I've never seen him in the cartoons, aside from the Super Powers Team.

@desmond006: I agree..I am a huge Aquaman fan, but I am not sure I wanna risk a movie. If it fails, that's it. Aquaman is forever screwed and the public will never shut up about it. I'd go fkr a JL film with him in first.

The Top Sellers are

1. Batman
2. Superman
3. Green Lantern
4. Flash
5. Aquaman

If they are doing a lead-in, I would say ride off Superman, launch Flash, Aquaman, Green Lantern recovery, then do some sort of Batman Reboot, and Wonder Women launch, after the movie!

They might even want to leave the Green Lantern recovery till after the movie. I might be tempted to say launch a Batman Inc after the movie too and leave the solos for a few years and just focus on a Kick-a$$ Flash and Aquaman.

WW needs a push, not sure if you want to risk it before the JLA movie. If it fails, there is less impact after a successful JLA movie. She could also get a chance to make an impression to the larger audience in a JLA movie. Cyborg ...well he just gets his cameos!

This

and this

@outlawrenegade said:

The movie should only have 5 characters in it to promote character development and to allow every character to get a great deal of screen time. The Avengers had lead in films and could only manage 5 characters 95% of the film. Hawkeye was a glorified cameo.

While I like Aquaman, he is not a Top 5 character. These guys are:

Save Arthur for the sequel. If they try to fit in too many characters, it will be a bad movie, which will ruin the future of all DC movies.

I like this line up, maybe add MM as the glorified cameo.

I agree with 5 characters. You don't want this movie turning into x-men 3. MM would need too much backstory for a cameo. You can't just have a green guy in a cape flying around. Non comic book lovers haven't got a clue who he is and a justice league movie is sadly gonna depend on non comic book fans to be a success. I'd stick with Hal as well. Rember the hulks first movies bombed but he bounced back in the avengers. I think Hal Jordan can do the same in the JL.

@outlawrenegade said:

The movie should only have 5 characters in it to promote character development and to allow every character to get a great deal of screen time. The Avengers had lead in films and could only manage 5 characters 95% of the film. Hawkeye was a glorified cameo.

While I like Aquaman, he is not a Top 5 character. These guys are:

(Epic theme music)

Loading Video...

Save Arthur for the sequel. If they try to fit in too many characters, it will be a bad movie, which will ruin the future of all DC movies.

@avenging_x_bolt said:

i think they just cant think of a way to uniquely and effectively utilize him.

And this ^^^^

Agreed. Five characters is the way to go. I don't care which Green Lantern or Flash they use, but any more or less than five will likely damage the film.

As I said in another thread, I think it would be cool to have Aquaman in the Justice League as an antagonist. It can probably be like the Justice League cartoon where Aquaman is highly antagonistic to the Justice League and the rest of the surface world.

The movie can be about Aquaman and his brother Orm (Ocean Master) claiming war on the surface world, using super advanced Atlantean technology that puts all the worlds militaries at their mercy. Thus, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash, and Green Lantern (either Hal or John) to team up and put an end to the war.

It can also be shown that Aquaman's aggression was the cause of events in past films. For example, remember that scene in MOS where Superman saves a bunch of people from a burning oil reserve? Well in JL, it can be shown that Aquaman caused the fire by using his trident.

Of course, Aquaman switches sides near the climax of the movie when he sees that Orm is getting power hungry and is crossing the line. Which ends in a climatic battle between the league and Ocean Master. I think this would be a unique plot for the league to come together since Alien invasions are being a bit played out these days (Avengers, Man of Steel).

Why should Aquaman be portrayed as a villain? That's too Namor for me. Aquaman is half human and the audience should see how he is pulled.between two worlds.

If anything, Orm should be the one who rallies the more.extreme Atlanteans against the surface, possibly because of continued recent disrespect to the oceans, and maybe even abduction of Atlanteans, possibly merfolk. He could have Arthur exiled from Poseidonis for being split between decisions, leading Aquaman to seek help from the Justice League.

