I think you continue to completely miss the point. The movie can say "Oan technology" however much it wants. If it comes off as "stuff happens, because magic", then its still a 'magic ring' narratively speaking: Its still basically a arbitrary plot device in ring form, lacking in a coherent and well-sold theme and purpose.
You can entirely do a Green Lantern movie without the 'magic ring' problem, *even if the ring actually can do anything*. You could use the ring as an allegory for how nothing can happen without the drive to see it happen. You could set the main theme as 'power and responsibility', with the plot explicitly grappling with what it means to be able to do anything. Hell, you could even simply pick your style to create the *illusion* that the ring has technological limits and rules, rather than being arbitrary space magic, even if it practically does whatever the plot demands.
Its just, the Green Lantern movie we actually got didn't *do* these things, or at least do them well enough to be worth mentioning.
Have be film be about Kyle (because he's quite popular), and get Kevin Zegers for the role.
.Hal is necessary for Kyle to be included the right way. I think the only realistic ideas for a solo film are Hal and John, but I wouldn't mind Kyle at all
If you go by that, then every other earth lantern needs Hal to be put the "right" way.
Any excuse for more Hal.
Not really. I'm just stating that if you go by the logic you need Hal for Kyle to be done "right", then every other earth lantern falls into that category as well.
From what I gather, WB gave DC some leeway on the creative side of things for Lantern and let them supervise the script/cast.
Just goes to show how inept the current management is. Though, to be fair, DC editorial has always been this way - proud to be anal retentive fanboys that revel in their exclusive comic book club.
Geoff Johns and co. have gotten so used to writing comics for 30/40 yr old fanboys that they've forgotten that the average moviegoer isn't going to care about his version of Lantern on the big screen. Why? It's heavily reliant on a larger knowledge of the DCU. Lantern should have started simple. Have Hal receive the ring and DON'T show any other Lanterns...at all for the first film. You have to establish the protagonist first before you de-unique him. The Lantern Corp SHOULD have been introduced in a potential second film that builds on a larger story. It's sad that a professional writer like Johns(a guy that's been handed the reins of the entire DCU) doesn't understand simple things like this. Even the original creators of Lantern knew that it was important to keep Hal unique early on. Another GL didn't appear in the Lantern comics until the sixth issue....200 pages into the run. The logical thing to do for a first outing was to have the hero learn how to use the powers on his own(the early Kyle Rayner stories did this quite well).
Fans like to blame WB for Lantern's failure but DC dropped the ball here. As a comic book writer, I like Johns. As DC's chief creative office...I'm scared ****less for DC's film division. Warner Bros probably thought the same thing which is why they've gone the Nolan/Goyer route for future DC films and why they're sticking with only Batman/Superman. This is why you don't let fanboys like Geoff Johns run your comic book company. They'll run it into the ground before it's too late to fix things.
I think David Ramsey would make a good Stewart.
![]()
Just keep Mark Strong as Sinestro. He was perfect and wanted to keep playing the role. Even if they recast the rest of the roles from the first movie they should pull a Judi Dench as M and leave him there.
Seconded. Mark Strong as Sinestro was the only good thing to come out of the movie. If and when DC highlights the next GL or JL film, they should get him for the part. His portrayal was spot-on.
Thirded. Mark Strong does a great villain, and if you can keep him, you should.
( well, setting aside my assumption that a rebooted GL would be just as bad as the original, anyway )

I may get some hate for this, but Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson should be considered for John Stewart if a future solo movie comes to pass.
I'd rather see the usual suspects(Idris, Ejofor, etc) but Rock could possibly pull it off. I'd like him to lose some muscle mass for the role thoI may get some hate for this, but Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson should be considered for John Stewart if a future solo movie comes to pass.