Official Green Lantern Casting and Discussion Thread

[jrpstarwars]

I have a lot of trouble disagreeing with these castings... a whole lot. They work on several levels to me, and these are principal characters and the relationships between them makes for some of the best fodder in GL comics.

You Think they should do a solo Green Lantern movie or a movie with many Green Lanterns?

 

[Katsuro]

John's Story:
Act I: John is a struggling architect at the end of his rope (just like in comics), intro supporting cast
Act II: John gets the ring, does some cool stuff with it, is unorthodox and overconfident, but amazingly good (just like in comics)
Act III: The ring, it's responsibility and overuse get John into tragedy (JUST like in comics) ie sister dies, loses Tawny Young, loses contract with Ferris Airfield, again, all from comics.
Act IV: John gives up the ring, gets advice and pulls himself up after hitting rock bottom and facing his responsibilities, reclaims ring.
Act V: John confronts the villain and beats him into submission... John begins his GL training with Hal Jordan. (Just like in comics)

Okay, why does he get the ring? Tell me how you would write the wrong coming to him that wouldn't step all over another GLs origin.

 

[GL1]

jrpstarwars -- I believe many Green Lanterns, with only two being from Earth.

Katsuro -- Cuz he's the most unconventional thinker on the planet, in addition to having the potential to overcome great fear, give him the same speech that ALL GLs get nowadays, it could come directly from the ring...

The power of the story is in what's happening around John already and how the Ring affects it, not necessariliy in the epicness of the handing down of the ring... he doesn't need Ganthet or Abin Sur or... whoever to give it to him... he doesn't need anyone to die as he gets the ring, any death in the movie connected to his use or acceptance or misuse or lack of acceptance of the ring gives the entire movie and it's climax the same tragic weight...

I'd show pre-credits Hal sending the ring to earth to find a trainee lantern, and then I'd do the first part of the movie where John hits rock bottom, the ring floats to him and... "John Stewart, because of your ability to overcome great fear you have been chosen as Green Lantern 2814.2." Same as happens in GLC nowadays just about every issue...

 

[Penguin]

My Cast,

Hal Jordan - James Marsden
Kyle Rayner - Jesse Bradford
Alan Scott - Harrison Ford
John Stewart - Henry Simmons
Guy Gardner - Bradley Cooper
Caroll Ferris - Evangeline Lilly
Jade - Natalie Portman
Abin Sur - Laurence Fishburne
Kilowog - Ving Rhames
Tomar Re - Brent Spiner
Katma Tui - Bridget Moynahan
Arisia - Scarlett Johansson
Ganthet - Ian Holm
Sinestro - Hugo Weaving

 

[Katsuro]

Katsuro -- Cuz he's the most unconventional thinker on the planet, in addition to having the potential to overcome great fear, give him the same speech that ALL GLs get nowadays, it could come directly from the ring...

I dont mean why he's chosen above others, I mean why there's a need for someone to be chosen at all. So it's just "well, we should probably get a second Earth GL, Hal go find someone"? Yeah, that may be how they do it nowadays, but you cant just start from the middle. Starting the series off with anything but the first Green Lantern of Earth feels ridiculous. It's jumping into a world that needs to be built from the ground up. Hal's origin does that so well. It allows us to be introduced the world at the same time he is, as oppsoed to John who's probably seen Green Lanterns flying about the city for years.

I just cant help but think you're being blinded by the fact that John's your favorite character. All logic points to Hal being the best option without making major story changes. I just dont see any good reason why John would be better than Hal. The only argument for John that I think is even remotely credible, is that he's more familiar after the JLU cartoon. But even then, how many people watch cartoons these days?

 

[GL1]

Wow... I can't believe I let this slip under the radar!

I dont mean why he's chosen above others, I mean why there's a need for someone to be chosen at all. So it's just "well, we should probably get a second Earth GL, Hal go find someone"? Yeah, that may be how they do it nowadays, but you cant just start from the middle. Starting the series off with anything but the first Green Lantern of Earth feels ridiculous. It's jumping into a world that needs to be built from the ground up. Hal's origin does that so well. It allows us to be introduced the world at the same time he is, as oppsoed to John who's probably seen Green Lanterns flying about the city for years.

Wow... why do cops have partners? Why not send them out one by one? If someone else is needed, then that's just part of the universe. "Why is someone needed" isn't any more valid a question than "Why is someone not needed?"

Also, ALL epic movies start in the beginning... did we ever see the origin of the Matrix, or the Jedi, or the X-Men, or the Shire or anything like that in those big movies? Of course not, because it's not necessary, you just need ONE character that's new to the experience. This is an ancient aspect of storytelling.

Also, while starting with Alan Scott could be entertaining, it handicaps the franchise just as bad as a Hal-only movie would. You can't center the audience on this one man's earth life and then switch focus to the universe and an ensemble cast...

I just cant help but think you're being blinded by the fact that John's your favorite character. All logic points to Hal being the best option without making major story changes. I just dont see any good reason why John would be better than Hal. The only argument for John that I think is even remotely credible, is that he's more familiar after the JLU cartoon. But even then, how many people watch cartoons these days?

Wrong. All logic points to an ensemble space-based movie as the best option. Anything else narrows the broad appeal of the Green Lantern franchise and minimizes what makes the Green Lantern unique.

It is in fact quite the opposite, most fans are blinded by the fact that Hal is their favorite character, and are so entertained by Emerald Dawn that they somehow think that is the anchor and base for all things Green Lantern and THAT is actually what is rediculous.

Now, knowing that, seeing how obvious that is, and making that point several times only to see my posts ignored point blank because people simply can't handle that centering the world around their favorite is not the only or best option... well, I might as well lobby for my fave, whom I consider deeper and more interesting instead.

Yes he has the cartoons, but he also has the most varied experience as a GL and as a character, and thus, the best fodder for movie-making... y'know... without changing the stories.

BUT, if there were only ever going to be ONE GL movie, then perhaps transcribing Emerald Dawn wouldn't be such a bad idea, since we'd never see the rest of the Green Lantern Universe done right anyway.

