Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Green Lantern 2!

http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/co...=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_36713

I hope this is real. I enjoyed the first movie, despite the negative reviews. Would love to see another, and maybe one with the real Alan Scott as well.

Reading that link Rick I don't think we will see Alan Scott. Which is a bit of a shame because I like the history of the power rings and his connection to the corps

I think if anything we would be more likely to see the Manhunters as that might fit the 'cosmic' theme better.

Whilst I enjoyed the movie, I still think it is lacking "something" which the Marvel movies seem to have, and which makes them more fun. (and that's from me who does not read any Marvel comics)

An interesting protagonist?

Green Lantern felt too much like DC/WB trying to ape Marvel's formula. Wise-cracking, flawed, yet lovable hero finds redemption through his power, etc. They should have embraced him as a DC hero, either as the Silver age competent hero or even as as Johns' real *ssh*le. Trying to make him into Iron Man killed it.

I haven't actually seen Green Lantern, but, honestly, if you're going to do a Hal Jordan movie it should be set ca. 1960. Just like if you're doing Alan Scott it should be set ca. 1940 and Kyle Rayner ca. 1995.

I didn't really think we would see alan either. Just wishful thinking. I've seen where Guggenhiem said it was BS, but I'm hoping that he's just not in the loop for the next one, if there is one.

I was just rewatching "GL" on cable, and having gotten used to the fact that it was just a bad movie, I think it was doomed by two things:
-- What I imagine to be Johns's influence in terms of all the navel gazing and introspection about Hal and his ability to overcome fear. (did the sequence of Hal's dad's death remind anyone else of that episode of "South Park" where the teacher had flashbacks to his wife dying in a plane crash?) The movie needed a lot more showing it and A LOT less talking about it.
-- Sinestro. Great performance, but they went into it already assuming there'd be a sequel. The movie really would have benefited from Sinestro becoming the main antagonist. Hector Hammond just didn't cut it and Parallax was a joke. Without Sinestro becoming evil, his role in the movie was really not that important to anyone not expecting a second movie.

I also just watched it last night, and there were a few scenes I don't remember from the theatre. (Unlike the Daredevil movie, I don't think the cut scenes did much to improve the movie.)

Like any superhero movie, I *want* to like it, but the characterization of Hal Jordan as an asshole (which even his *best friend* calls him to his face) and / or disappointing irresponsible man-child (his girlfriend's description) just annoyed me.

I don't mind me some flawed heroes, and think that works well for Tony Stark or Booster Gold, but this is Hal Jordan, who was chosen out of all the people on the planet (supposedly) for the 'great honor' of being a Green Lantern.

I am reminded of how the writers apparently tried to sneak more humor in the Captain America script, to follow the 'formula' of Iron Man, and Evans would keep saying, 'No, that's funny, but Cap wouldn't say that.' Someone needed to do that with the Hal Jordan characterization as well, and make him less of a self-centered screwup.

Starting the movie with him crashing a multi-million dollar plane because he had a PTSD flashback *and then lying about it for the rest of the movie* and blaming it on an equipment malfunction just kind of soured me on his character for the rest of the movie. There's a suggestion that he might face consequences, with half the company getting fired, but then he never actually faces those consequences, and Carol manages to get the contract back off-screen, so that he basically just gets a free pass for being a colossal twit. He doesn't even have to do anything, so it goes from a 'moment of growth' to 'eh, that's me, live and don't learn.'


Anywho, as for this second movie, it sounds like there will be lots of off-world space excitement, and lots of aliens, which sounds fun. It's traditional for a hero to face someone whose powers match their own (or their own powers turning against them) at some point (Supes vs. other Kryptonians, Spidey vs. Venom, etc.) so this could be a classic.

I am a little surprised that they kept Ryan Reynolds. They kicked Brandon Routh to the curb after Superman Returns, so DC isn't afraid to pull the plug on an actor when a movie doesn't perform as strongly as they had hoped.