Aquaman needs to be in the Justice League movie, but doesn't need to be in there that much (see Hulk/Hawkeye of the Avengers). Make a solo Aquaman film beforehand to make the audience appreciate him when he shows up later in the Justice League film

Aquaman has the most to prove out of everyone in the justice league. If they use him he has to play a big part. Otherwise all DC's work building him up will be for nothing.

ScreenRant seems to think the King of the Seven Seas is ready for his own flick. I happen to agree.

http://screenrant.com/aquaman-movie-discussion-justice-league/

Aqua man just doesn't have the recognition of the other members ... He's a great character, but he seems/feels like a fish out of water.

i think if executed right, a solo Aquaman film could be very good. I am more worried about how DC will tackle Batman and Green Lantern since both of them appeared in the big screen very recently. I still remember how people cried when Spider Man was being rebooted.. then again ASM did make a lot of money.

Still people compare JL with Avengers.

Avengers was based in Samurai Seven, a movie with 7 character.

The Seven Samurai

So you're one of a group of farmers whose village is under attack by a gang of remorseless bandits. None of you know how to fight, so you leave to hire a group of warriors who are willing to defend you for the pittance you can pay, plus meals. So you come back with seven guys and... hey, Wait a minute, haven't we seen this somewhere before?

This is actually a relatively common plot device. Take the basic plot of a bunch of cool guys + awesome goal + clearly defined personality types + any other overtones of Seven Samurai you can think of and bam! Instant "team on a mission" story!

Because Seven Samurai contains many plot elements which are not exclusive to Japanese culture, it's easy to shift the basic narrative around and still get a workable movie angle. In fact, it's such a classically popular example of a narrative that many filmmakers don't even bother being subtle in the process of Homage- there's a lot more movies out there with exactly seven heroes doing this kind of plot than you'd expect.

The trope title and namers are Seven Samurai (Shichinin no samurai) and The Magnificent Seven, the latter of which is famous for both transferring the Kurosawa classic to the Old West (with Kurosawa's blessing) and being a classic in its own right. (A trivial note: Seven Samurai was originally released in the USA as The Magnificent Seven; the English title was changed to a direct translation of the Japanese title later to avoid confusion with the remake.)

Cajun-style

The plot is pretty predictable, but always fun.

The Hero will receive the Call to Adventure. He will then assemble a Ragtag Bunch of Misfits.

The Lancer (if not immediately present, The Hero always knows exactly where to find one)

The Big Guy

The Smart Guy

The Old Guy (sometimes a Shell Shocked Senior)

The Young Guy

The Funny Guy

The team finds that the people they are trying to protect are largely unwilling or unable to fight for themselves.

The team successfully stands off the first attack.

The people realize that they can defend themselves, and the team undertakes Training the Peaceful Villagers(Saddly they dont do that in Avengers)

The team is forced to leave, whether due to the skepticism or wariness of the villagers or threats from the villains(Hulk going away).

The team decides to return(Hulk coming back).

There is another attack; the people join in both enthusiastically and competently. Several of the team are injured or killed(Coulson); the attackers are defeated soundly, but not always completely(Since they decide to jump the people defend themselves, this only happens partially).

The people indicate that they now can and will defend themselves when and if the attackers return. What remains of the team departs(Again partially because they dont put the learn to defend themsleves).

Still how they did this in Seven Samurai actually, to have 7 characters, well the movie runs something in the middle of the 160 minutes and 207.

Still the movies build the character and their relationship in the movie during the first part of the movie, before it turns into the plot and action, with the whole making Superman in their own movies, some other in their own movies and tv shows(It looks other will have tv show besides Arrow), it dont need to be 207 minutes long, it just need stop making this random fight scenes that go no place(Seriously Loki reaction to Thor vs Ironman was like, why is this happening?, it helps no point to the plot).

