Originally posted by Tzeentch
How many shit movies with great actors in them can you think of? I can think of quite a few.
Regardless of script or direction quality, great actors will elevate the quality of thier movie.
Without johnny depp, pirates 3 and 4 would've sucked shit. Instead they were mediocre
Without RDJ, im2 and im3 would've been shit bad. Instead they were pretty good.
Hundreds of examples
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Because he's not blond?Not being funny, honestly just curious, because a lot of people are raving about what a great choice he is.
Well Aquaman has always been a very"white" character. He is white, has blonde hair and blue eyes, and is very good at swimming. So getting an "ethic" looking actor to play him is quite a drastic change.... A change I'm completely fine with BTW.
Originally posted by Golgo13
Johnny was horrible in those movies. Lol. And he's my favorite actor of all time.
Millions of people would disagree with that.
Capt Jack is Depp's signature performance... how is he your favorite actor of all time if you didn't like Jack? Sleepy Hollow? Scissor musical psycho guy?
Originally posted by ares834
Well Aquaman has always been a very"white" character. He is white, has blonde hair and blue eyes, and is very good at swimming. So getting an "ethic" looking actor to play him is quite a drastic change.... A change I'm completely fine with BTW.
👆
These movies are inspired by the comics, not direct adaptations. Hence human torch being African American and WW being a stick figure ethnic bimbo.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Millions of people would disagree with that.Capt Jack is Depp's signature performance... how is he your favorite actor of all time if you didn't like Jack? Sleepy Hollow? Scissor musical psycho guy?
That's the thing with movies and art. It's all subjective. True, a lot of people love those movies, but a lot of people hate them as well. Their scores/ratings show this. Most of them are average to below average.
And I DO like Pirates part 1, but the rest are easily forgettable. And yes, he still is my favorite actor despite that most of his current movies are horrible. His last good movie was Sweeney Todd. And that was a while ago.
Originally posted by Golgo13
Box office doesn't equate to being good. Look at the movies ratings and others like Transformers.
Transformers raked in box office bucks because of it's brand name and recognition.
Pirates was a fresh, unknown property that became a brand name/franchise on the strength of Johnny Depp's tremendous performance.
Difference
Originally posted by Firefly218
Transformers raked in box office bucks because of it's brand name and recognition.Pirates was a fresh, unknown property that became a brand name/franchise on the strength of Johnny Depp's tremendous performance.
Difference
That's not the point I was getting at. Box office doesn't always mean quality in films. And Pirates is a good example of sequels being bad. Just like the Matrix, Transformers, and so on.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Because he's not blond?Not being funny, honestly just curious, because a lot of people are raving about what a great choice he is.
If it was just about hair colour, it wouldn't really be an issue.
Originally posted by ares834
Well Aquaman has always been a very"white" character. He is white, has blonde hair and blue eyes, and is very good at swimming. So getting an "ethic" looking actor to play him is quite a drastic change.... A change I'm completely fine with BTW.
it is a drastic change yes.
Originally posted by Firefly218
👆These movies are inspired by the comics, not direct adaptations. Hence human torch being African American and WW being a stick figure ethnic bimbo.
it doesn't have to be a direct adaptation, and when it's brought up that it's "just an adaptation" it honestly, at least to me, seems disingenuous.
Iron Man wasn't a direct adaptation. Neither was Thor. Or Captain America. Or the Crow. Or Watchmen. Or the Nolan trilogy.
Yet all of those movies still managed to bring across the original character in a way that was still faithful to the source material.
Little changes are fine. You're making a movie after all, not a 12 issue arc. Casting Momoa suggests to me, though, that they aren't going to adapt the general story of Aquaman, and also that the actual Aquaman himself somehow wasn't "worthy" enough of being represented on-screen.
I've seen people talking about how it makes Aquaman look like a Pacific Islander. Which Aquaman is not. His mythology is based heavily on greek mythology and to a lesser extent celtic mythology. are we going to get that too? or is that going to be changed?
An adaptation can be fine and be faithful. I seriously worry that this won't be, which is a shame.
Also, the Wonder Woman comparison isn't at all the same thing. She's been drawn plenty of times in the comics as skinny as **** and tanned.
I get that i'm in the minority here, and that's fine. I just hate when people act like "it's an adaptation" is an excuse to **** with a character's source material. It isn't the first time I've seen it, and as far as i'm concerned, it makes it a bad adaptation.
-shrug-
Originally posted by -Pr-
it doesn't have to be a direct adaptation, and when it's brought up that it's "just an adaptation" it honestly, at least to me, seems disingenuous.Iron Man wasn't a direct adaptation. Neither was Thor. Or Captain America. Or the Crow. Or Watchmen. Or the Nolan trilogy.
Yet all of those movies still managed to bring across the original character in a way that was still faithful to the source material.
Little changes are fine. You're making a movie after all, not a 12 issue arc. Casting Momoa suggests to me, though, that they aren't going to adapt the general story of Aquaman, and also that the actual Aquaman himself somehow wasn't "worthy" enough of being represented on-screen.
I've seen people talking about how it makes Aquaman look like a Pacific Islander. Which Aquaman is not. His mythology is based heavily on greek mythology and to a lesser extent celtic mythology. are we going to get that too? or is that going to be changed?
An adaptation can be fine and be faithful. I seriously worry that this won't be, which is a shame.
Also, the Wonder Woman comparison isn't at all the same thing. She's been drawn plenty of times in the comics as skinny as **** and tanned.
I get that i'm in the minority here, and that's fine. I just hate when people act like "it's an adaptation" is an excuse to **** with a character's source material. It isn't the first time I've seen it, and as far as i'm concerned, it makes it a bad adaptation.
-shrug-
The only source from which your concerns seem to stem is Momoa's appearance.
As far as I'm concerned, the actor's appearance doesn't necessarily have to match the source material for the performance to be faithful. Momoa has the physicality and acting talent - if he can properly embody the character's persona, his slightly darker skin tone or ethnic features shouldn't be a problem.
Saying the choice of Momoa represents a digression from the source material is premature
Anyone think WB will get Alfonso Cuaron to direct one of these movies? He's one of WB's star directors, afterall.