Jason Momoa's Aquaman

Enh, it's a trivial point to me. Val Kilmer was a blond(ish) Batman - so now they're even.

Now, given that they want to make him as badass as possible, I think Jason will do an excellent job.

I've been a big Aquaman fan and what will matter to me more, is the story. I'm expecting that direction to serve will in the JL movie, but I worry more about how well that characterization will play out in the solo movie. Just have to wait and see.

Dunno about that, I'd think Jason Momoa would look weird with full blonde hair.

I think DCEU Atlanteans will have some sort of implied history with Polynesian or Pacific Islanders, which of course is the main root of modern tattoos.

Marvel was nearly bankrupt and had to sell off many of their popular character's movie rights. Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and the Avengers were basically the characters that the other film studios didn't want.

I'm sure Marvel has some sort of say in the story and plot during the early stages of scripting for approval, but I think once the budget is set and the film goes into production it becomes a Jagannath that can't be stopped. And we all know a lot can happen between script and screen.

Jason is gonna be great as Aquaman, He is a very solid actor who convinced me with the Red Road, very good show btw.
And i really don´t care if he is more dark skinned or he is not natural blonde, as long as he brings the essence of the character to the screen.

The Aquaman that we deserve...

You have no understanding of these things then.

Marvel sold the media rights of the X-men and the FF4 to Fox, however long ago it was. What that means is Fox has full and complete ownership/control of what they want to do with those properties and Marvel has no say in it. Marvel also gets none of the financial gains from any movies that Fox makes with these properties.

Marvel only owns the comic book versions of the properties.

Fox's ownership is so complete that they even own the term of Mutant. Marvel Studios can not use that term in any movie or TV show they make.


There is a similar set up with DC's properties. DC owns the comic versions but WB owns the movies and TV versions. Now being that WB owns DC, things are more friendly and cooperative between the to entities but still DC doesn't get the final say in what WB does.

Um ok, I still think it's stupid lol

I personally don't mind the look Jason Momoa's Aquaman has. It actually goes back to the look when he had long hair and lost his hand in the comics.


Plus the concept art doesn't look too bad either

To me, DC is running, and running hard, away from this version of Aquaman:

That Aquaman is a:

if you ask me. marvel should be pissed

Not exactly, Marvel still owns the merchandising rights to their properties and in all likelihood have some sort of shared deal with the other studios for using movie likeness. Marvel has an exclusive toy deal with Hasbro and that seems to apply to movies regardless, i.e, Fox doesn't seem to be able to take their X-men movies and pursue other toy companies to make their version of toys.

Fox only owns a movie license. What they did was file a lawsuit against Marvel after they produced and aired the TV show, Mutant X. This is actually well within the rights of Marvel since they still own the X properties for TV. The main contention of the lawsuit was Fox's claim that the TV show dilutes the X brand's name by using similar themes and characters, this was around the time of the first X-Men movie when that looked to be the start of a huge franchise. Marvel basically claims that it could only help and there were no signs of the show being intentionally "bad" and Fox timing was suspect since they had ample time to bring up any contentions before the show went into production. It's interesting that Marvel were already working on the idea of this two prong attack of TV being used to boost the profile of movie properties... Even if it's not exactly what they were doing here.

However, the lawsuit was quietly settled out of court, but Fox continued to sue the production company into oblivion. The production company in a last ditch effort tried to then sue Marvel for misrepresentation. But by then it was too late, as the production company folded and I'm not sure what could have been done since the Fox/Marvel was already settled earlier.

Since then Fox has stumbled a bit with the X & FF franchises and Marvel, perhaps still feeling the sting of the lawsuit, has opted to go with a hands off approach to promotions and merchandising. And have gone out of their way to scale down their presence in the comics and nearly completely shut out of merchandising. Adding fuel to the fire was Fox enforcing Emily Blunt's contract with them to complete her multi-picture deal with Gulliver's Travels rather than star in Iron Man 2 as Black Widow.

That is until recently. It seems the so called "embargo" has been lifted for the comic versions any ways.

Just a few notes on some of the above comments:

Marvel do not own the live action X-Men rights on television. They were in the position to make Mutant X because they didn't give Fox ownership of "mutants", Marvel stopped using the term as part of the settlement with Fox after the law suit. Fox are the ones who are ultimately in charge of the upcoming shows, although Marvel are involved for reasons that have not yet been made entirely clear (although it is most likely down to the terms of the settlement back in the day).

