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

[SlamAdams]

Originally Posted by Rorschach2012

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

If he's already under contract it might be cheaper to keep him than to buy him out and negotiate with a new actor.

[Rorschach2012]

I realize that. But you ignored like everything I was saying. The Reynolds starring Green Lantern made WB lose 100s of millions of dollars. Why in the HELL would they want to connect Justice League to a movie that made them lose money. Why would they expect Justice League to fare any better if its connected to Green Lantern?

Honestly if people saw Ryan Reynolds in a justice league trailer and remembered how horrible the 2011 film was, i think it would cause people to lose interest.

This film is already at a disadvantage seeing how Marvel is kicking their asses, and people think this film is copying The Avengers already, why put at more of a disadvantage by casting an actor whose film made the company lose 100s of millions.

It may be cheaper for them to just exercise his contract for JL, but in the end, I think theyll lose more money by casting him in the movie, than the money they may save by not negotiating with a different actor. If its connected to Green Lantern, interest goes down, therefore box office goes down.


The only people that want Ryan Reynolds to return are tasteless fanboys, no one else cared about him or that film.

[The Guard]

What possible connection to GREEN LANTERN could a JUSTICE LEAGUE movie need to have that would somehow make including Ryan Reynolds a problem?

The ways to connect GREEN LANTERN to JUSTICE LEAGUE without having it negatively affect JUSTICE LEAGUE are fairly obvious:

1. Show that GL exists, the basics of his powers and The Corps.
2. Amanda Waller, naturally (surely she's alive)
3. GL is part of the Justice League

Saying "Well, the movie was a dud so we'll just purposefully distance ourselves from the idea of a connected DC Universe in this one instance" sends the wrong message entirely about WB's commitment to creating and marketing a DC Universe on film.

[Rorschach2012]

The second the audience sees a scene of how awesome Green Lantern can be, memories of the first film will be wiped away, thats for sure, but until they see that scene, people are just going to have memories of how bad the first film was, which will negatively impact the box office imo.

There are definitely benefits to connecting the Green Lantern film to JL, and the biggest one is just credibility, if WB has two solo films connecting into the JL they have more of a foundation than just Man Of Steel, and itll be more similar to Marvel's strategy.

Another option is to connect JL to GL by keeping Amanda Waller, and show that Hal Jordan is off doing something else, then establish that there are other Green Lanterns on Earth. Enter John Stewart. The connection is still there, Stewarts origin can be told in a few sentences of dialogue

[brainchild81]

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.

Pipe down, kid. I'm the farthest thing from a vengeful fanboy. GL IS a failure in the purest sense of the word. You liking parts of that brutal crapfest doesn't begin to change that. Nor does being better than some horrible movies, none of which lost as much money as GL IIRC

[The Guard]

The second the audience sees a scene of how awesome Green Lantern can be, memories of the first film will be wiped away, thats for sure, but until they see that scene, people are just going to have memories of how bad the first film was, which will negatively impact the box office imo.

I can't wait for the audiences, most of whom didn't see GREEN LANTERN in the first place, based on the box office, to have their non-existent memories of the film and the character wiped away by whatever's going to do that.

[SlamAdams]

Originally Posted by Rorschach2012

I realize that. But you ignored like everything I was saying. The Reynolds starring Green Lantern made WB lose 100s of millions of dollars. Why in the HELL would they want to connect Justice League to a movie that made them lose money. Why would they expect Justice League to fare any better if its connected to Green Lantern?

I'm not ignoring anything you said. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility for a studio to make that kind of decision though whether GL was a bad more or not. Contracts can be expensive to buy out, and then to renegotiate a new actor would be adding a lot of money to the budget. If they could get Reynolds on low-ish salary (since they already have him tied up) and pair him up with a successful Cavil (which is they are considering necessary) and surround him with an ensemble cast might make up for whatever marketability they'll lose because Green Lantern was a flop.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by brainchild81

Pipe down, kid. I'm the farthest thing from a vengeful fanboy. GL IS a failure in the purest sense of the word. You liking parts of that brutal crapfest doesn't begin to change that. Nor does being better than some horrible movies, none of which lost as much money as GL IIRC

GL also lost more money than all of those films combined.