AND since we're making assumptions about my persepective, a lot of my wariness about a Hal-only or Hal-centric movie comes from watching X-Men, which takes a highly talented group of comic book characters and turns them into a Mary Sue-like Wolverine and a bunch of black clad, expendable sidekicks. If a GL franchise does that, then my disgust will be unrivaled. It may be enough to drive me from comics completely, especially amid chants from Halaholics of "Yeah! Hal's the only one that matters!" The number of things wrong with that from a storytelling perspective, from a GL mythos perspective, from a movie goers perspective and from a general system of logic perspective would be so large as to be without number.

No more assumptions then? Thank you.

But, I do maintain that a John Stewart-centric movie can be the same quality as a Hal-only movie... and that the potential of both is significantly less than that of a CORPS movie.

 

[Katsuro]

Also, ALL epic movies start in the beginning... did we ever see the origin of the Matrix, or the Jedi, or the X-Men, or the Shire or anything like that in those big movies? Of course not, because it's not necessary, you just need ONE character that's new to the experience. This is an ancient aspect of storytelling.

Those stories started at the logical point. They started at the point that best introduces the audience to this world. The Matrix was told from the perspective of a character who had no idea the world was false. Just like Hal is a character who's never heard of the Green Lantern Corps. The audience finds out what the Green Latnern Corps is along with Hal, when it's explained to him. As opposed to John, who needs little explanation as he's probably seen Hal save the day many times.

Also, while starting with Alan Scott could be entertaining, it handicaps the franchise just as bad as a Hal-only movie would. You can't center the audience on this one man's earth life and then switch focus to the universe and an ensemble cast...

Alan Scott is a whole different story. He's not a Green Lantern in the tradional sense. Heck, before the Crisis he wasn't even a part of normal continuity. He had no affiliation with the Gaurdians or the Corps, until they made him an honorary member. If an Alan Scott movie were made, the Corps wouldn't even exist.

Wrong. All logic points to an ensemble space-based movie as the best option. Anything else narrows the broad appeal of the Green Lantern franchise and minimizes what makes the Green Lantern unique.

I dont see why you seem to think a Hal Jordan movie would be any less of an ensemble movie than a John Stewart movie. I mean, the mere fact that we're arguing Jordan vs. Stewart means neither would be a true ensemble, but either one could have a extensive supporting cast of well developed characters. I dont get why you think a Hal Jordan film would take place largely on Earth.

It is in fact quite the opposite, most fans are blinded by the fact that Hal is their favorite character, and are so entertained by Emerald Dawn that they somehow think that is the anchor and base for all things Green Lantern and THAT is actually what is rediculous.

Now, knowing that, seeing how obvious that is, and making that point several times only to see my posts ignored point blank because people simply can't handle that centering the world around their favorite is not the only or best option... well, I might as well lobby for my fave, whom I consider deeper and more interesting instead.

I still dont see how you can call me the blinded fan. The character i'm lobbying for is the original Green Lantern in tems of DC continuity. The Green Lantern comic book story we all know begins with him. Just like Batman begins with his parents murder and training around the world, and Superman begins with him crashlanding on a farm in Kansas, Green Lantern begins with Abin Sur crashing to Earth. Starting with another Green Lantern would be like starting the Batman franchise with the Knightfall storyline, and Jean Paul Valley becoming Batman, and hell i'll bet Azrael's starred in more comics than John Stewart has.

Yes he has the cartoons, but he also has the most varied experience as a GL and as a character, and thus, the best fodder for movie-making... y'know... without changing the stories.

Please, enlighten me. Tell me, without changing any major comic storylines, what villains John Stewart would face in a movie? What would the general plot be for your movie? Sure, there are a few villains noteworthy enough to be in a film, but you'd run out pretty damn quick if you weren't able to use Legion, Sinestro, or Parralax (cant do Parralax without developing Hal as a hero first).

But, I do maintain that a John Stewart-centric movie can be the same quality as a Hal-only movie... and that the potential of both is significantly less than that of a CORPS movie.

Once again, who the hell is saying "Hal-only"? Not once have I advocated a movie where Hal is the only Green Lantern character featured, nor have I advocated one where he was the only one with any sort of development. Hal Jordan needs to travel to Oa to be trained, right? He defends Oa from Legion, right? He's there when the citizens of Korugar revolt against Sinestro and Katma Tui is named as Sinestro's replacement. There are tons of opportunities for other Green Lanterns to have important roles in the movie. Hell, i'd be all for bringing in Guy Gardner and John Stewart as characters in later movies. By the third movie you could have Hal and John as the Green Lanterns of Earth, with Guy leading the Honor Guard.

 

[GL1]

Those stories started at the logical point. They started at the point that best introduces the audience to this world. The Matrix was told from the perspective of a character who had no idea the world was false. Just like Hal is a character who's never heard of the Green Lantern Corps. The audience finds out what the Green Latnern Corps is along with Hal, when it's explained to him. As opposed to John, who needs little explanation as he's probably seen Hal save the day many times.

Is seeing Hal save the day a crucial part of John's character? It's as expendable as his afro. Any of the GLs can be the 'new kid.' That's blatantly obvious. What's not so obvious is that your whole point is illogical, seeing a single GL in action would not preclude John from having the existance of the CORPS explained to him.

Alan Scott is a whole different story. He's not a Green Lantern in the tradional sense. Heck, before the Crisis he wasn't even a part of normal continuity. He had no affiliation with the Guardians or the Corps, until they made him an honorary member. If an Alan Scott movie were made, the Corps wouldn't even exist.

"Traditional sense?" Alan Scott IS the Traditional sense, the Corps are the new unorthodox kids. Besides, Normal continuity wasn't a part of normal continuity before the Crisis. The point simply is: Hal isn't the first GL. Again, blantantly obvious. I agree that making an Alan Scott movie is a bad idea, just like a Hal Jordan movie.

I dont see why you seem to think a Hal Jordan movie would be any less of an ensemble movie than a John Stewart movie. I mean, the mere fact that we're arguing Jordan vs. Stewart means neither would be a true ensemble, but either one could have a extensive supporting cast of well developed characters. I dont get why you think a Hal Jordan film would take place largely on Earth.

