good movie that wasted an opp. Follow marvel formula to justice league otherwise if they fasttrack justice for a 2015 release then warner bros can anticipate getting a double spanking by avengers 2 and new star wars film.

    • Well there was a small mention of Bruce Wayne with the satellite that SM crashed through..so I would think that a Batman reboot is probably the next film…if Spider Man can successfully be rebooted a few years after the previous trilogy then Batman can be rebooted. They just need a villain other than Ra’s or Joker for the first film. Don’t make it an origin film either…everyone knows Batman’s origin by now they should just have him jump in being the Batman.

  25. I’ve been saying this for years

  26. This character does not work in the Nolan-verse. If Goyer finds a way to make it work, I’ll eat my words.

    Besides, doesn’t WB have to reboot Gay Lantern before the Justice League happens? Kind of like how “The Incredible Hulk” erased “Hulk”.

    • The only gay lantern is Alan Scott and I’m fine with that but this would certainly be Hal Jordan.

    • It’s a good thing the Nolan-verse is complete then, isn’t it? 😉

      It’s been officially confirmed that Man of Steel is the START of a DCCU. They will reboot Batman with a new tone (more fitting to a world filled with characters like Superman) and they’ll get a new actor.

      The TDK trilogy was a standalone thing and has nothing to do with what’s coming next.

      • @ The Avenger

        TDK trilogy might aswell be included since MOS is grounded in a Real World like Batman’s as filmmakers put it. You can easily tell MOS matches that same tone as TDK trilogy. It’s all im saying.

        • I agree that to a point. I can see Batman Begins for sure.
          The Dark Knight- Yes

          The Dark Knight Returns kind of breaks the established tone and logic of the first two in some places and just bring up too much of convoluted mess.

          Batman Begins and The Dark Knight can loosely be the foundation a reimagined character that follows those two films but can seamlessly encounter Superman.

          • @ The Archer

            If that were to be the case. Then I wouldn’t bother watching WB/DC’s shared universe as it crumbles before it even expands far enough as it could.

        • @Wally

          I haven’t seen MoS yet, sadly, so I’m just going by what’s been confirmed by the makers of these movies…

          If we’re talking purely in terms of tone, TASM could be part of the MCU too – seeing as that movie shares the same tone as the movies Marvel made. In reality though, us fans know that’s not true. TASM has nothing to do with the MCU, despite having a similar tone.
          Same logic applies here.
          MOS and TDK trilogy might both be “grounded” and “realistic”, but they’re not part of the same universe (confirmed fact). And as much as the Nolanites might try to spin it, if TDKR couldn’t feature a Venom-induced Bane, how the hell are they gonna pull off trying to introduce Supes into that world?

          Kinda surprised to hear this from you. I recall you being one of the guys who was hoping they’d reboot Batman with a truer-to-the-source-material-version next time round… That’s exactly what they’ll be doing if all goes well with MoS btw.

  27. Sorry. Aquaman never did all that much for me. I was hoping for more from Green Lantern, but at least it’s already established the character, if not in a perfect way. I think we need a modern Wonder Woman and most definitely a Flash movie. Then introduce the Martian Manhunter in Justice League.

  28. No, just no. If anyone needs a film first it’s Wonderwoman or the Flash. You guys made some great points in your article, but let’s face it, both of those characters are better superheroes-and frankly more interesting in my opinion-than Aquaman can ever be. There’s a reason why there’s SO many Aquaman jokes; it’s because his powers are only limited to the sea, and he runs around in fish scale tights for Christ’s sakes. Case and point: “AQUAMAN! HELP! The rest of the league is busy and some dictator in the mIddle East is about to launch nukes! Help us!”
    AQ: “So is there any water there…or is it a lake kinda thing, cause I can do that too.” If they want to launch Justice League, they need to focus on Flash and Wonderwoman-not some HUGE budgeted film that people make mistake as a joke when they first hear about it.

  29. Aquaman is risky. He is more of a cult favorite when it comes to DC comic book revenues. Underwater films have never been cheap (if done correctly) It would be too risky for WB & DC to invest in a film that MAY have an audience. All of your reasons for why an Aquaman movie is justifiable can also be applied to Green Lantern & look at what happened there. In my opinion in creating an Aquaman/Atlantis film you should make it an Atlantis origin story NOT Aquaman,this would work if you took the time and immersed the audience in Atlantis like Man of Steel with Krypton. Having Arthur’s story before or during would be very similar to Superman’s, it wouldn’t work because Arthur “difference” to humans is mainly centered around water, whereas Superman’s difference is day to day life. Not many children are picked on because they are great swimmers. Also power discovery is anchored to water or water based life, once again limited audience appeal. Solution: Atlantis should be a Justice League film, with Arthur playing a role in the team.

    • Nice thought, I really like the idea of focusing on Atlantis more but also would like to see some of Arthur, specially the things that are not similar to Superman’s story like the whole royal family thing or the evil brother.

      Still a great a idea, the “get to know this world” sells by itself without even considering the plot just take a look at Avatar

      • Cheers! I am actually working on an imaginary Wonder Woman plot too 😛 The main issue for introducing her is the same question everyone had for Iron Man 3. How come Iron Man didn’t have help from the Avengers? Wonder Woman’s introduction to the world “to save the day” would warrant the where’s Superman? & I have the solution :) I also know how a Wonder Woman movie would work & what themes that need to play a role in her life. WB & DC call me!

        • Not every superhero movie has to be a “save the world” storyline. Local “catastrophes” can be handled by a single hero rather than requiring the whole team.

          The Iron Man movies are an example of this as most of the big bads were targeting Stark so it was a personal fight that really didn’t require him initiating the Avengers Protocol/Signal/Call-To-Arms.

          A Wonder Woman movie could just take place on Themyscira and revolve around “man’s” attempt to subjugate it and its female population.

    • That is what I am thinking. Base the story around a civil conflict for the throne of Atlantis but with Arthur Curry in the middle as the rightful heir to the Throne.

      Make it ‘Game of Thrones’-like with different conflicts all surrounding Atlantis and its people.
      1) Black Manta terrorist menace
      2) escalating aggression to the surface world
      3) Atlantis’ different factions aiming for control
      4) tensions with the equally mythological and isolated Amazons (not seen though)
      5) gravity pulse from ‘Man of Steel’ that was shown going through the core has awakened some undersea threats (The Trench!)

      Not all need to be shown in depth or resolved by the film’s end.
      Add that to the personal storyline, Arthur has lots to worry about.

      And his half-brother is all behind the scenes wanting to be the true ocean master.

      Imagine the Krypton prologue but undersea and for a full movie to get an idea of tone.