7 character are way less you would belive, it can work if they use all the movies time in telling the movie, the first 20 minutes of Avengers are boring because nothing happens, Rises made this same mistake again, it fails to build Bane and Thalia.

Seven Samurai had more that 7 Characters and build all of them, is no secret every damn year there is at least 1 movie that is this movie.

If Hawkeye is cool enough to be in the Avengers, then Aquaman is definitely cool enough to be in a Justice League movie.

Those jokes don't hurt their rep because everyone knows there's much more to them. As for aquaman, if you're not a comic goer, he's completely made up of jokes. Overall seen as a joke.

@deathpoolthet1000: Agree 100% about Jhon Stewart. People are insane if they think a character who's only mainstream appearance was in a cartoon the general public has long forgotten will geta spot in the movie.

Superman

Wonder Woman

Batman

Green Lantern (Hal Jordan)

Flash

Aquaman

Anything else is *^*&^ up. Hal shouldn't lose his spot to John Stewart. JLU was years ago get over it. An yes one movie can make a major difference in a character. Will there still be detractors? Yes but there would have been anyway if the movie was mostly liked anyway. I want Hal Jordan recast to someone who actually fits the role and no Reynolds did not fit the role.

It's either Big 7 or bust.

And let's make something clear.

Aquaman outsells every other book in DC not under the Batman, GL, JL or Superman family (and this is only due to the new Unchained series).

He also was THE breakout character in Batman : Brave & Bold. (Brilliant idea btw to leave AQ out for Hawkgirl in JL Animated)

And he just had the best JL story since the relaunch with the "just adapt me already" Throne of Atlantis.

Furthermore Wonder Woman had her chance with the animated feature, which did not so well (although it was one DC's best animations).

Same for GL with the movie and the canceled cartoon series.

As for Flash, I dare you to make a case for having a more interesting potential than Aquaman. Time travel, some speedy demonstrations of power, the Rogues and then what? Plus he just got Flashpoint Paradox (which I hear is awesome)

And Aquaman hasn't gotten an animated feature yet? Seriously? No SERIOUSLY?

If you want to drop someone drop MM (or Cyborg) or WW.

Yes if it comes to it, drop Wonder Woman. We have seen 300, and the Titans films, so the mythology niche is pretty much covered. And she already had her chance with the animated feature. And she is consistently outsold by AQ, who will be the only character apart from Supes, GL and Bats to get a second book with the Others.

Don't get me wrong, I want her in the movie. SHE MUST BE IN THE MOVIE, but her "fans" make it difficult to adapt her since they will scream bloody murder even at the slightest mishandle. They will NEVER be satisfied, even now that Azzarelo is killing it in the book.

Now let's take a closer look to the character that every ignorant tub of $hit want's to make fun off (without knowing J@CK and $HIT about him), but if they actually give him 5 friggin minutes with some cool underwater scenes and a glimpse of Atlantis, all those @ssholes who are used to make fun off him will be the first ones to go "oh lawd I always said he had great potential."

You know what, f@ck it.

Aquaman and his mythology SCREAM EPIC.

If DC believes that JL means Superman/Batman/WW and some other guys just to fill the roster, then so be it.

The concept of the "Trinity" is hands down the most offensive concept to DC's entire history.

It practically means "yeah they are all heroes, but everyone else is beneath those three".

Really? Why? What awesome defining stories does WW have that put her above the Sinestro Corps War, or Flashe's sacrifice in Crisis on Infinite Earths? Or the current Aquaman run? Or Moore's Swamp Thing and Ennis Hellblazer. Or Ostrander's Suicide Squad.

JL is the big 7.

Or else it's just an over bloated teamup.

Gardner Fox, understood that.

Grant Morisson understood that.

Geoff Johns understands that.

But yeah especially after the Avengers and a movie like Thor, keep believing that Aquaman is too "difficult" to adapt, because some @sshole uploaded the Family Guy clip for the millionth time.

