Short answer: yes, and you've already seen it.
September 30, 2011
When you say the name "Aquaman" to the average person, chances are they'll emit some sort of chuckle. It's goofy, right? A guy who communicates with fish and rides seahorses – how is he possibly in the same (justice) league as heroes like Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman? It's a legitimate concern in the comic world and has made Arthur Curry the butt of superhero jokes for many years. Yet, he's a founding member of the Justice League and one of the icons of the comic book industry, despite the flack he catches for his relatively lame superpowers.
This week saw the release of Aquaman #1 (read our review) – a series by Geoff Johns, the Chief Creative Officer at DC Comics and the one man who arguably has more knowledge about the DCU than the Monitor. Joining him on art duties is Ivan Reis, the acclaimed artist of Blackest Night and a lengthy run on Green Lantern (both also by Johns). Together, they crafted a new take on Aquaman, confronting his "lame superhero" status and giving a solid starting point for readers to understand the true appeal of this character.
You must be registered for see images
It's honestly not something you can (or should) just take my word for, but if you can put aside your reservations and try out Aquaman #1, you'll find that there's a whole lot more to this character than you ever gave him credit for. To sweeten the deal, if you look back on Johns' past work, his most celebrated (non-event) runs have always been with the "peripheral" DCU: Teen Titans, Flash, Green Lantern, Hawkman, and even Stars and S.T.R.I.P.E. Going by that track record, Aquaman stands to be the next in line, so you might as well get a head start on the popularity.
You must be registered for see imagesWhen you consider that Warner Brothers is interested in a Justice League movie (which I've previously stated is a terrible idea) and combine it with the increasing success of the character in comics, it's not unreasonable to anticipate an Aquaman feature film. I'm not saying it's going to happen in the next few years, but if DC's New 52 initiative does its job and familiarizes new readers with the DCU – including Aquaman – then a movie isn't so hard to swallow. One could point to the failed Smallville spinoff TV show as a case for the movie never happening, but that's not entirely fair. By the same token, asserting that Aquaman's success in Batman: The Brave and the Bold would be indicative of the public's interest is not accurate either. Both are extreme cases of a difference in character and don't represent the way Arthur would likely be portrayed on screen, let alone his actual portrayal in the comics.
However, a template for an Aquaman movie exists. In fact, an Aquaman movie has already been made, and it was a success. It just didn't have Arthur Curry in it. If you saw Thor this past summer, then you saw the fundamentals of an Aquaman flick. Consider the similarities of the character. Both come from a royal background in a kingdom so removed from our own world that the story borders on the fantasy genre. The crux of the story is based on the characters being removed from their respective kingdoms and becoming stranded on Earth. They both have siblings for arch enemies. Both characters have something grounding them in the Earth realm – for Thor it's Jane, and for Arthur it's his human heritage. And, if you continue the events through to Avengers/JLA, the characters both take a similar role on the team; they are outsiders amongst outsiders. They are regal and god-like, both metaphorically and literally.
You must be registered for see imagesIn short, the success of Thor is proof that an Aquaman movie can work. Just as Johns did in Aquaman #1, WB needs to find an angle of approach that will resonate with the audience that never recognized the appeal of the character. For the most part, Thor didn't bother to burden its audience with lengthy explanations about the history of Asgard or its culture. Instead, it honed in on character, to varying degrees of success, and gave us the core of Thor's story. Similarly, an Aquaman film can forgo the lengthy introduction to the kingdom of Atlantis, instead focusing solely on Arthur's role there and how it pertains to the people on the surface. In many ways, Aquaman's story is about a king rejecting his kingship and eventually accepting who he is. Think of it as DC's version of Aragorn in Lord of the Rings -- not bad company for a character so often considered "lame."
You must be registered for see images
As Johns proved with Aquaman #1, the key to finding success with Aquaman is to never apologize or make excuses for what he is. Mercy Reef – the aforementioned failed Smallville spinoff – tried to take the teen drama approach to pander to the network's established fan-base. On the other hand, Aquaman's characterization in Batman: The Brave and the Bold is a campy spoof and though hilariously enjoyable, pokes fun at the character rather than supporting him.
What Johns did in Aquaman #1 that resonated with readers is treat Arthur Curry with respect and confront the ridicule he's received for years, making it a part of his character. Instead of sidestepping the issue and masking it with pandering or camp, Aquaman #1 embraced the character with the degree of sincerity that all superhero institutions should be treated with. It's proof that the old saying of "there are no bad characters" is completely true, and there's no reason that a film couldn't find the same success.
And, though I'm not a huge fan of fan-casting movies that don't exist, wouldn't Ryan Gosling make a killer Aquaman? Someone start a futile petition.
Do you think Aquaman has what it takes to rule the box office? Should he? Has your opinion changed on the character since reading Aquaman #1? Sound off below or let me know on Twitter.
You must be registered for see links