Ryan Reynolds just screams comedy to me - most of his movies have that. Green Lantern is fairly light-hearted, but...

Ryan Reynolds was already a proven box office star when he signed the contract. They probably paid him upfront for two movies. While they can still just throw the money away, it was probably worthwhile for them to realize that maybe it wasn't entirely him and look at the writing, plotting, etc.

Routh was as far as I know, a nobody. I like him everywhere I've seen him since Superman Returns.

Being comfortable in my inconsistency, I don't really blame Routh for the problems with Superman Returns, but I do think that Reynolds bears more of the blame for issues with Green Lantern. Although there's a fine line between whether or not its the actor himself, or the decision to cast him (and write a script that catered to his funny-guy screen persona).

There are DC characters, like Wally West, who can be a bit of a character, or like Booster Gold, who came to super-heroics from a less than pure 'heroic' characterization, which would, IMO, far better suit an actor like Reynolds.

That being said, I don't get the over-the-moon praise that Mark Strong has gotten for his performance as Sinestro. He didn't do bad or anything, but he wasn't exactly Hans Gruber or Hannibal Lector or anything, and, after the fact, we weren't walking out of the theater gushing about how memorable he was. It didn't seem to me a 'breakout performance' like the dude who played Rorshach in the Watchmen film.

Now that I think on it, perhaps he got the praise he got because his performance was probably the best in the film.

I wonder if there's a parallel between how 'cinematic' some comic book scenes appear (such as the first pages of the latest Aquaman reboot) and how uncinematic some of DC's movie offerings have been, as if each side of the franchise is being written / designed by someone trying to crossover appeal between the two and getting muddled up in focusing on the wrong sorts of imagery and design, trying to translate something that only works in one medium into the other, so busy trying to make a good 'story about property X' that they don't focus on the more vital task of making 'a good *movie.*'

It's funny how Routh was widely rejected by Chuck fans so they turned it around and made a villain out of him that Chuck fans loved. He then rode that same schtick into the Scott Pilgrim film. It must be a weird feeling as an actor to know that one of your best features is to get people to really hate you.

Am I the only person alive who really liked Superman Returns?

I liked it. I didn't like the homages to Superman 1 numbering so high that it was looking less like a tribute and more like a ripoff, but for the stuff they did that was new, I liked it. Liked Kevin Spacey especially.

I love hearing that - it makes me respect Evans SO much more! He, like Reynolds and Downey Jr., had been known mostly for their snarky, light, crowd-pleasing performances. Yet for me, Captain America did a *much* better job of making Steve Rogers a real person then either "Iron Man" or "Green Lantern" did for their heroes.

Yeah, many people seemed downright surprised at how much they liked the Captain America movie.

I actually loved "Superman Returns"... and I really wanted to see what Bryan Singer would do in a sequel... he was quoted as saying he was going to "go all Wrath of Khan" on it... anyway, I look at SR as the last chapter of a trilogy with "Superman" and "Superman II"...

It's comforting to know that other people liked it. I was starting to think my taste was skewed or something. The only thing I recall not liking was that Lois had a kid. That seemed...odd. But hey, whatever.

That was one of the things I liked best about it. It certainly wasn't a rehashed bit from the first two movies. Though certainly a result of the love scenes in S2.

But we might as well go over to the Superman movie thread if we're going to keep talking about it.

I feel much the same way. (And, grain of salt, actors sometimes talk up how they made a movie better with their input, so I have no idea how much to take him at his word on that. Ed Norton's 'input' on the last Hulk movie apparently had a lot to do with nobody wanting to work with him again...)

I think the humor is appropriate for Iron Man, because it was handled well, and helped convey how Stark so often fails to take things as seriously as he should, because he's so darn impressed with his own awesomeness.

And they still managed to sneak humor into Captain America, only having the General, or Bucky, or Howard Stark, deliver some of the wit.

But I found it jarring in Thor. Too much meepy little smiles between Jane Foster and Thor, too much of Thor getting run over or tasered. I expect some bombast from Volstagg, and some truly scathing wit from Loki, but that movie, IMO, wasn't helped by all the funny moments.

