The Green Lantern movie

[VitaMan]

That movie gets no respect. So what if there was no character development. It represented the comic book version perfectly. A comic book come to life on the screen.

[papadee]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

That movie gets no respect. So what if there was no character development. It represented the comic book version perfectly. A comic book come to life on the screen.

I liked it too. Thought it was better than some of the MCU out at that time (both Thors, Iron Man II, Man of Steel/DC).

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

That movie gets no respect. So what if there was no character development. It represented the comic book version perfectly. A comic book come to life on the screen.

I think we know what Ryan Reynold's opinion was of the movie. His editorial can be found at the tail end of Deadpool 2, where Deadpool goes back in time and shoots Ryan Reynolds in the head. Juss say'n.

[VitaMan]

Attempting to just say what ?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

That movie gets no respect. So what if there was no character development. It represented the comic book version perfectly. A comic book come to life on the screen.

Green Lantern was a good origin story. it stuck to the comic book material and usually that's the right way to go. Green Lantern was never a high volume comic unlike Spider-Man and Superman so that's in part why it didn't do well at the box office. not enough fans of the comic and the casual viewer wasn't interested in an "Comic Book Action Hero".


Spider-Man was a huge hit of course and launched a new "comic book Hero" era. all Sony had to do was follow the comic origin story to the T and instant hit movie. Spider-Man's ongoing comic book popularity was more than enough to make Spider-Man a hit.


The Hulk movie (first one) was terrible because it invented a bunch of story plot that was never part of the comic book and fans didn't like it. the second two with Ed Norton tried to "reset" The Hulk to the comics and was mostly successful following canon but the movies also didn't do well at the box office.

Originally Posted by papadee

I liked it too. Thought it was better than some of the MCU out at that time (both Thors, Iron Man II, Man of Steel/DC).

the first Thor as an origin movie was decent. it's an example of when not to use the origin story. in the comic Dr. Donald Blake was a crippled Physician "Blessed" with power of Thor. this went on for a few years as the story line, later shown that Blake really was Thor and that Odin as punishment and to learn humility had created the Blake persona and stripped Thor's memory of the past. eventually Odin restores Thor's memories and Thor uses "Blake" as a cover identity.

here's some panels directly from the comic in the 1960's showing Blake debating if he's really Thor or not.









here is Blake transforming into Thor. works okay for comic book but getting this effect right would have been very difficult to do on film even with modern techniques.






the producers actually considered using this premise. it would have required two actors, Blake and "Thor". that wrestler HHH was considered for Thor, Tyler Mane also at one point. it would have been terrible. Blake transforming to Thor all the time? terrible. fortunately Kenneth Branagh realized this was not going to translate to a movie and wrote a better opening story. the first Thor was a good enough opener to work with, even if the second movie was disappointing. that story of the Dark Elves was taken directly from the comics but just didn't come off very well.


Iron Man II was terrible because Micky Rourke sucks as an actor. the plot was okay, the villain, played by Sam Rockwell was terrible. terrible villains .. terrible movie.


i like Man of Steel. yes it rehashes Superman's origin yet again but elaborated more about Krypton and it's demise which i liked. Henry Cavill did good as Kent/Superman, he bulked up but didn't go full bodybuilder like Hemsworth for Thor but that fit the Thor in the comics.


Cavill btw is out as Superman. the new direction James Gunn wants is a younger Superman and the next movie will focus on Kent as a new reporter at the Daily Planet.Wonderful! make Superman a romance movie! Brilliant! this will flop biggly!


what's the title gonna be? "Clark Kent, cub reporter in Love"


bahhahaa

[papadee]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The Hulk movie (first one) was terrible because it invented a bunch of story plot that was never part of the comic book and fans didn't like it. the second two with Ed Norton tried to "reset" The Hulk to the comics and was mostly successful following canon but the movies also didn't do well at the box office.

Yeah, the Ang Lee Hulk was bad. The only good part was the battle scene in the desert facility. That was spot on. I even liked the bright green Hulk, with purple pants. Loved when he walked towards the tank, holding the other Tank's cannon barrel in his hands. That brought back the comic book.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

the first Thor as an origin movie was decent. it's an example of when not to use the origin story. in the comic Dr. Donald Blake was a crippled Physician "Blessed" with power of Thor. this went on for a few years as the story line, later shown that Blake really was Thor and that Odin as punishment and to learn humility had created the Blake persona and stripped Thor's memory of the past. eventually Odin restores Thor's memories and Thor uses "Blake" as a cover identity.

I remember the old Thor. While as far as the whole MCU is concerned, I understand leaving Blake out, but I always felt that was a strong point of the Marvel comics: in this case, making a God human. That was the draw of 60s-70s Marvel, the humanity of the heroes.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Attempting to just say what ?

In your case, the small 'r' is silent in Draft.

[VitaMan]

So cute

In your element

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by papadee

Yeah, the Ang Lee Hulk was bad. The only good part was the battle scene in the desert facility. That was spot on. I even liked the bright green Hulk, with purple pants. Loved when he walked towards the tank, holding the other Tank's cannon barrel in his hands. That brought back the comic book.





