Quick Fanboy thoughts on the string of DCU movies
So, this little piece has gotten shoved around the interweb the past day or so. Again, Warner and DC are doing little toward making me think this won't be a clusterfuck of epic proportions.
Giving some thought to the success of the Marvel flicks, as DC does nothing to make me think it won't be a pigpile. I feel like the 3 stars of Marvel's phase 1, up to and including Avengers, have to be Robert Downey Jr., for being a charismatic and believable (within the framework) superhero, Tom Hiddleston (and the writing crew of Thor, and later, Avengers) for bringing an understandable, even likeable villain to the table, and Clark Gregg, who as Agent Coulson brings an every-man (an ultra-competent every-man, but an every-man nonetheless).
I am hopeful Warner and DC find a written thread and a string of performances strong enough to make their Universe work. Henry Cavill wasn't bad as Superman (I've not considered his mopey Superman to be a fault in anything but direction), but he wasn't as strong as Downey as Iron Man, or Evans as Captain America. Affleck's Batman is a concern, but despite my "meh" feelings on his performances, I do believe he understands storytelling and the strength of source material that I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
I look at that list, and I find concern with Jason Momoa in an Aquaman movie. I'm not saying it can't or won't work. I'm saying that 8 years ago, if you'd said "Iron Man" movie to me, I'd also have been "meh." But, I had enough faith in Favreau and Downey that I didn't think it was going to be a train wreck going in. I'm not as familiar with Momoa as I was Downey, though I was a bigger fan than most of Conan the Barbarian a couple years back. Still, there wasn't a lot in Conan, or as Khal Drogo, to make me think he would be interesting enough to carry a whole movie. I liked Conan because he wasn't insulting as Conan, and I felt that movie was closer to the feel of Robert Howard's stories I read back in sixth grade than any other adaptation to that point. That said? We're not ankle deep in sequels to that flick, so the general public didn't apparently show their love in the form of dollars paid.
That's where I'm afraid DC's making their mistake. Is he going to get enough attention in Batman v. Superman, or Justice League, to make most go see an Aquaman movie? This whole thing feels top heavy, I guess. I'm not saying Batman or Superman need an origin movie. I am saying that some characters do. I don't want to bank on Zack Snyder being able to do the characters credit with 5-30 minutes of shared screentime.
And I guess that that's the turd in the punchbowl for me. Snyder's take on Man of Steel is my biggest concern, considering he's already concocted a lumbering monstrosity that ran counter to a couple of the most important aspects of the Superman character. And he's the one driving this Justice League tank. He wore out any gravitas he might have earned with 300 and Watchmen with Superman and Zod brawling through Metropolis.
Just a fanboy thought, or two. And I guess that's the last thing I'll want to say. I am a fanboy. Warner and DC don't really need to worry about getting my money, probably for any of these flicks. I'll likely see all of them in the theater. What might be more telling is if I pay to see them again--Guardians of the Galaxy, I've ended up seeing three times...and that's not something I've done for a movie in recent memory....at least since Dark Knight.