Re-cast Hal Jordan for JL movie? Yay or Nay?

[Rorschach2012]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

There have been 3 Hulk actors in the last 10 years, and they never repeated his origins. Replacing Reynolds doesn't mean ditching the origin.

I like the idea of this. Pull a Hulk. Or John Stewart. I think those are the best choices.

[Reel]

Originally Posted by greenlantern248

I voted No, keep Ryan as Hal.
Like other people have said it wasn't his acting it was a poor script.
I personally like the Green Lantern movie, and I'm one of the biggest Green Lantern fans in the state that I live in. I thought they did a decent job with the movie. I like the cgi suit and the performances for the cast.

So in a JL movie I want Reynolds to be Hal.

My points exactly.

If they are replacing HAL JORDAN then replace him with John Stewart and give a reference to Guy Gardner being unfit to wield the ring and it being took off him and given to Stewart. Also reference that Hal got promoted to Green Lantern Honour Guard and patrols all sectors.

[brainchild81]

Originally Posted by greenlantern248

I voted No, keep Ryan as Hal.
Like other people have said it wasn't his acting it was a poor script.
I personally like the Green Lantern movie, and I'm one of the biggest Green Lantern fans in the state that I live in. I thought they did a decent job with the movie. I like the cgi suit and the performances for the cast.

So in a JL movie I want Reynolds to be Hal.

The movie was an absolute failure. No offense but if you like it, perhaps what you want to see isn't the best thing for WB to go with. When a movie fails like that, "more of the same" is not a good idea. They should nix Hal altogether. John Stewart is the most logical choice

[superhero]

i heard a rumor of green lantern 2 coming out this summer not sure if its true or not

[mclay18]

Originally Posted by superhero

i heard a rumor of green lantern 2 coming out this summer not sure if its true or not

It's not. But... had GL performed well, the sequel would be getting that June 14, 2013 spot instead of MOS.

A sequel script was written (before GL bombed), and the principal actors' sequel options are still valid. Should WB and the JL director ultimately decide to bring back Reynolds and/or any other cast members, they'll exercise those options in place. Helluva cheaper than buying their contracts out and replacing them with other actors.

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I feel like it's a no brainer business wise for WB to just bring Reynolds back.

[Project862006]

^exactly i think jla needs all the big names or known actors they can get

and maybe get a gosling or a Bradley cooper for the flash aswell

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by brainchild81

The movie was an absolute failure. No offense but if you like it, perhaps what you want to see isn't the best thing for WB to go with. When a movie fails like that, "more of the same" is not a good idea. They should nix Hal altogether. John Stewart is the most logical choice

Exactly...I'm all for people having opinions that go against the grain, but you can't live in a bubble. If you thought Green Lantern was good, your opinion is in violent contrast with both popular and critical consensus.

DC lost nearly $200 M on this movie. Why would they want their forthcoming big budget make it or break it DC extravaganza to have anything to do with GL?

The only way I want to see Ryan Reynolds in JLA is accidentally bumping into him in the audience at opening night. He has no place in this film.

[the last son]

It's a no-brainer to re-cast Hal Jordan or go with Stewart. Unless you can slap from the creators of TDK on a GL poster Reynolds has zero chance of ever being GL again and rightfully so

[the last son]

I actually rather see Gosling as GL than as Batman

[The Boy Scout]

I'd rather they recast, to separate this film from GL, but if they want to keep Reynolds, I don't think I'll have a problem with it.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by The Boy Scout

I'd rather they recast, to separate this film from GL, but if they want to keep Reynolds, I don't think I'll have a problem with it.

[mclay18]

Originally Posted by brainchild81

The movie was an absolute failure. No offense but if you like it, perhaps what you want to see isn't the best thing for WB to go with. When a movie fails like that, "more of the same" is not a good idea. They should nix Hal altogether. John Stewart is the most logical choice

I have to disagree with you on every front. I enjoyed parts of GL (the overall product definitely lacked), so no, it was not an absolute failure IMO.

Absolute failure is the dump pile like Elektra, Batman & Robin, and Catwoman. GL at its worse still outstrips those by a country mile... because unlike those pics, there were things in that movie that worked.

And just because vengeful fanboys like yourself want Reynolds out of the picture... bottom line, WB doesn't give a s**t what you or I think. If WB wants Reynolds back to interact with the likes of Cavill and/or JGL, then they have him. More economical and because that character already has a pre-existing movie.... less character introduction and backstory in JL.

So be prepared for every scenario. If Reynolds comes back for JL, get used to it. If he's recast with another actor, then I will gladly eat crow. But stop acting like your opinion is fact.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by mclay18

I have to disagree with you on every front. I enjoyed parts of GL (the overall product definitely lacked), so no, it was not an absolute failure IMO.

Absolute failure is the dump pile like Elektra, Batman & Robin, and Catwoman. GL at its worse still outstrips those by a country mile... because unlike those pics, there were things in that movie that worked.

And just because vengeful fanboys like yourself want Reynolds out of the picture... bottom line, WB doesn't give a s**t what you or I think. If WB wants Reynolds back to interact with the likes of Cavill and/or JGL, then they have him. More economical and because that character already has a pre-existing movie.... less character introduction and backstory in JL.

So be prepared for every scenario. If Reynolds comes back for JL, get used to it. If he's recast with another actor, then I will gladly eat crow. But stop acting like your opinion is fact.

Even if you love GL, look at it from a pure business perspective.

You are top brass at a major corporation. You are tasked with putting together a cast for a movie that will cost in the range of $250-300 M to make, and another $150 to market.

One of your characters has already had a movie. That movie cost $200 M to make, and $100-150 M to market. That film grossed roughly $220 M, of which your corporation sees half, thus putting the project nearly $200 M in the red.

