Jack Black as GL? Why god...WHY?!

[Octoberist]

Mathhater, I see what you're saying.

But Catwoman was greenlighted before WB wised up with Batman and Superman. Now, I'm not giving WB credit because it took two mistakes (Batman & Robin/Catwoman) before they got it right.

Now, if WB goes ahead with Green Latern with Jack Black, they're just asking for trouble. It could end up being a funny ass movie but it'll make people go "What happened if they went down the other direction?"

Espically when they're competing against Marvel. Imagine if Marvel came out with Iron Man with Will Ferrel. Why do it when you got an untapped franchise waiting to blossom?

 

[mathhater]

I agree. Surely, surely...after their missteps and mistakes...someone at the WB has that one grain of common sense that tells them the way to go for their superhero franchises now. They've done the wrong way, and now it seems they're on to the right way...don't mess up now WB...or you'll only prove my point that you're a studio run by a bunch of blindfolded, ******ed monkeys.

*Continues burning offerings to the movie gods in the hopes of no "Catwoman 2" or a Jack Black superhero*

 

[Morgoth]

WB must really not care about DC comics, which I've heard before, haven't they learned from their mistakes, why can't they make a good faithful GL, it could the next Starwars, I mean it could be huge.

 

[LadyVader]

If the news is actually true and not just Jack Black boasting and being full of s***.

I guess they figure a comedy will be way cheaper then an all out sci fi action fantasy drama flick. Which makes sense, but it goes to show they love the buck more then they love the fan.

Which is silly because the fans bring the most bucks.

 

[Kane]

The fans will make sure this doesnt happen...guaranteed.

WB isnt gonna ruin another franchaise.

WB already has their zany comedy movie; Shazam.... Theres NO need to turn GL into a complete joke!

 

[mathhater]

Besides, the whole comedic GL thing's been done already...anyone see that episode of "Duck Dodgers" where Daffy ends up with Hal Jordan's ring...and fights Sinestro alongside Kilowog?
It was good (for what it was)...but we definitely don't need a movie version of it.

 

[GL's Light]

Dear Jack Black,

Please keep your chubby, hairy, motherfornicating paws off of Green Lantern.

Yours truly,
The World

 

[dnno1]

You know, I was having a really good day until I popped onto the Hype and read this. Now I feel like I've just been skullf**ked by Sgt. Hartman.

Can someone explain this to me? Seriously? I mean, WB and DC are finally making critically acclaimed projects like Batman Begins and (apparently, at least) Superman Returns... why would they want to revert back to the days of Bat-nipples and Halle-Cats with a Jack Black Green Lantern bomb? I will BOYCOTT THE HELL OUT OF THIS MOVIE should it be made, I swear to God.

Seriously? It could be because they want to see our reaction to it.

One point I might bring out is that using the word boycott is a very strong statement. The act of boycotting, or inciting one, should be only done when someone has or something is done that is morally wrong. Since this is a fictional character(s) that we are discussing here the talk of boycott is kind of out of place and inappropriate. Using words like "I think that a superhero movie done as a comedy is silly and I wouldn't watch one" is more appropriate. Saying boycott would imply that you will not support the makers of the product in any way, which could mean that you and others would not go to any Warner Brothers movies, watch any TV shows on the WB, buy Time magazine, or read anymore of the DC titles.

 

[dnno1]

WB must really not care about DC comics, which I've heard before, haven't they learned from their mistakes, why can't they make a good faithful GL, it could the next Starwars, I mean it could be huge.

 

[dnno1]

Dear Jack Black,

Please keep your chubby, hairy, motherfornicating paws off of Green Lantern.

Yours truly,
The World

Maybe you should change your avatar. Green Loontern is just adding fuel to the fire.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

This won't happen. Ratner also wanted to direct SR, JJ Abrams wanted Lex Luthor to be a CIA Kryptonian who transformed into a giant spider, Batman Begins was oirginally "wanted" as a prequal to B89. It seems after catwoman flopped in front of the onslaught of Marvel movies (some good, some really bad) DC/WB decided to stay away from the Catwoman's and stick to the heart of the characters and make serious films that reflected the tone and nature of the comics. So far we have two (and Flash and Wonder Woman make 4) that all (sound at least) to be huge winners in the film department. GL is Part of the big five of whom we have seen 4, they won't destroy him by making it into "Nacho Lantern".