IMHO.

PS. I might be hard on some characters but I really like all the Big 7. But I'm also sick of using the vomit inducing Trinity as an excuse to shoehorn Wonder Woman to everything. There's the World's Finest (Supes/Bats) and then there's only the Big 7.

@tanet62: Aquaman is just as recognizable as his team mates, but for all the wrong reasons....

@black_claw: No, not really. The public doesn't recognise him to the extent of the trinity.

@tanet62: Becuase of Super Friends, Family Guy, ETC., they do. He's a pretty easy target for jokes.

My concern would not be with his popularity or his marketability, there are a number of different ways they could spin Atlantis:

• King Arthur myth underwater
• Clint Eastwood western underwater
• James Bond underwater ("the sun never sets on the Atlantean Empire")

And his archetype specifically:

• Brooding badass (JL/JLU)
• Misunderstood exile (new 52)
• "Heavy-hangs-the-head" King (Kingdom Come)
• Hammy comedic relief (Batman Brave and the Bold)

All of those have been pretty great. No, the issue is this: how will his powers look on screen?

Unless the plot has a lot of water and sea life, he's just another Superman/Wonder Woman with punching and invulnerability. You have to shoe-horn his power into the story to justify it. That's one issue. Then, once you do that, how is it going to look? For lots of roiling water and sea monsters you'd need lots of expensive CGI.

It's doable of course, but why go through the effort if you have so many other properties you can choose from?

@fodigg: Showing his powers is quite easy.

Strength, invulnerability, speed, leaping and expert fighter with the Trident.

Throw in one scene where he does something with his telepathy and you're done.

Superman (apart from the powers they have in common) has heat vision, freeze breath and flight which sets him apart, since he could spend more time taking care of the aerial threats.

WW has her equipment and martial skills that make their differences obvious but also complimentary since they are the only characters to share a warrior background.

The only real problem with Aquaman is budget for the effects and the visualization of Atlantis.

But if done right and is a visual treat it could only benefit the movie.

Avatar was successful mainly due to it's effects.

Avengers was successful because people wanted to see big fights and their favorite heroes using their powers on screen,

It's totally doable if done right.

Heck Aquaman summoning Cthulu or the Kraken has become sort of a meme.

Do something like that in the movie and it's a guaranteed home run.

So he's a blond superman with a pointy stick? Look, yes that would work, but there are more visually interesting options if that's what you get out of this. That's the concern.

Superman does have the heat vision and uses it a lot, but he's still the definitive "flying brick". That's his signature power set. It would be odd to spin him as primarily laser eyes or cold breath. WW's weapons only make Aquaman's trident more redundant.

That's a really big problem though. I don't think JL has Avatar money.

On that I disagree. That was the carrot to see the film sure, but I think it was wildly successful because of how well Joss Whedon manages an ensemble on the screen and how snappy his dialogue was. If it was ONLY about good fight scenes and effects then Star Wars: Episode III would've been the best film ever.

I want to be very clear that I'm playing devil's advocate here. Yes, I agree that it's doable if done right. But then, anything is. I'm simply saying that I can see why a writer or executive sitting down and dreaming up a live-action JL ensemble for the general audience might shy away from Aquaman because he's not worth the trouble compared to something like, for example, Black Canary.

Sure that could be cool, but then you need to shoe-horn that into the movie and it would pretty clearly be for the benefit of that character. It's doable, but what's the payoff for putting that restriction on yourself? Especially if this is a multi-film franchise including not only the primary JL titles but any spinoff titles with this character. Are you going to have a Kraken in every movie? Why tie yourself to that?

Also, the presence of a giant sea monster does not guarantee critical or financial success. Ask the Clash of the Titans remake.

Again, just to be clear, I like Aquaman and I think he could be done right, but he is problematic in some ways and I can see them shying away from him.