[metaphysician]

Originally Posted by brainchild81

Pipe down, kid. I'm the farthest thing from a vengeful fanboy. GL IS a failure in the purest sense of the word. You liking parts of that brutal crapfest doesn't begin to change that. Nor does being better than some horrible movies, none of which lost as much money as GL IIRC

Also, it should be noted that Green Lantern was *more* of a failure than any of those movies mentioned. Batman & Robin almost broke even in theaters, and even Elektra made more relative to its budget than GL did.

[Zionite1]

I dont get those who say they want GL to be connected to JL for the appearance of continuity.Fact is even a GL sequel wont respect Green lanterns continuity-it will infact retcon elements to distance its self from the movie-For example the costume will be changed whether its sequel or reboot.Thats ignoring the continuity of 1st film.Fact is that continuity is regarded as flawes so what piont cld there be to continue it.
Then there are those who say Reynolds was good in the role.Thats cool.Why cant we get someone who is awesome in the role instead of tying themselves down to a flawed continuity.

[mclay18]

Originally Posted by SlamAdams

I'm not ignoring anything you said. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility for a studio to make that kind of decision though whether GL was a bad more or not. Contracts can be expensive to buy out, and then to renegotiate a new actor would be adding a lot of money to the budget. If they could get Reynolds on low-ish salary (since they already have him tied up) and pair him up with a successful Cavil (which is they are considering necessary) and surround him with an ensemble cast might make up for whatever marketability they'll lose because Green Lantern was a flop.

That's the point I'm trying to make here. Guys, I'm fully aware that you hate GL with a passion. Even more aware that the film lost a lot of money for WB.

But the studio execs don't sympathize with fanboys. They're going to go with a financially efficient way to go about JL... which doesn't always equate to buying out an actor's existing contract in order to recast him/her with someone else. (Which costs more money.) They'll likely exercise Cavill's sequel clause he signed on Man of Steel to have him do JL (as writing up another contract for a JL franchise will be more expensive), and likely the same for Reynolds -- should they decide to bring him back. Key emphasis on 'should'.

Why is this so hard for you guys to understand?

[Nathan]

Reynolds was one of the best things in the Movie, it's too bad everything else about it was mediocre. I wouldn't mind if he returns, although I'd prefer that he doesn't and Fox finally gets of their asses. Start making that Deadpool movie already.

[Denny67]

I say yes and not just the actor but the character as well. IMO they should go with John Stewart. DC has already been criticized for it's lack of diversity in the past. To have Superman, Batman, Flash and Wonder Woman. All white guy and one white woman, then to go with Hal. It only feeds into that perception.

To me John Stewart seems like an obvious choice. That's not to say that Hal can not be mentioned in the movie to remind the audience that Green Lanterns are part of an intergalactic police/military force.

[Project862006]

i say keep him jla would need as much big name/known actors as possible

[cleverusername8]

I just watched Green Lantern and now I doubly stand by my opinion: keep Reynolds for Hal. I think he did a very good job with both Hal and Deadpool. He did well with what he was given. The writing and maybe the direction may have been off but he himself is a great actor and I'd be ecstatic if they decided to keep him.

Although, it would be tough to explain a new continuity if they so chose to go with that. I highly doubt MOS will be set in Green Lantern's world. However, Reynolds himself should be a model to whoever they choose to replace him if they do.

I'm even more hesitant to say switch him to Flash because that could throw the audience for an even bigger loop. It's in or out hokey pokey style for him I suppose and I definitely want him in.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by cleverusername8

I just watched Green Lantern and now I doubly stand by my opinion: keep Reynolds for Hal. I think he did a very good job with both Hal and Deadpool. He did well with what he was given. The writing and maybe the direction may have been off but he himself is a great actor and I'd be ecstatic if they decided to keep him.