 

[GL's Light]

Maybe you should change your avatar. Green Loontern is just adding fuel to the fire.

Nope, Green Loontern doesn't want a Jack Black GL film, either. And when Green Loontern speaks, people listen.

 

[Whack Arnolds]

Make a comedic film with Jack Black as Green Lantern. That would be AWESOME!!!!!!!!

 

[kedrell]

Nacho Verde anyone?

 

[That-Guy]

Seriously? It could be because they want to see our reaction to it.

One point I might bring out is that using the word boycott is a very strong statement. The act of boycotting, or inciting one, should be only done when someone has or something is done that is morally wrong. Since this is a fictional character(s) that we are discussing here the talk of boycott is kind of out of place and inappropriate. Using words like "I think that a superhero movie done as a comedy is silly and I wouldn't watch one" is more appropriate. Saying boycott would imply that you will not support the makers of the product in any way, which could mean that you and others would not go to any Warner Brothers movies, watch any TV shows on the WB, buy Time magazine, or read anymore of the DC titles.

Yes, I'm well aware what the word "boycott" means. But now that you mention it, boycotting a Jack Black GL movie would be easier than I thought, considering that I don't watch any shows on the WB, I don't read Time magazine except when I'm in the waiting room at the doctors office, I don't have AOL, I recently cancelled all of my comic book subscriptions (not because they were bad, but because I need to save money and I was cutting out regular payments I was making on things I don't need), and the only Warner Brothers movie that I actually have specific plans to go see is Superman Returns, which I will support as long as it is a serious, faithful adaptation of the character (which is what it appears to be, despite some minor things).

Regardless... this IS a serious issue and worth boycotting. True, it's not as serious as say, the fact that I also refuse to buy an R. Kelly single because he's a statatory rapist (plus there's also the fact his music sucks), but I don't think this issue should be taken lightly. What we are talking about is bastardizing a classic character with half a century's worth of history. For example, if Peter Jackson had taken The Lord of the Rings and turned it into a big joke, the entire English countryside would be up in arms. And perhaps Green Lantern isn't as huge of a property as that, but the character does have a loyal fan following and if we don't do what we can to keep this character from being ruined on the big screen, then what's next? I'm not a total purist by any means, but I do believe that its important to stay true to at least the original idea of a story. Green Lantern has and always will be a serious character. True, the story does have some goofy elements, but seeing Nacho Libre bounce around the galaxy with a power ring is NOT one of them.

 

[Savage]

...Anyone ever stop to think that he might not be STARRING in the movie but just in it as A Green Lantern? I mean maybe the movie will showcase all the Green Lanterns and the whole Green Lantern corp. thing. If that's the case then I definately like the idea of Jack Black as Guy Gardner. I can see him as the comic relief. It sounds just like him to say "Yes, I'm totally starring in this movie.". His role will probably be about the size of the one he had in King Kong with the more serious Green Lantern (Kyle Rayner) taking the lead...Hal Jordan will probably come back in a later movie has the rogue Green Lantern that went evil and his backstory will be told during the movie or something which would be fine by me...But I'm getting ahead of myself.

 

[Whack Arnolds]

You guys are so ****ing melodramatic, lol.

Look outside of the box. There is potential for a comic book movie franchise to be mainly funny and still be quality. Batman n Robin, Catwoman, etc. were just bad movies, cause they were trying to be serious. You could make a good franchise out of this. Jack Black draws, and he is funny as hell. Jack Black for GL would own. Green Lantern isn't a very popular, or ultra-important character anyway. In fact, he's kind of lame. Jack Black as GL would spice things up and make it good. As long as they stick to the vision, and not try to be something it's not... it will work. Stop being so close minded. Who's to say it couldn't come out as being really good?