Do you, as a business man, not as a fan, try to tie in with one of your corporations largest cinematic failures (from a purely monetary perspective) or do you try to distance yourself from it. How do you go about explaining to shareholders "So, we're making a $400 M film, and we want to tie it into the biggest bomb of 2011."

The simple answer is you distance yourself (and your movie) from said flop, and try to show the character in a new light. It's really hard to separate the character from the previous film if you're using the same actor.

[Willi Berg]

If Ryan Reynold's Hal is used again, I wonder how they would explain the events of the first GL movie. In the recent Goyer interview, he talks about the MOS Superman being Earth's "first contact" with an alien race. The GL movie would have to either be ignored, or set after, or the events covered up by the government (though that would take away from Superman being the first), to be in line with MOS.

If they decide to go with an all new GL, then the JL movie could offer a brief glimpse into this new version of the GL universe, of Hal, as well as the Guardians, the Corps, Oa etc. And it could even play a part in the plot, since it is intergalactic. For example, Hal consulting with the Guardians on Oa about this latest threat, or other GLs helping etc.

[Drakepool]

The movie wasn't great, but I liked RR in the role. He can stay.

[Kevin Smith]

I know GL sucking wasn't Reynolds fault, but I say recast. Just because I need that film's taste washed out of my mouth and want nothing carried over from it. Besides, I'm curious to see who they'd cast.

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Originally Posted by Willi Berg

If Ryan Reynold's Hal is used again, I wonder how they would explain the events of the first GL movie. In the recent Goyer interview, he talks about the MOS Superman being Earth's "first contact" with an alien race. The GL movie would have to either be ignored, or set after, or the events covered up by the government (though that would take away from Superman being the first), to be in line with MOS.

If they decide to go with an all new GL, then the JL movie could offer a brief glimpse into this new version of the GL universe, of Hal, as well as the Guardians, the Corps, Oa etc. And it could even play a part in the plot, since it is intergalactic. For example, Hal consulting with the Guardians on Oa about this latest threat, or other GLs helping etc.

They could say that Superman's public appearance takes place after Abin Sur's arrival (which was swept under the rug) but before the public Parallax thing at the end. I don't think it would take it would take away from it completely, as Abin Sur was dead and harmless, unlike Superman.

This is assuming that Green Lantern is even a part of this shared universe. Perhaps MOS is the beginning of it. Or perhaps the JL movie will be the start.

[mace1]

Originally Posted by TheHeatKitchen

For Green Lantern, show the ring finding John Stewart, him being summoned to the Guardians, they explain what happened with Hal Jordan (whatever path the writers decide), reference to John replacing him and his training beginning. Maybe even toss in a reference to some bigger threat coming to Earth (Darkseid).

Well keep in mind parallax in the green lantern movie was a bigger threat then darkseid will ever be.

[mace1]

Originally Posted by Rorschach2012

I like the idea of this. Pull a Hulk. Or John Stewart. I think those are the best choices.

I agree.

[mace1]

Originally Posted by The Boy Scout

I'd rather they recast, to separate this film from GL, but if they want to keep Reynolds, I don't think I'll have a problem with it.

This is good choice too,or they should go with john stewart.

[Gary Griffith]

I actually don't mind the GL film. It's not a great movie, but it's not awful. That being said, it was essentially a box office dud and most people haven't seen it, so trying to tie it to JL in any manner, shape or form just seems silly. WB should distance themselves from it as much as possible. I like Reynolds, but if I'm WB/DC I distance myself as much as possible and just pretend GL doesn't exist. You can make Jordan or Stewart or whomever the Green Lantern in the JL film, but avoid the box office disaster that the GL movie represents. And again I don't think the film or Reynolds are that bad, it just makes sense to break ties with a dud ala Rothh/Superman.

[TheHeatKitchen]

Originally Posted by mace1

Well keep in mind parallax in the green lantern movie was a bigger threat then darkseid will ever be.

I guess I'm thinking something more dangerous and menacing. More of a true threat.

[SlamAdams]

Originally Posted by mace1

Well keep in mind parallax in the green lantern movie was a bigger threat then darkseid will ever be.

Disagree. Parallax was big but was a wild animal who was stupid enough to be distracted away from an entire planet of scared humans to chase after the one guy with the power to stop him. He is certainly not as threatening as a physically strong and intelligent alien dictator with an army at his side

[Rorschach2012]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

Even if you love GL, look at it from a pure business perspective.

You are top brass at a major corporation. You are tasked with putting together a cast for a movie that will cost in the range of $250-300 M to make, and another $150 to market.

One of your characters has already had a movie. That movie cost $200 M to make, and $100-150 M to market. That film grossed roughly $220 M, of which your corporation sees half, thus putting the project nearly $200 M in the red.

Do you, as a business man, not as a fan, try to tie in with one of your corporations largest cinematic failures (from a purely monetary perspective) or do you try to distance yourself from it. How do you go about explaining to shareholders "So, we're making a $400 M film, and we want to tie it into the biggest bomb of 2011."

The simple answer is you distance yourself (and your movie) from said flop, and try to show the character in a new light. It's really hard to separate the character from the previous film if you're using the same actor.

I think there is a reason mcclay18 didnt respond to this. He knows how right you are on all points. This is all facts, people that don't understand this are just ignoring how truly horrible Green Lantern fared at the box office and how bad of a film it was. You'd have to be ignorant to not realize that.

It ONLY makes sense to recast, the logic behind connecting Justice League to a movie that was poorly received critically and financially is nonexistant. This is literally one of the worst ideas for WB to do from a financial standpoint, you dont associate JL with a horrible movie its simple

That being said, i like Ryan Reynolds, and have faith that he could do a decent Green Lantern even though he sucked in the first film. If hes cast i won't complain but it just doesnt make sense