Well, when I hear "Hal Jordan movie" it's usually attatched to "just like ED" so, I presumed that. A John Stewart-centric movie would obviously not be an ensemble, just like a Hal Jordan-only movie. Both would be inferior to an ensemble film... That's basically in my sig. Taking a universe full of equally powered heroes and making a SINGLE person the main hero (if the entire GLC is just Hal's supporting cast) and the only one capable of saving the day when anything critical is happening (The climaxes of the films) is dumb. Period. There's no other possible result if you make the Green Lantern center on Hal instead of being an Ensemble.

And since we're not going for the logical choice, A John Stewart-centric movie is just as good an idea as a Hal Jordan one.

I still dont see how you can call me the blinded fan. The character i'm lobbying for is the original Green Lantern in tems of DC continuity. The Green Lantern comic book story we all know begins with him. Just like Batman begins with his parents murder and training around the world, and Superman begins with him crashlanding on a farm in Kansas, Green Lantern begins with Abin Sur crashing to Earth. Starting with another Green Lantern would be like starting the Batman franchise with the Knightfall storyline, and Jean Paul Valley becoming Batman, and hell i'll bet Azrael's starred in more comics than John Stewart has.

Well, you've decided to cobble together some foolishness about Hal Jordan being the origional Green Lantern, when obviously Abin Sur, among thousands of others, came before him. Hal Jordan was the first human GLC member, sure. So? The Green Lantern comic book story picks up with him, but it begins elsewhere, a John Stewart movie I'm proposing begins in the SAME place, but simply picks up later. Just as valid as anything.

Your Azrael analogy his horrible. Bruce Wayne is the first, only present and has been GL 100x longer than anyone else. None of these things apply to Hal Jordan. He was not the first GL, not the first human GL, but at best the first official human GLC GL. Furthermore, there are four of them operating at present, not counting Anya and Charlie Vickers and most of them have experience comparable with his. Especially John. John is as much Green Lantern as Hal. Starting with John is nothing like using Azrael.

Please, enlighten me. Tell me, without changing any major comic storylines, what villains John Stewart would face in a movie? What would the general plot be for your movie? Sure, there are a few villains noteworthy enough to be in a film, but you'd run out pretty damn quick if you weren't able to use Legion, Sinestro, or Parralax (cant do Parralax without developing Hal as a hero first).

Of course you change storylines, it's a movie interpretation of a comic book. You might as well ask me to make a movie without sound. But making a John movie without changing John into Hal? Piece of cake. Easy as doing it the other way around.

Sinestro is available, I don't know why you ignore that. With the Manhunters as cannon fodder that's a great opening film. Round out the second with Fatality, Star Sapphire, Black Hand, Hector Hammond or Sonar, in any number or combo you choose. Finish off with Krona/Old Timer/Parallax ("well developed supporting cast") and call it a day.

Once again, who the hell is saying "Hal-only"? Not once have I advocated a movie where Hal is the only Green Lantern character featured, nor have I advocated one where he was the only one with any sort of development. Hal Jordan needs to travel to Oa to be trained, right? He defends Oa from Legion, right? He's there when the citizens of Korugar revolt against Sinestro and Katma Tui is named as Sinestro's replacement. There are tons of opportunities for other Green Lanterns to have important roles in the movie. Hell, i'd be all for bringing in Guy Gardner and John Stewart as characters in later movies. By the third movie you could have Hal and John as the Green Lanterns of Earth, with Guy leading the Honor Guard.

You've implied that Hal should be the only human Green Lantern in the movie, and I simply don't buy it. You seem to view the GLC as Hal's supporting cast, which is like calling the JLA Superman's Supporting cast.

When I say "Hal-only" I'm referring to a movie where Hal is the only human GL.

And, GL has so many more compelling villains than Legion wasting a movie on him is just retarted to me.

 

[Katsuro]

Is seeing Hal save the day a crucial part of John's character? It's as expendable as his afro. Any of the GLs can be the 'new kid.' That's blatantly obvious. What's not so obvious is that your whole point is illogical, seeing a single GL in action would not preclude John from having the existance of the CORPS explained to him.

Yeah, actually it is. He came after Hal, therefore had seen him around before. Making John the first GL of Earth is NOT the same as a different haircut.

"Traditional sense?" Alan Scott IS the Traditional sense, the Corps are the new unorthodox kids. Besides, Normal continuity wasn't a part of normal continuity before the Crisis. The point simply is: Hal isn't the first GL. Again, blantantly obvious. I agree that making an Alan Scott movie is a bad idea, just like a Hal Jordan movie.

You know damn well what I mean. Alan Scott is not a Green Lantern as they're commonly known. His name's Green Lantern, and he has a power similar to regular Green Lanterns, but he's not even close to the same. His is a whole different story from all of the others. An Alan Scott movie would always just be an Alan Scott movie, and there'd never even be the option to bring in other characters, unless you want to see the Crisis made into a movie. With a Hal Jordan movie, you can see other characters brought in later. John and Guy as other GLs of Earth, and Kyle as the new beginning after it's destruction. So don't compare a Hal Jordan-centric movie to an Alan Scott movie.

Well, when I hear "Hal Jordan movie" it's usually attatched to "just like ED" so, I presumed that. A John Stewart-centric movie would obviously not be an ensemble, just like a Hal Jordan-only movie. Both would be inferior to an ensemble film... That's basically in my sig. Taking a universe full of equally powered heroes and making a SINGLE person the main hero (if the entire GLC is just Hal's supporting cast) and the only one capable of saving the day when anything critical is happening (The climaxes of the films) is dumb. Period. There's no other possible result if you make the Green Lantern center on Hal instead of being an Ensemble.

Green Lantern comics have always centered on the GL of Earth. It's a fact. There may have been comics focusng on the Corps as a whole from time to time, but it's always taken a backseat to the Earth GLs. Hell, even the current Green Lantern Corps title centers around Guy Gardner last time I checked.

And what's wrong with focusing on a single member of a large group? It's like making a cop movie and expecting them to portray the police force as an ensemble. I mean, the police force is a group of equally powered heroes, right? So why do most cop movies choose to focus a story on a specific member of the force? And so what if Hal's the only one capable of saving the day during the climax of the film? The universe is a big place, and there's tons of battles to be fought. Other members of the Corps will have their battles, probably in their own Sectors.