 

[ToddIsDead]

But Green Lantern as a character really isn't very funny. Sure, something funny can happen in or come from a Green Lantern story, but for the most part, the Green Lantern are serious characters. I don't want to see Hal Jordon up on screen acting like the Mask, because that's just not who he is.

 

[That-Guy]

...Anyone ever stop to think that he might not be STARRING in the movie but just in it as A Green Lantern? I mean maybe the movie will showcase all the Green Lanterns and the whole Green Lantern corp. thing. If that's the case then I definately like the idea of Jack Black as Guy Gardner. I can see him as the comic relief. It sounds just like him to say "Yes, I'm totally starring in this movie.". His role will probably be about the size of the one he had in King Kong with the more serious Green Lantern (Kyle Rayner) taking the lead...Hal Jordan will probably come back in a later movie has the rogue Green Lantern that went evil and his backstory will be told during the movie or something which would be fine by me...But I'm getting ahead of myself.

I suppose I could tolerate Jack Black as a side character in a GL movie... but I personally think he's even wrong for a character like Guy. True, Guy is often comic relief and a bit of a jerk, but he's also a hero and a complete badass when he needs to be. I'll admit, I'd rather have a goofy Guy than a goofy Hal or Kyle in a movie, but personally, I don't think Black is suited to any of these roles. That's just my opinion... but face it... he doesn't resemble any of these characters physically (he probably couldn't, even if he bulked up and in the case of Guy, dyed his hair red) and aside from King Kong, I still haven't seen him do anything all that impressive acting-wise.

 

[Savage]

It's Jack Black, not Jim Carrey. He's a little more subtle. Especially when he needs to be. I can see him pulling off Guy Gardner no problem...In fact I'd like a JLA movie just to see him get punched in the face by Bale.

 

[ToddIsDead]

I don't see Black as Guy-ish at all...

 

[GL's Light]

I don't see Black as Guy-ish at all...

Neither do I. The only GL Jack Black is suited to play is G'nort.

 

[Savage]

I suppose I could tolerate Jack Black as a side character in a GL movie... but I personally think he's even wrong for a character like Guy. True, Guy is often comic relief and a bit of a jerk, but he's also a hero and a complete badass when he needs to be. I'll admit, I'd rather have a goofy Guy than a goofy Hal or Kyle in a movie, but personally, I don't think Black is suited to any of these roles. That's just my opinion... but face it... he doesn't resemble any of these characters physically (he probably couldn't, even if he bulked up and in the case of Guy, dyed his hair red) and aside from King Kong, I still haven't seen him do anything all that impressive acting-wise.

I dunno man...

I can see just from looks alone I think Black has it. As for his portrayal, i'm sure he can find a nice medium in his tone to pull it off.

 

[ToddIsDead]

If they wanted to go the comedy root, then they should have done this ten years ago, and had Chris Farley play Mogo. That would be a site to see.

 

[That-Guy]

You guys are so ****ing melodramatic, lol.

Look outside of the box. There is potential for a comic book movie franchise to be mainly funny and still be quality. Batman n Robin, Catwoman, etc. were just bad movies, cause they were trying to be serious. You could make a good franchise out of this. Jack Black draws, and he is funny as hell. Jack Black for GL would own. Green Lantern isn't a very popular, or ultra-important character anyway. In fact, he's kind of lame. Jack Black as GL would spice things up and make it good. As long as they stick to the vision, and not try to be something it's not... it will work. Stop being so close minded. Who's to say it couldn't come out as being really good?

Oh, I see. So since you don't like the character and think he's stupid, then the f**k with people who do like him, right? Okay, well, I hate 90% of Jack Black movies, so does that mean he should never be allowed to act again? That is essentially what you're saying here: since GL is something you're not particularly invested in, who cares what happens to the franchise, right? Why not just run it into the ground?

The last time a movie studio tried to make a "comedic" superhero movie, we got Fantastic Four. And that was awful, IMO. To think that turning Green Lantern into a stupid, pointless comedy would only end up the same way, or worse.