OTOH, the difference between Chris Evans (up and coming star already headlining his own movies) saying 'no' to Joe Johnston (Honey I Shrunk the Kids?), and Chris Hemsworth (famous for dying five minutes into the last Star Trek movie, at the time) saying 'no' to Kenneth ****ing Branagh, I suppose has to be taken into consideration.

There should be a humor spectrum, with Batman at one end, and Spider-Man close to the other. I felt for awhile that everyone wanted grim, dark and humorless (Spider-Man 3, for instance, was pretty far from what I expect from a Spider-Man outing), and now I feel like everyone is trying to ape the Iron Man formula with inappropriate humor.

But hey, topic! Green Lantern should be closer to the Batman side of things. There's going to be a certain level of camp, which might be unavoidable when you've got a dude in spandex beating people up with giant green glowing boxing gloves, but there's a reason why people fight over Hal vs. Kyle vs. John and are doing their absolute best to forget that G'nort ever existed.

Some humor is best left in the playground.

And now I'm stuck with the horrible thought of George Lucas getting his hands on the Green Lantern franchise and having G'nort as the 'Jar Jar Binks' of his adaptation...

Yep, that's why TV's Flash was Tim-Burton-dark. There's no reason Central City should look like the grungier parts of Gotham.

Or really why the bright red Flash outfit so look so dirty with shadows. If you wanna do Batman, do Batman, or a Batman ripoff. Not Flash.

They're doing it right with Arrow. At least Green Arrow WAS a Batman ripoff.

I've only seen ore or two of the GA shows, but yeah, he was always a bit of Batman lite.

GL was something else. The character works on many levels as a space cop/guardian. He can do big, grim and gritty tracking down cosmic scum, or cosmic collamity, or space opera.

Actually, if they had gone closer to the animated Green Lantern: First Flight, I think they would have been a lot better off. That was what should have been the live action.

Make the second movie closer to that and you've got a hit.

If Ryan Reynolds is getting a chance at a second GL movie, I'm just glad of that. I liked it well enough to see more.

Lets hope the yet another superman movie gives the rest of the characters some new life. Bats and Supes only.... Borin' as hell DC. Fast track a great Flash movie (no pun intended). Break out some other stuff. Hex was a disaster cause you didn't follow the source and let corporate eff it up. Stop that.

I think Flash might be one of DC's safest bets right now, either for TV or movie.

Fast forward SFX are cheaper than many other big-budget superhero effects, if you want to use the sort of 'super speed' effects from shows like Smallville or Forever Knight (as opposed to the more expensive stuff like they rarely used in Heroes, with Hiro's time stopping effects, which could be saved for big episodes, and not done every time). The Flash lends itself to a certain amount of drama, and yet also some humor, and has more of a credible down-home sort of supporting cast.

A *good* Birds of Prey or Suicide Squad or Secret Six show or movie could also kick some ass.

Given my initial impression of the new DCU, that they were attempting to do what Marvel did with their Ultimates books, and come up with a more 'cinematic' and big-screen friendly version of their iconic properties, I'm surprised at how few of the new DCU titles seem to lend themselves to that. I could *maybe* see a Red Hood & the Outlaws show, but most of the rest of the relaunch/boot/thing don't feel terribly 'big-screen friendly' to me.

I may have been completely wrong about this being a coordinated multi-media tie-in effort, dictated from the new honchos at TimeWarner or whoever owns DC this week.

I guess the main question I'd have about a Green Lantern 2 movie is whether or not it will succumb to the curse of having too many villains. I could see the temptation to add more than just Sinestro, and introducing Red Lanterns as a threat, and Star Sapphire as a potential ally. Given that the first GL movie didn't exactly break a bunch of box-office records, Geoff Johns might feel compelled to toss in a bunch of his emotional spectrum stuff, as it might feel like his last chance to play with his breakout concept for the DCU on the big screen.