Well, you've decided to cobble together some foolishness about Hal Jordan being the origional Green Lantern, when obviously Abin Sur, among thousands of others, came before him. Hal Jordan was the first human GLC member, sure. So? The Green Lantern comic book story picks up with him, but it begins elsewhere, a John Stewart movie I'm proposing begins in the SAME place, but simply picks up later. Just as valid as anything.

Okay, that's just a dumb way to put it. If you want to get really technical, then no movie starts at the beginning of a story, unless the opening scene is the dawn of time. Hal Jordan's origin is the logical place to "pick up" the story. And are you seriously gonna suggest that a story can pick up in any place and still be just as valid, or am I gonna have to pull out another silly analogy to prove how wrong that is?

Of course you change storylines, it's a movie interpretation of a comic book. You might as well ask me to make a movie without sound. But making a John movie without changing John into Hal? Piece of cake. Easy as doing it the other way around.

I'm not talking about minor story differences. I'm talking big things, crucial moments in comic history. You can change details but leave the essence of the story whole, like Spider-Man or Batman Begins, or you can rewrite the entire thing and make Catwoman.

You've implied that Hal should be the only human Green Lantern in the movie, and I simply don't buy it.

He sure has been in the comics a lot. Once again, the comic books, which these movies will be based on, were told a specific way, and should be kept that way in a movie.

You seem to view the GLC as Hal's supporting cast, which is like calling the JLA Superman's Supporting cast.

Let me open up the latest Green Lantern issue. Hm... there are other Green Lanterns here, but Hal sure as hell seems to be the main character. Now, open up a JLA book, see the same thing there? Nope, me neither. JLA is an ensemble. It always has been. Green Lantern has almost always been told from the perspective of a single character.

And, GL has so many more compelling villains than Legion wasting a movie on him is just retarted to me.

Then dont waste a movie, waste half a movie. Let Hal Jordan test out his skills against Legion, defeat him early, then fight Sinestro later on.

 

[rogue trooper]

I know he will more than likely won't do it, but when I think of Hal Jordan I think of Guy Pearce!!!

 

[GL1]

Yeah, actually it is. He came after Hal, therefore had seen him around before. Making John the first GL of Earth is NOT the same as a different haircut.

Who said anything about making him the first GL of Earth? I don't subscribe to that at all. If you want to know how wrong that first sentence is, look up the definition of crucial.

You know damn well what I mean. Alan Scott is not a Green Lantern as they're commonly known. His name's Green Lantern, and he has a power similar to regular Green Lanterns, but he's not even close to the same. His is a whole different story from all of the others. An Alan Scott movie would always just be an Alan Scott movie, and there'd never even be the option to bring in other characters, unless you want to see the Crisis made into a movie. With a Hal Jordan movie, you can see other characters brought in later. John and Guy as other GLs of Earth, and Kyle as the new beginning after it's destruction. So don't compare a Hal Jordan-centric movie to an Alan Scott movie.

Of course I know what you mean, I just consider it invalid. Not only is Alan Scott's story connected to the GLC, strongly, at several points, but he interacts with all of them fairly regularly, and there's no problem bringing other GLs into an Alan Scott movie, even if it hasn't been done dozens of times in the comics.

Green Lantern comics have always centered on the GL of Earth. It's a fact. There may have been comics focusng on the Corps as a whole from time to time, but it's always taken a backseat to the Earth GLs. Hell, even the current Green Lantern Corps title centers around Guy Gardner last time I checked.

It centers on several characters, unlike the Green Lantern title, which centers solely on Hal. Also, John Stewart was not focused on during Kyle's run, when he was the GL of Earth. GL comics have NOT always centered on the GL of Earth. It's a lie. You don't seem to know much beyond Hal and ED. GLC focuses on the new Korugian girl as much as Guy in every issue I've read, to say nothing of Kilowogg.

And what's wrong with focusing on a single member of a large group? It's like making a cop movie and expecting them to portray the police force as an ensemble. I mean, the police force is a group of equally powered heroes, right? So why do most cop movies choose to focus a story on a specific member of the force? And so what if Hal's the only one capable of saving the day during the climax of the film? The universe is a big place, and there's tons of battles to be fought. Other members of the Corps will have their battles, probably in their own Sectors.

In a cop movie, all other cops are considered inferior, typically in skill, to the star(s) of the movie. In the comics, there are several other GLs equal in skill to Hal Jordan. Your analogy doesn't fit. Climaxes of epic movies, like the climax of ED, affect all the the supporting cast, meaning Hal would be saving the whole Corps, which would have to be portrayed as helpless. This is what Hal-centric thinking leads to, and it's a travesty to all the glorious characters of GL mythos.

Okay, that's just a dumb way to put it. If you want to get really technical, then no movie starts at the beginning of a story, unless the opening scene is the dawn of time. Hal Jordan's origin is the logical place to "pick up" the story. And are you seriously gonna suggest that a story can pick up in any place and still be just as valid, or am I gonna have to pull out another silly analogy to prove how wrong that is?

You can't prove it wrong... you can barely come up with an applicable analogy. What I'm seriously suggesting is that the story can pick up at the beginning of any Earth hero's journey and still be just as valid, just as logical. There's nothing that says Hal Jordan's story is a better pick up point than John Stewart's, just as there's nothing that says Cyclops' story is a better pick up point than Wolverine's.

I'm not talking about minor story differences. I'm talking big things, crucial moments in comic history. You can change details but leave the essence of the story whole, like Spider-Man or Batman Begins, or you can rewrite the entire thing and make Catwoman.

Ah, little details like Spider-Man's relationships with the villains? Little details like Gwen Stacy not being tossed off the bridge by Green Goblin and dying, but being MJ and her not dying? Little details like Rachel Dawes' existance, little details like Bruce Wayne's entire training, Ra's Algoul and Henri Ducard's entire identities? These are little details?

Wrong.

He sure has been in the comics a lot. Once again, the comic books, which these movies will be based on, were told a specific way, and should be kept that way in a movie.

They haven't been yet, especially in Spider-Man and Batman Begins, movies you love and don't even realize how radically different they are from the comics in major ways... the ONLY thing maintained, is the spirit of the characters, which has been tweaked significantly. I propose that same level of faithfulness: To the characters, not to the storylines.