Fox has control over three Marvel franchises at the moment. The X-Men (acquired between 1993/94), the distribution rights for the Fantastic Four (acquired late 1994, Constantin still holds the character's film rights with Fox acting on their behalf) and Deadpool (acquired by turnaround in 2004/05, fully transferred at a later unidentified date).

Not sure about the first part as this was one of the responses from Tribune the producers of Mutant X:

"As the lawsuit filed by Marvel makes clear, the Fox claims are wholly without merit," reads Tribune's statement. "Marvel has assured us that live action 'X-Men' television series rights were never granted to Fox and, while we can understand Fox?s disappointment, it is troubling to see them making unwarranted claims with regard to 'Mutant X."

Of course Marvel might have been wrong. But I think if Fox really had the the live-action TV rights, it would have been much more of a slam dunk for them.

I'm guessing part of the settlement gives Fox first dibs on the TV shows, although just by suing Marvel they already sort of sent that message. But it does seem like Marvel has the rights to the X-verse on TV, they're just not going to do anything with it unless it's Fox.

http://screenrant.com/x-men-tv-series-live-action-deal/

How did you feel about Amy Adams playing a redheaded Lois Lane?

I think the way that Aquaman is being presented NOW will override however he looked in the past.

I'm really liking him so far - at least from the new trailer.

I think what we're going to find is an Aquaman that is highly upset NOT at Batman's "So - you talk to fish?" comments, but moreso THIS thing


The World Engine that touched down in the Indian Ocean I believe is - I'm guessing - what Aquaman is so upset about....and rightfully so.

And I don't think that he is bringing those villager's fish just because he likes them. Look what he threw down in ONE GULP right before he went back into the water



"You give me drink - I give you fish."

THIS Aquaman is going to have an edginess to him and I love it - sort of like Marvel's Sub Mariner. I'm certain he'll be a hero and all, but I won't be surprised if he'll want to "discuss" that World Engine thing with Superman once he returns.

I'm placing my bets on THIS Aquaman in a fight with THIS Superman. Call Vegas and book it.

Considering the other studios all had the television rights included in their deals (as demonstrated by Blade and also Marvel purchasing the Spider-Man TV rights off Sony, with limitations) it seems rather suspicious that Marvel would want Fox involved at all if they held the rights, or for that matter why they have refused to include them anywhere.

Mutant X made conscious efforts to avoid any comics characters, it screams out as being a loophole being taken advantage of because all the things absolutely in the hands of Fox are avoided. You would think Agents of SHIELD would be

When I heard that he was being cast as Aquaman, my first reaction was "Wait. HUH???" There is a moment where I stop and look back on my childhood, watching the Super Friends on t.v. every Saturday,....and seeing this version of Aquaman.


Okay.....maybe not the New 52 version but you get the idea.

New 52 comes along and we get a different look. Nothing really to make a fuss about so why post that image.

Now we get to what they're doing for the newer version based on Batman vs. Superman and what we will see in the upcoming Justice League movie when that drops......

(like a 10 nuclear warhead considering Man of Steel, Batman vs. Superman and now the bomb known as Suicide Squad)


Okay......who thought up this one and why wasn't the casting director, art designer, screen writer, (whoever) fired for this idea????

BUT IT COULD BE WORSE!!!!!!
Oh yes.....it could be worse.
We could be seeing this version instead.



All I can say is "HELLO, Sailor!!!" with 3 snaps in a z-formation.

Understandable, but there is even more reason in case of Aquaman. I'll answer after the next quote.

I don't, because with the Flashes the color of hair isn't a deeper part of the lore. However, when I first heard about the cast of the TV series (before roles were announced), I somehow expected Rick Cosnett to be the Flash. But: no biggie there.

As for Aquaman, changing the color of hair removes the complete "Curse of Kordax" part from his lore. It can even be found in a briefing or investigation in DCUO:

I know Momoa has probably been casted with fighting the "Aquaman sucks!"-attitude that is around and making it a really badass character. However, in some cases integrated casting doesn't make sense, doesn't work or kills possibilities. It's not as bad as casting Will Smith to play a German Hauptmann of the Reich in a WWII movie in this case, but it forces the writers from the start to ignore certain parts of the lore, the story-line and Aquaman's character development.

He wasn't an only child, he had a younger sister you saw him holding and another grumpy sister who lives in the attic (didn't get to see mention of her though)

Wait, you are saying we should be grateful for having such a subpar version of the lamest DC 'hero' just so we can get him on the screen?