@fodigg: Dude all your points basically are about, not taking a risk with Aquaman.

By your logic WW is a female Superman with a magic lasso.

They practically have the same powers and the same color scheme. Their only diff is the Lasso.

Also how is tying yourself, if you have one scene with Aquaman summoning something?

He doesn't have to do it every time. Just once so that the audience can see it in a JL movie. If he ever gets a solo one they can do whatever they want. So how is that restricting a character when you showcase what he can do?

And the payoff of such as scene would be huge for the movie. Just imagine the first people seeing the movie and talking about how awesome a scene like that would be. Far more impressive than Diana tying someone with the Lasso or Batman using a smoke pellet.

And as mentioned before, we know it would be a hit with the audience, since it's already a meme without even have been shown before.

As for WW and AQ, they have distinct fighting styles and weapons.

Also arguing his powers is pretty subjective. Hawkeye and Widow who are basically both martial artists with ranged weapons worked perfect and as a tandem in Avengers, in scenes where they were fighting together.

And you are trying to tell me AQ and WW can't have some scenes were they fight a threat, Avengers style?

If DC's smart they'll leave out Aqualame.

Here's the Members of The Justice League movie:

AQUAMAN

Batman (Bruce Wayne)

Superman

Hal Jordan

Barry Allen

Martian Manhunter

Wonder Woman

Why would they be in the movie? Because they were the first! John Stewart, Green Arrow, Hawkman etc. fans. As awesome as these characters they were NEVER original JL members. NUFF SAID.

Yes that's what I'm saying. It's an unnecessary risk for a character that's not well known in the general audience (except maybe as a punchline) and provides limited return (unless you need a punchline).

Except WW has much better penetration and recognition with the general audience and is the premier female superhero worldwide, so she doesn't need to be much of anything else. The only necessary characters for a Justice League film are the trinity characters, so WW was a bad example for this point.

Batman is a proven box office success and is DC's premier superhero film franchise and you're saying a giant kraken monster would trump that? I have my doubts that your giant fish monster would single-handedly propel a Justice League film to stunning financial success and universal praise.

And even if it did, then you'd be left with a scene that you'd have to try and replicate to keep the payoffs coming. Hulk will no doubt smash something and deliver a terse one-liner in Avengers 2, and that's easy to deliver. Multiple "sea monster shows up and thrashes everything at great CGI expense" scenes in subsequent films would be difficult and tiring to the audience.

I haven't even heard of this meme. I assume it's a mashup of aquaman and "release the kraken"? Or something? Aquaman jokes on the internet do not mean the general audience knows who he is or cares.

You can do that with any other character just as effectively. Including one that brings more to the table without the baggage. "He can fight next to WW" is not a reason for including Aquaman.

Let's turn this around. Why do you feel Aquaman is needed for a Justice League film? What does he bring to the table that is vital and unique? (And please don't say "giant sea monster", that's arguably part of the problem.)

@fodigg: The point is because the public has a preset opinion of Aquaman, the movie would be the perfect vehicle to dispel it. And even if it's mainly due to bad publicity, AQ is still one of DC's most recognizable heroes. That's indisputable.

Aquaman in the film will not hurt it in anyway. He is not a risk. He is an opportunity.

People will not say "I'm not watching JL because AQ is in". That means they would pass on watching the other 6 as well. If something they will go to watch it expecting AQ jokes as a bonus. But if the movie is done right, the AQ part will be perceived as a welcome surprise (to most).

This opens up huge possibilities for the production company in the form of spinoff movies, and no executive would pass on that if the movie is successful.

Now as for what he offers, pretty much the whole underwater aspect which would make for great visuals, the Atlantis mythology, visually interesting powers, a different character perspective since he is the only JL member who actually has experience leading etc etc.

If you think those are not enough then we have very different views of what interesting means.

Also my point with the whole giant monster scene is this.

It's not there to be essential to the plot. Of course not.

