“Aquaman” should have floundered. Yet it seemingly has swum to success.
The film, released Dec. 21, has since become the DC Extended Universe’s most prosperous action flick, bringing in over $940 million worldwide. The last DC film to garner such success was the 2016 release “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice,” which grossed a total of $873 million. Much of the new film’s popularity, however, stems from international ticket sales; it remains unlikely that, domestically, it will surpass films such as “Wonder Woman” and “Batman v Superman.
Though the amphibious superhero’s international success may indicate that DC films are improving, the franchise still has a long way to go if it intends to make such success a lasting phenomenon. Sure, box office numbers are significant, but they are rarely the true marker of a film’s cultural significance. Outside of ticket sales, will “Aquaman” really leave a mark in DC’s history? In general, DC movies tend to fall flat; after all, there seemed to be more buzz on the Internet surrounding Marvel’s short “Avengers: Endgame” trailer than this entire movie.
There were many key ingredients that made “Aquaman” a recipe for success. For one, the casting was spot-on and star-studded. Nicole Kidman and Willem Dafoe both had significant roles, portraying the wily queen of Atlantis and the deceptive vizier, respectively. Jason Momoa as the titular superhero was stellar; he not only looked the part but acted it, seeming both gruff and soft at the same time, often adding necessary levity to the decidedly grim film.
The film also managed to successfully flesh out the fairly bland character first introduced in “Justice League.” In his first film, Arthur (Aquaman’s real name) was nothing more than a lone wolf – sarcastic and separated from the others. His spotlight successfully expands DC’s slow-growing cinematic universe, as it adequately adds complexity to the character. Audiences see him interact with Mera (Amber Heard) and care for his aging father, and the complex nature of his identity – being from land and Atlantis – is a notion many viewers likely will relate to.
And yet Momoa cannot fully free the film from the trap DC has created for itself. Like almost all the previous films in the DC universe, “Aquaman” was incredibly long, clocking in at 2 hours, 23 minutes. The film certainly could have been shorter if the creators had tightened up the narrative. As with many DC films, the plot was convoluted and lost to seemingly pointless, over-dramatic battle scenes. The fighting didn’t feel earned but instead thrown in for the mere sake of having action. Villains were either unconvincing or lost to the rest of the twisted plot. And who could take one look at Black Manta’s (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) ridiculous costume and not laugh as he and Aquaman sparred?
“Aquaman” continues DC’s trend of taking itself too seriously. Almost every scene is literally dark; it is often hard to discern exactly what’s going on because of the washed-out tones. Though DC likely does so to reflect the bleak superhero films they continue to create, it frequently feels forced and unnecessary. And the script didn’t do the film any favors – what were likely meant to be lines full of gravitas instead felt overly pretentious and predictable. How many times can someone declare oneself “ocean master” before the audience understands their motives? Though Momoa’s performance successfully lifts Aquaman from joke of the comic book world to a momentous hero, attempts at amusement are lost within the dim scheme of things.
So though the box office may indicate that DC is finally doing something right, it is unlikely that “Aquaman” will actually have a lasting impact. Clearly, the franchise hasn’t changed that much – it’s still too grim and convoluted for audiences to enjoy it fully. And DC can’t rely on a shirtless Jason Momoa to save every film.
Viewers must consider the broader cultural influence to determine whether DC is actually taking steps in the correct direction. Their last big hit was “Wonder Woman,” which filled a necessary gap in the genre’s lack of diversity, and the upcoming sequel, “Wonder Woman 1984,” likely will be well received. Though the original was by no means a perfect film, its mere existence warranted discussion because it was the first large superhero film to star a female champion. To be fair, Momoa’s Polynesian descent is certainly of note, as further representation in media should be celebrated. However, such representation is not being applauded by viewers and has instead gone fairly unnoticed. In this case, even enhancing diversity within the genre has not pushed the film into the cultural canon, as DC’s tropes overshadowed the rest of the film. Maybe if the film had done more to highlight his background, the film could have achieved greater cultural importance.
“Suicide Squad” also had a seemingly wide impact – with a multitude of youths donning Harley Quinn and Joker costumes since its release – but was generally mocked and ridiculed instead of praised. Whether this trend will continue with the 2020 film “Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn)” is yet to be determined, though Margot Robbie may be able to uplift the film. However, both “Wonder Woman” and “Suicide Squad” featured the same pitfalls as “Aquaman” – long plots, questionable villains and an overemphasis on dark, gritty shots.
Though DC has discovered its elusive treasure chest with “Aquaman,” the film likely will be lost to the depths of time.