Although, it would be tough to explain a new continuity if they so chose to go with that. I highly doubt MOS will be set in Green Lantern's world. However, Reynolds himself should be a model to whoever they choose to replace him if they do.

I'm even more hesitant to say switch him to Flash because that could throw the audience for an even bigger loop. It's in or out hokey pokey style for him I suppose and I definitely want him in.

You bring up a good point. Using Ryan as Hal would imply the events of GL happened, which would make you wonder why Superman didn't just spring into action against a World threatening entity like Parallax.

[HighFivingMF]

Originally Posted by KangConquers

which would make you wonder why Superman didn't just spring into action against a World threatening entity like Parallax.

Parallax was only on Earth for a few minutes before Hal lured him into space. An excuse wouldn't be difficult to come up with.

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Originally Posted by HighFivingMF

Parallax was only on Earth for a few minutes before Hal lured him into space. An excuse wouldn't be difficult to come up with.

If they really wanted, someone could bring it up in the movie as reason why they need the League.

Perhaps when Superman is in custody, that's when the Parallax stuff takes place.

Superman should say that he can't be in two places at once, which is why they're forming the team in the first place.

(though if this is in the Nolanverse, I still like my idea for the Justice League's purpose/inception coming from Superman/Bruce needing to extend their 'symbol' mission to the rest of world, inspring hope for everyone on Earth by showing that the world's heroes are uniting, working together, in turn helping people sleep at night, knowing that they will be protected from the forces out there in the universe that intend to bring harm to Earth)

[The Guard]

You bring up a good point. Using Ryan as Hal would imply the events of GL happened, which would make you wonder why Superman didn't just spring into action against a World threatening entity like Parallax.

You know, the average person...simply doesn't care about things like this.

[Project862006]

^neither do most comic fans here lol people over think on this board wayyy too much

[cleverusername8]

Well there is also the apparent shock that comes with a super-human's existence suggested in MOS trailers. They're making it seem like this is the first time the world has seen anything out of the ordinary. Unless MOS takes place before Green Lantern. I guess that would explain the limited but seemingly positive reaction we saw from the public being good.

I'm sure that if pursued, the GL sequel would fill in a few gaps to make it fit better with the new universe that is shaping up.

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Do you think the GL movie should be a part of the universe?

If yes, then keep Reynolds, he was great.

If no, then re-cast to make that clearer. There are tons of other great candidates for Hal.

[Juicy J]

No, do not recast green lantern. Absolutely not.
Yes the movie was a steaming turd but it was also a $230 million dollar turd with a large marketing presence. I think it's safe to say the public still remembers the movie; at the very least it remembers Ryan Reynolds in a ridiculous green CGI suit.
So there'd be no need to explain his origin in the JL movie which, as I've said countless times before, is the biggest hurtle this movie will have to face. Going in to the JL film with only one solo film beforehand (that being MOS) is pretty much suicide, as you'd have to introduce several other huge characters with a long convoluted back story. Using the GL film back from 2011 as sort of a launching pad would be smart, as you wouldn't have to waste time re-explaining who the GL is. Also, it'd show some backbone if WB stood behind that film. I know that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things but I'd have some respect for them if they did it because at least then it wouldn't seem like they were just throwing things at the wall and seeing what'll stick.

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

You don't have to introduce convoluted backstories.

They haven't shown Hulk's origin in the current Marvel continuity and nobody cares. The actors have changed in every movie, out of continuity and in continuity. And people thought the Hulk was the best thing about The Avengers.

Why can't the first GL movie just be like Ang Lee's Hulk? Separate?

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by The Guard

You know, the average person...simply doesn't care about things like this.

True. Given that almost no one saw this movie...