Let me open up the latest Green Lantern issue. Hm... there are other Green Lanterns here, but Hal sure as hell seems to be the main character. Now, open up a JLA book, see the same thing there? Nope, me neither. JLA is an ensemble. It always has been. Green Lantern has almost always been told from the perspective of a single character.

True. Open up the latest issue of GLC. Open up an Issue of Mosaic. There are other GL's there, but Hal seems to not be the main character. Now open up any random JLA book, and...whatever. Why is this important to the movie at all? The statement was made that you see the GLC as Hal's supporting cast, which is true in Green Lantern, but untrue in GLC.

Then dont waste a movie, waste half a movie. Let Hal Jordan test out his skills against Legion, defeat him early, then fight Sinestro later on.

I'm not interested in wasting half a movie when GL has a dozen great villains, dozens of great stories and only three movies, tops, to show them off in. The fact that you think Legion is more important than the GL Corps shows how limited your perspective is. It confirms that you are indeed the one with blinders on.

 

[Katsuro]

Who said anything about making him the first GL of Earth? I don't subscribe to that at all. If you want to know how wrong that first sentence is, look up the definition of crucial.

You said he didn't need to see Hal save the day, which means he doesn't need to be a successor to Hal. I'm saying it is crucial that he is a successor to Hal, and to Guy.

Of course I know what you mean, I just consider it invalid. Not only is Alan Scott's story connected to the GLC, strongly, at several points, but he interacts with all of them fairly regularly, and there's no problem bringing other GLs into an Alan Scott movie, even if it hasn't been done dozens of times in the comics.

Yeah, yeah, they retconned some crap in later about the Starheart being GL energy from the Guardians or some crap, whatever. But the point remains, Alan Scott is a very, very, very different type of Green Lantern than the rest. Green Lantern is not the logical starting place for a Green Lantern film saga, unless you never intend to move beyond Alan Scott. And once again, brining other GLs into Alan Scotts world requires universes merging, or a huge change in Alan Scotts history. The story of Alan Scott and the retcons connecting it to the Guardians are just so out there that making it the focus of a movie is just ridiculous.

It centers on several characters, unlike the Green Lantern title, which centers solely on Hal. Also, John Stewart was not focused on during Kyle's run, when he was the GL of Earth. GL comics have NOT always centered on the GL of Earth. It's a lie. You don't seem to know much beyond Hal and ED. GLC focuses on the new Korugian girl as much as Guy in every issue I've read, to say nothing of Kilowogg.

Fine, the GLC is an ensemble cast, but my point was that the regular Green Lantern title has always been what's important. It's been in circulation longer and is far more popular. It also came first. Green Lantern was introduced as a solo hero, with the Corps as side-characters, and much later they were given their own title as a spin-off. I'd have no objections to a Corps-focused movie, but I just believe a Hal Jordan movie needs to come first, to better introduce the Universe.

In a cop movie, all other cops are considered inferior, typically in skill, to the star(s) of the movie. In the comics, there are several other GLs equal in skill to Hal Jordan. Your analogy doesn't fit. Climaxes of epic movies, like the climax of ED, affect all the the supporting cast, meaning Hal would be saving the whole Corps, which would have to be portrayed as helpless. This is what Hal-centric thinking leads to, and it's a travesty to all the glorious characters of GL mythos.

Bull****. It focuses on them because it's their case. Why were Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman the ones who were focused on in Seven? It was their case. It happened in their jurisdiction, and they were assigned the case. Of course sometimes that's not the case, but sometimes it is.

Ah, little details like Spider-Man's relationships with the villains? Little details like Gwen Stacy not being tossed off the bridge by Green Goblin and dying, but being MJ and her not dying? Little details like Rachel Dawes' existance, little details like Bruce Wayne's entire training, Ra's Algoul and Henri Ducard's entire identities? These are little details?

Wrong.

They haven't been yet, especially in Spider-Man and Batman Begins, movies you love and don't even realize how radically different they are from the comics in major ways... the ONLY thing maintained, is the spirit of the characters, which has been tweaked significantly. I propose that same level of faithfulness: To the characters, not to the storylines.

Honestly, yeah. I consider those quite small details. Change of a love interest, minor backstory changes for villains, it's nothing huge. The important stuff is there. Bruce Wayne's parents are killed, he grows up troubled and alone, he travels the world gaining various skills, he comes home and he takes on crime. So what if Ra's al Ghul used a secret identity? It's not like Ducard (the name Henri was not used once in the film, nor is it in the credits) was a big character in the comics that he'll be missed. And Spider-Man, most of the changes you listed are present in Ultimate Spider-Man, so there is precedent.

 

[Roughneck]

George Eads in Hal Jordan

 

[Roughneck]

Sinestro..Gary Oldman

 

[Majik1387]

 

[GL1]

You said he didn't need to see Hal save the day, which means he doesn't need to be a successor to Hal. I'm saying it is crucial that he is a successor to Hal, and to Guy.

Guy? Not for real. Guy's origin has nothing to do with John and as such it's not crucial. Furthermore, just because Hal was GL first doesn't mean that John's ever seen him in action.

Yeah, yeah, they retconned some crap in later about the Starheart being GL energy from the Guardians or some crap, whatever. But the point remains, Alan Scott is a very, very, very different type of Green Lantern than the rest. Green Lantern is not the logical starting place for a Green Lantern film saga, unless you never intend to move beyond Alan Scott. And once again, brining other GLs into Alan Scotts world requires universes merging, or a huge change in Alan Scotts history. The story of Alan Scott and the retcons connecting it to the Guardians are just so out there that making it the focus of a movie is just ridiculous.

He uses will power, makes green stuff, has a ring... charges with a lantern battery... that's not very different at all, Katsuro... Alan Scott is not a member of the Corps... that's the only difference. Furthermore, all the GLs are already a part of Alan Scott's world... no retcons are needed. Obviously, Alan Scott would be the focus of a movie, other lanterns would be supporting characters. That is IF you wanted to go with the first human GL.

Fine, the GLC is an ensemble cast, but my point was that the regular Green Lantern title has always been what's important. It's been in circulation longer and is far more popular. It also came first. Green Lantern was introduced as a solo hero, with the Corps as side-characters, and much later they were given their own title as a spin-off. I'd have no objections to a Corps-focused movie, but I just believe a Hal Jordan movie needs to come first, to better introduce the Universe.