But it would be something memorable that pushes the movie beyond expectations.

For example Thor fighting Hulk in the Avengers was not essential. But that scene is one of the most memorable and talked about in the film as well as being one of the scenes that sets Avengers apart from other movies having big fights and explosions. Exactly what would happen with a well made AQ scene.

Should that be even an ancillary goal for an astonishingly expensive Justice League film? Is that important to Mr. Hollywood J. Executive?

I'm not sure about that. He's been in cartoons yes, he's been a punchline for other shows yes, but he's still not "known" the same way the trinity characters are by any stretch. He's more recognizable than Namor, yes, but he's not "indisputably" one of DC's most marketable characters. That's up for debate.

It's true that a relative unknown character can be successful—Iron Man is probably the best example of that—but again, you could do that with almost any character, not just problematic ol' aquaman. So if, for example, you're juggling between "redeeming" Aquaman or introducing, say, Cyborg, a character that's had about as much exposure in recent cartoons, then you might say "well, robot guy is probably easier and brings more to the table."

Keep in mind that DC is a company that has been too scared to release a Wonder Woman film—a guaranteed slam dunk if ever there was one—and yet you're expecting them to take a chance on "redeeming" Aquaman. If they won't push the most recognizable and popular female superhero without any of the challenges Aquaman faces, man, I dunno. Does not look promising.

But, you're about to get into Aquaman's independent merits, which is what really matters:

Look, the water/sea monster thing is a problem because it means you have to define the setting in order to include it. Cyborg can be Cyborg anywhere. Booster Gold can be Booster Gold anywhere. Vixen can be Vixen anywhere. Aquaman's (unique) powers are designed for the sea. And he doesn't even control water, he controls sea life. Aqualad and Mera can carry around jugs of water and no problem, they have their powers, but Arthur can't carry a Kraken around in his pocket oh wait damn you know what I mean. Unless he's in the right environment, he's a blond Superman.

Yes, good stories have been told about Aquaman being trapped in atypical habitats, but that's meaningful in the comics because it's exceptional whereas in a film you only have so much time with the audience and would need to establish/explain his powers first. And watching him nobly suffer in a desert isn't as fun as watching him summoning a kraken or being chained to an underground volcano and cutting off his own hand with his belt buckle to save his son.

The Atlantis mythology could be interesting, but that depends what you do with it, and again it ties you to water. To really get the full benefit of that you'd almost have to tie the plot/villain to Atlantis (which isn't the worst idea, granted). I mean, I wouldn't count "Mars" as a standalone benefit for Martian Manhunter's inclusion, and if anything his alien background steps on Superman's thematic turf the same way Atlantis steps on Wonder Woman's "mystical lost society" turf.

The "fighting for leadership" thing might be interesting but we don't necessarily need that from him. But this is closer to the reason why I like Aquaman, he's indomitable—indefatigable. And that's true even if you're using the campy BTBATB version. I just don't think it's enough.

If they were to go with a humorous BTBATB version, I could see that bringing some much-needed levity and self-awareness to a film franchise that will most likely be weighed down by the somber, gritty tones of Snyder though. You could make an argument for that, definitely. But I'm kind of assuming you like Johns' version of Aquaman best and had that in mind.

@fodigg: It should be important to the production company. It's a relatively safe way to make a new movie with potential success. In essence that's what a JL movie will probably be. A vehicle for spin offs.

As for disputing AQ pop culture status, it's your opinion but the fact is more people recognize AQ than Marian Manhunter and Cyborg and you could make a case for Flash also. Especially globally.

Also WW is the poster girl for femininity in comics. That's the main reason DC is so delicate when trying to handle the character.

AQ does not have this burden. DC has no reason to hesitate with him because even if they fail, the outcry won't be near as severe as say in a failed WW movie or interpretation.