I remember the old Thor. While as far as the whole MCU is concerned, I understand leaving Blake out, but I always felt that was a strong point of the Marvel comics: in this case, making a God human. That was the draw of 60s-70s Marvel, the humanity of the heroes.

the biggest problem with the Ang Lee "Hulk" was Nick Nolte. maybe Nolte needed a paycheck? for whatever reason Lee contrived a way for Nolte to be Banner's father and part of some secret project that was the reason for the Hulk. and Nolte eventually having similar powers. made for a nice father-son fight in the desert, but not much else.


needless to say most fans of the Hulk hated the "revisionist history".


Marvel comics created the Hulk first, as "the strongest mortal ever". so eventually Stan Lee and Jack Kirby needed someone strong enough to challenge the Hulk so rather than inventing another mortal they just "stole" Thor from classic pagan/Viking lore. Lee said it was perfect, a God to challenge Hulk, a mortal.


The Blake identity/concept was of course contrived by Lee and Kirby, largely as you say to humanize Thor and they needed an origin so they came up with the premise Blake as a mortal is "Worthy" of Thor's power. within a few years of course Lee and Kirby revealed Blake really is Thor and that it was some elaborate punishment by Odin to teach Thor humility.


in the early 1980's Marvel was considering dropping Thor as a title. the sales were low, the original Kirby artwork was very dated by then, and the comic, despite all the cosmic elements (Asgard, the 9 realms) had gotten stale.


enter Walt Simonson, easily one of the best free hand artists in comics then and now. Marvel offered complete control to Simonson, including a much needed redraw of the character.

this is Kirby's "Classic" Thor ..





this is Simonson's version.. in battle armor






Simonson initially used a updated Kirby look then evolved it into a more realistic look.


The problem The Green Lantern faces today is the same as Superman.


DC has split up their titles into so many variants it's impossible to follow. many are ALT world variants. there's classic 52 Superman, Earth 616 Superman, original Superman, etc. they've done the same with the Green Lantern, there's an entire Sinestro goes evil with a yellow ring story-line, several others.


some of these "might" make good source for a movie, some not. or they can just invent something new. fans of course want something they are familiar with, but like Superman the fans of the Green Lantern are are split into factions, try to appease one faction, offend the other.



DC is bringing out a new Superman (younger version than Cavill's version) because Superman is easily DC's most popular title. the Green Lantern not so much. it's unlikely James Gunn would consider a new standalone Green Lantern movie, it doesn't seem to fit what he's said is "his vision" to date. something about "Gods and Monsters". if Gunn tries a "Vampire" movie it'll flop. bahhaaaa


interestingly, the new Flash movie coming out soon (with that rather troubled flake Ezra Miller as Flash) is designed to "reset" everything in theory allowing James Gunn to ignore any prior movies and start fresh. we'll see how that works out.


while a new standalone Green Lantern (origin or not) movie is unlikely, there is some possibility Green Lantern will be in some new movie as part of some ensemble cast, most likely featuring Superman.

[Bushjumper]

Green Lantern was my favorite. The problem in my opinion was that DC screwed GL in the ass by evolving him into an evil/vengeful loose canon set on destroying the Green Lantern Corp.
The movie didn't follow the modern comic book, and there weren't enough old GL fans left who were going to see the movie. They were at least 50 yr old by then.
I loved the movie. Too bad they didn't make a sequel.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Bushjumper

Green Lantern was my favorite. The problem in my opinion was that DC screwed GL in the ass by evolving him into an evil/vengeful loose canon set on destroying the Green Lantern Corp.
The movie didn't follow the modern comic book, and there weren't enough old GL fans left who were going to see the movie. They were at least 50 yr old by then.
I loved the movie. Too bad they didn't make a sequel.

i liked the Green Lantern movie too, Ryan Reynolds did a decent job as Hal Jordan and it followed the origin story exactly. i thought it was more than good enough to introduce the Green Lantern and the Green Lantern Corps.



critics of course hated it and in large part that was a factor in it's poor box office. as i said Green Lantern was never a top title for DC so it's fan base is limited. not enough to cover a 200m budget. it grossed 220m which means it broke even and in hollyweird that means it lost money due to marketing costs.


yes in the 1990's Hal Jordan became Parallax and turned evil then was redeemed by sacrificing himself to save the Earth. that wouldn't have been a good origin story obviously. haven't followed the comic in a long time but DC did make significant changes, including replacing the Hal Jordan character with another person as the GL for earth's sector. other stuff i wouldn't know haven't followed it.


the bad box office killed any possible sequel, there were plans for a sequel while the first movie was in production but that was contingent on strong box office of course.
a sequel according to reports would have focused on Sinestro as corrupted and evil by wearing the yellow ring.


as it turns out, James Gunn does intend to bring the Green Lantern character into this new DC Universe


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_...niverse_reboot


DC Universe reboot

Main article: DC Universe (franchise)


In December 2022, DC Studios CEO James Gunn confirmed that the Green Lantern characters would be an important part of the new DCU.[120] When he and co-CEO Peter Safran unveiled the first projects from their DCU slate later that month they included Lanterns, a new iteration of a long-in-development Green Lantern series. Safran said the series would be an Earth-based detective story and "a huge HBO-quality event" in the style of the series True Detective (2014–present).[121]


Safran said the mystery that Jordan and Stewart investigate in the series leads into the main storyline for the DCU.[121]


not sure i like the concept as it stands now. Green Lantern, Detective?

Nah i'll pass.

[VitaMan]