I disagree, just as I don't think a Han Solo movie should have come first to better introduce the Star Wars Universe, or a Morpheus movie to better introduce the Matrix Universe. The regular Green Lantern title has also NOT always been what's important, right now it's the biggest seller, but that has not always been the case, and the regular green lantern title has not always starred Hal Jordan, at one time, I believe it held the entire GL Corps of Earth as equal partners.

Green Lantern was first introduced as a solo hero WITHOUT corps and then later a Corps was invented and a new, SECOND GL (Hal) was introduced for that. None of this makes Hal a more valid choice for the first movie.

Here's how I read that paragraph:

Fine, the GLC is an ensemble cast, but my point was that the regular Green Lantern title has always been what's important (TO ME!). It's been in circulation longer and is far more popular (RIGHT NOW!). It also came first (AFTER ALAN SCOTT). Green Lantern was introduced as a solo hero, (AND MUCH MUCH LATER REINTRODUCED AS A SOLO HERO) with the Corps as side-characters, and much later they were given their own title as a spin-off. I'd have no objections to a Corps-focused movie, but I just believe a Hal Jordan movie needs to come first, to better introduce the Universe (BECAUSE HES MY FAVORITE).

Bull****. It focuses on them because it's their case. Why were Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman the ones who were focused on in Seven? It was their case. It happened in their jurisdiction, and they were assigned the case. Of course sometimes that's not the case, but sometimes it is.

It is for action movies, which I hope a GL movie would have plenty of. I can think of some comedies that center on the WORST cops in the force, honsetly. Another reason why your cop analogy doesn't hold up is because the GL characters already exist and have already proven themselves worthy of focus.

Honestly, yeah. I consider those quite small details. Change of a love interest, minor backstory changes for villains, it's nothing huge. The important stuff is there. Bruce Wayne's parents are killed, he grows up troubled and alone, he travels the world gaining various skills, he comes home and he takes on crime. So what if Ra's al Ghul used a secret identity? It's not like Ducard (the name Henri was not used once in the film, nor is it in the credits) was a big character in the comics that he'll be missed. And Spider-Man, most of the changes you listed are present in Ultimate Spider-Man, so there is precedent.

Gwen Stacy was the defining point in the Spider-Man stories, as Batman's multi-faceted training was for him as a character. To say nothing of Batman's costume. You think these are minor, but Legion is even remotely important? You have double standards, and are clearly blinded by your love of ED.

You keep telling me how comics did it, but not why that matters to the movie... they never say "Transcribed from the comic book" they always say "Based on the comic book..." Why does Hal need to be the center of attention in a movie? WHY is he better for introducing the GLC?

 

[Katsuro]

Guy? Not for real. Guy's origin has nothing to do with John and as such it's not crucial. Furthermore, just because Hal was GL first doesn't mean that John's ever seen him in action.

I didn't say Guy's origin had anything to do with John, I said that John's origin has to do with Guy. John was brought in as a replacement for Guy, who was a second to Hal. So to keep faithful, Guy would need to be injured, and John would be assigned to replace him.

He uses will power, makes green stuff, has a ring... charges with a lantern battery... that's not very different at all, Katsuro... Alan Scott is not a member of the Corps... that's the only difference. Furthermore, all the GLs are already a part of Alan Scott's world... no retcons are needed. Obviously, Alan Scott would be the focus of a movie, other lanterns would be supporting characters. That is IF you wanted to go with the first human GL.

I still cant believe your serious in comparing Alan Scott to the other Green Lanterns. So what if they have the same powers and name? There's so much more to being a Green Lantern than that. The Green Lanterns are an intergalactic police force chosen by the Guardians of the Universe. They are each assigned a sector consisting of 1/3600th of the known universe to protect. Does any of that fit Alan Scott?

And how the hell can you say other Lanterns would be supporting characters? How on Earth would you do that in a movie? What kind of sense would that make? How would you possibly write a movie like that, it just doens't make sense. Look, I get that you like bringing up Alan Scott because it keeps me from being able to effectively use the "first GL of Earth" argument, but you know just as well as I do that Alan Scott does not count. So really, just drop it.

I disagree, just as I don't think a Han Solo movie should have come first to better introduce the Star Wars Universe, or a Morpheus movie to better introduce the Matrix Universe. The regular Green Lantern title has also NOT always been what's important, right now it's the biggest seller, but that has not always been the case, and the regular green lantern title has not always starred Hal Jordan, at one time, I believe it held the entire GL Corps of Earth as equal partners.

No, but you needed a Luke Skywalker movie to introduce Star Wars, and a Neo movie to introduce The Matrix. Those two characters were the star of their movies. They may have featured a well-developed supporting cast, but they were very easily, without doubt the main characters. And of course, both of them were characters who were pretty much knew to the universe around them. Neo had no idea the Matrix existed, and Luke Skywalker had never left his little ranch. Both could be introduced to the world by other, more experienced characters. And yes, Morpheus could've served the same purpose (Han couldn't, bad analogy), but Morpheus wasn't the chosen one destined to save humanity, was he? Now, could John serve that purpose? No. Hal Jordan should've saved Earth from many disasters by the time John is recruited. Even if he didnt know a lot behind it, he still would've seen Hal in action, at least on the news. So yes, we'd get some introduction to the Corps and whatnot, but it wouldn't be the same as Hal. They would both have very different first experiences with the ring. John would've seen Hal and Guy use it on TV all the time, he'd at least know what it was and what it could do. With Hal you have that sense of wonder. That sense of "wtf is this thing, why am i flying? what's going on?"

Green Lantern was first introduced as a solo hero WITHOUT corps and then later a Corps was invented and a new, SECOND GL (Hal) was introduced for that. None of this makes Hal a more valid choice for the first movie.

Both ways, the Green Lantern story focused on a single character long before they had spinoffs featuring a group of characters.