As for what he brings to the table I can see where you come from, but AQ has potential to carry some fantastic scenes in the movie. That's a fact. It has nothing to do with the actual plot, but the concept of the character. You keep mentioning AQ as a blonde Superman, but AQ is master in combat, which in most movie versions Superman certainly isnt. AQ carries a magical weapon, Supes doesn't. If you want to nitpick I already mentioned Black Widow and Hawkeye, who both worked perfectly in Avengers. One more @sskiking member in a JL movie would not hurt. And who cares if WW and AQ share warrior cultures? They can both be presented in a unique way or even show some tensions between them. Why limit the scope of the film?

And although I really like the B&B version of Aquaman, he is not the defining version of the character.

That is the Peter David and Geoff Johns version in the main medium for the character which is the comics.

But i see you have your opinion set up.

You choose to perceive AQ as a risk and focus on the negatives (in your opinion).

I see him as an opportunity to make the film better and more distinct (IMO)

Even because of that they still don't ... Aquaman just sounds corny.

People just think into much detail when it comes to Wonder Woman. To much blimmen annoying fuss.

What makes you say that?

"Femininity"? That's not what I think when I think "amazon warrior".

Let's be honest, fans will revolt no matter which characters they choose or what they do. :)

I'm already sharpening my pitchfork.

Random tangent and I mention this only because I'm a grammar nerd and just looked it up because I find this stuff interesting, "blonde" vs. "blond" comes from french where they are female and male versions of the term respectively. In British English (and among some die-hard American English traditionalists) this gender divide is maintained, but "blonde" should never be used to describe a male, this is simply a misspelling. For American English, "blond" tends to be the preferred spelling regardless. (Source.) Sorry, random, I know. Thanks for letting me indulge myself. (Seriously, I just looked this up today.)

Well, personally my concern is with too large an ensemble. Avengers had five core members, but with the support personnel you're looking at Coulson, Fury, and Maria Hill as well, and that's a big pool of characters. You're going to have a similar situation in a JL film, especially if you're treating it as a source film and not as a collection film (i.e., first appearances for characters). So each "slot" is pretty sacred and so thematic "doubling" is problematic. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if they just did a trinity film to start. And the spear vs. sword vs. lasso thing, I dunno. I guess I give more leeway to "badass normals" because they are truly defined by their weapons whereas powered characters are more defined as their powers.

Certainly that's what they're trying to set up, but just because that's the current one doesn't necessarily mean that's the best film version.

Fair enough. Thanks for the discussion!

I think Warner Brothers is really overlooking the amazing things they can do with Aquaman's mythos. Same goes for Wonder Woman. I'd prefer to see them in their own movies since I expect a Justice League to be focused on their poster boys more so than anything else.

@fodigg: Cheers.

@justthatkid: Changes are made for adaptations. See Avengers. Unless Aquaman is a villain who switches sides, you risk over burdening the film.

100% true.

I have said this several times, Avengers mistake was put to many pointlsess heroes and characters.

If they had taken Coulson, Maria Hill and all Shield out of the movie they would had time to do a better job with Black Widow and Hawkeye.

So is not that Avengers had to many memeber, it was that Shield work against them.

Again Seven Samurai had 7 members and build every single one of them.

Besides since they have said they are making World Finest movie, there is no need to Batman and Superman getting that much of screen time.

@outlawrenegade said:

The movie should only have 5 characters in it to promote character development and to allow every character to get a great deal of screen time. The Avengers had lead in films and could only manage 5 characters 95% of the film. Hawkeye was a glorified cameo.

While I like Aquaman, he is not a Top 5 character. These guys are:

(Epic theme music)

Loading Video...

Save Arthur for the sequel. If they try to fit in too many characters, it will be a bad movie, which will ruin the future of all DC movies.

@avenging_x_bolt said:

i think they just cant think of a way to uniquely and effectively utilize him.

And this ^^^^

Aquiaman's a bigger character than John Stewart.

WOW. I saw both movies and I never thouth this way,but makes perfect sense!!!