Here's how I read that paragraph:

Fine, the GLC is an ensemble cast, but my point was that the regular Green Lantern title has always been what's important (TO ME!). It's been in circulation longer and is far more popular (RIGHT NOW!). It also came first (AFTER ALAN SCOTT). Green Lantern was introduced as a solo hero, (AND MUCH MUCH LATER REINTRODUCED AS A SOLO HERO) with the Corps as side-characters, and much later they were given their own title as a spin-off. I'd have no objections to a Corps-focused movie, but I just believe a Hal Jordan movie needs to come first, to better introduce the Universe (BECAUSE HES MY FAVORITE).

The truth is, we're both arguing for our favorites. The only difference is, i'm the only one backing myself up with logical reasons. You haven't given my one good reason why John Stewart would be a better focus for the movie than Hal, Guy, or Kyle, other than that he's your favorite. You haven't pointed out one thing that John can do that Hal can't, just that you find him more interesting as a character.

It is for action movies, which I hope a GL movie would have plenty of. I can think of some comedies that center on the WORST cops in the force, honsetly. Another reason why your cop analogy doesn't hold up is because the GL characters already exist and have already proven themselves worthy of focus.

Oh yeah, best and worst, those are the only two types of cops there are in the world. No such thing as being just one of many, many cops, perhaps somewhere in the middle, eh? How many cop movies have you see where the main character is called in to work on a case in a whole other state because he's the best cop in the world? No, a cop gets assigned to a case, and he solves it. And hell, sometimes he's damn far from the best cop. I've seen tons of cop movies where the guys in a depressed wreck, a problem drinker, has some form of injury, all kinds of crap. You must not watch very many action movies.

Oh, and cops dont exist? Did you really just say that cops don't exist? The analogy works perfectly since the GLC has always been dfined as an intergalactic police force. I dont see what the difference is, really. Sure, most real cops aren't anything worth making a movie about, but we're talking reality vs. fiction here. Of course a group of super-powered space cops are gonna be more interesting than the guys that sit in their car waiting for people to make rolling stops so they can fill their ticket quotas. Yet movies manage to make some of those guys seem pretty cool.

Gwen Stacy was the defining point in the Spider-Man stories, as Batman's multi-faceted training was for him as a character. To say nothing of Batman's costume.

Gwen Stacy is set to be introduced in Spider-Man 3. There's no telling her what her fate may be. Like I said, the Spider-Man movies are borrowing quite a bit from the Ultimate Spider-Man storyline, in which Gwen Stacy was killed a very different way. As for Batman's training, just because we only saw one aspect of it doens't mean that's all there was. He had been away from Gotham long before he ever met Ducard, and he put up a pretty decent fight the first time they met. I'm not even goin to respond to the costume comment, mostly because you said it in a way that made it seem like it was more important than your other points.

You think these are minor, but Legion is even remotely important? You have double standards, and are clearly blinded by your love of ED.

You act like i'm demanding Legion, and championing his greatness as a villain. I'm not. I simply think he'd make for a good introductory villain. The hero could fight him, test his mettle a bit, then move on to the real challenge in the climax of the film. He's a character that requires little backstory, and sets himself up pretty easily. Not to mention, someone has to kill Abin Sur.

You keep telling me how comics did it, but not why that matters to the movie... they never say "Transcribed from the comic book" they always say "Based on the comic book..." Why does Hal need to be the center of attention in a movie? WHY is he better for introducing the GLC?

It just seems logical to start the story off at the same point. And before you think of mentioning Alan Scott again, re-read what I said. "to start the story off". Alan Scott is a different story. Same name, same powers, different story. The story of the Green Lantern Corps. as told by the comics starts with Hal Jordan.

Because it's not really about the character, it's about the point in time of the story. Forgetting who holds the title of Green Lantern 2418.1, Hal, John, Guy, and Kyle are all just characters within the Green Lantern saga, just as Bruce, Dick, Tim, and so many others are just characters within the Batman saga. Making the publics first introduction to the Green Lantern world with John would be like making the publics first introduction to the Batman world with Tim Drake. Regardless of alter-ego identity, they're both characters that came later within the overall story arc of the comic books.

And allow me to make one more point. I'm proposing a solution that would most likely allow the three most popular Green Lanterns of 2814 to star in or at least have a major role in a film, and even possibly Guy. Hal for the first movie, Hal and John as a team for 2 and 3, and Kyle for 4. Dont start with this "trilogy" crap, not every movie franchise has to end at 3.

 

[The Techno Bat]

I think that Christopher Meloni would be a great choice for Hal Jordan/Green Lantern.

And for starters it would have to be a solo GL film. Throwing too many characters into a film where most of the general public doesn't know anything about The GL Corps could get confusing and hurt the film. So a solo GL for me, for the first film, and of course throw in Sinestro for the main villian.

 

[GL1]

Here is my best effort to be short and concise.

I didn't say Guy's origin had anything to do with John, I said that John's origin has to do with Guy. John was brought in as a replacement for Guy, who was a second to Hal. So to keep faithful, Guy would need to be injured, and John would be assigned to replace him.

Well to keep Spider-Man faithful, Gwen Stacy would have to be BEFORE MJ. To stay faithful, Bruce Wayne would NOT be 30 years old before facing even one foe as Batman, the first of which would NOT HAVE been the Ra's Al Ghul.

Movies are faithful to the CHARACTERS (at best) not to the STORIES. Movies have their OWN stories (that's why they have WRITING credits). Disprove this before using any more of your 'it happened in X order in the comics' arguements. They are all invalid.

I still cant believe your serious in comparing Alan Scott to the other Green Lanterns. So what if they have the same powers and name? There's so much more to being a Green Lantern than that. The Green Lanterns are an intergalactic police force chosen by the Guardians of the Universe. They are each assigned a sector consisting of 1/3600th of the known universe to protect. Does any of that fit Alan Scott?

MORE semantics. I say: "The only difference is that Alan isn't GLC", and then you turn and say: "No!" and start describing the GLC. That's silly. Why should I respond to this?

And how the hell can you say other Lanterns would be supporting characters? How on Earth would you do that in a movie? What kind of sense would that make? How would you possibly write a movie like that, it just doens't make sense. Look, I get that you like bringing up Alan Scott because it keeps me from being able to effectively use the "first GL of Earth" argument, but you know just as well as I do that Alan Scott does not count. So really, just drop it.

No. Alan Scott is a GL... a different kind, but he has been influential to ALL Earth GLs. He counts, moreso than any of them. I bring it up because it's important, and you seem to be blinded by your devotion to Hal as the only thing that matters.

If Alan Scott interacting with Corps members doesn't "make sense" to you, then go read some more comic books.

No, but you needed a Luke Skywalker movie to introduce Star Wars, and a Neo movie to introduce The Matrix. Those two characters were the star of their movies. They may have featured a well-developed supporting cast, but they were very easily, without doubt the main characters. And of course, both of them were characters who were pretty much knew to the universe around them. Neo had no idea the Matrix existed, and Luke Skywalker had never left his little ranch. Both could be introduced to the world by other, more experienced characters. And yes, Morpheus could've served the same purpose (Han couldn't, bad analogy), but Morpheus wasn't the chosen one destined to save humanity, was he? Now, could John serve that purpose? No. Hal Jordan should've saved Earth from many disasters by the time John is recruited. Even if he didnt know a lot behind it, he still would've seen Hal in action, at least on the news. So yes, we'd get some introduction to the Corps and whatnot, but it wouldn't be the same as Hal. They would both have very different first experiences with the ring. John would've seen Hal and Guy use it on TV all the time, he'd at least know what it was and what it could do. With Hal you have that sense of wonder. That sense of "wtf is this thing, why am i flying? what's going on?"

Now THAT'S a paragraph.

Hal isn't a chosen one either. John, however, is.

My earlier statement, shows why John could be used for the purpose you think he cannot, just like Anakin could have been the starting point for Star Wars, but the story simply decided to pick up later, which worked out GLORIOUSLY.

Both ways, the Green Lantern story focused on a single character long before they had spinoffs featuring a group of characters.

A Batman was a cold hearted killer long before he had any code against killing. Your trivial comic facts consistently have no implications on a future movie. It's scary how many of your points hang on this falsehood.

The truth is, we're both arguing for our favorites. The only difference is, i'm the only one backing myself up with logical reasons. You haven't given my one good reason why John Stewart would be a better focus for the movie than Hal, Guy, or Kyle, other than that he's your favorite. You haven't pointed out one thing that John can do that Hal can't, just that you find him more interesting as a character.

Neither have you. You've pointed out the order of events in comics and imagined that somehow that everything has to happen JUST that way in the movies even though you have loads of evidence to counteract this.

Oh yeah, best and worst, those are the only two types of cops there are in the world. No such thing as being just one of many, many cops, perhaps somewhere in the middle, eh? How many cop movies have you see where the main character is called in to work on a case in a whole other state because he's the best cop in the world? No, a cop gets assigned to a case, and he solves it. And hell, sometimes he's damn far from the best cop. I've seen tons of cop movies where the guys in a depressed wreck, a problem drinker, has some form of injury, all kinds of crap. You must not watch very many action movies.

Wow, nice spin on my cat-call. Regardless, the cop analogy continues to have no merit, since dozens of Corps members are already designed characters.

Oh, and cops dont exist? Did you really just say that cops don't exist? The analogy works perfectly since the GLC has always been dfined as an intergalactic police force. I dont see what the difference is, really. Sure, most real cops aren't anything worth making a movie about, but we're talking reality vs. fiction here. Of course a group of super-powered space cops are gonna be more interesting than the guys that sit in their car waiting for people to make rolling stops so they can fill their ticket quotas. Yet movies manage to make some of those guys seem pretty cool.

I said the GL characters already exist, implying that cop characters for cop movies coming out in the next ten years DON'T already exist. You are demonstrating a lack of reading comprehension now. That's why the analogy doesn't fit.

Gwen Stacy is set to be introduced in Spider-Man 3. There's no telling her what her fate may be. Like I said, the Spider-Man movies are borrowing quite a bit from the Ultimate Spider-Man storyline, in which Gwen Stacy was killed a very different way. As for Batman's training, just because we only saw one aspect of it doens't mean that's all there was. He had been away from Gotham long before he ever met Ducard, and he put up a pretty decent fight the first time they met. I'm not even goin to respond to the costume comment, mostly because you said it in a way that made it seem like it was more important than your other points.

I'm glad you can admit that you are selectively responding to the points I'm making. Regardless, your attempt to pass off well executed major changes as 'incidentals.' As though making Batman Dick Grayson is a major change but Making Ra's Al Ghul into Henri Ducard is a minor change, shows the faultiness of your ability to fairly judge the situation at hand. Batman Begins took huge steps from the comics, things like order, ages and 'seeing X in action' weren't even considered, and no one cared, because those things are not the heart of the movie, the story or the characters.

You act like i'm demanding Legion, and championing his greatness as a villain. I'm not. I simply think he'd make for a good introductory villain. The hero could fight him, test his mettle a bit, then move on to the real challenge in the climax of the film. He's a character that requires little backstory, and sets himself up pretty easily. Not to mention, someone has to kill Abin Sur.

What movie villain exists simply to "test the hero's mettle..." in any movie ever? They almost always use faceless goons that need NO backstory and ADD to the main villain substantially. Storytelling in movies is different than that of comics.

What if Half the Matrix had just been Neo training in the Abstract. "We need to test his mettle!" Hahaha [lol]

And honestly, if Ra's Alghul can be Henri Ducard, Sinestro can kill Abin Sur.

It just seems logical to start the story off at the same point. And before you think of mentioning Alan Scott again, re-read what I said. "to start the story off". Alan Scott is a different story. Same name, same powers, different story. The story of the Green Lantern Corps. as told by the comics starts with Hal Jordan.

As I said before, that's simply where the comic picks up the story at. The story of the Green Lantern Corps as told by the comics starts with Rori Dag of Rojira. The comics first picks up at Hal Jordan, the movie could very well pick up later. Star Wars picked up with Luke Skywalker, even though Anakin was the one to "start the story off."

But, can I confirm then that you want to tell the story of the GLC, and not just Hal Jordan?

Because it's not really about the character, it's about the point in time of the story. Forgetting who holds the title of Green Lantern 2418.1, Hal, John, Guy, and Kyle are all just characters within the Green Lantern saga, just as Bruce, Dick, Tim, and so many others are just characters within the Batman saga. Making the publics first introduction to the Green Lantern world with John would be like making the publics first introduction to the Batman world with Tim Drake. Regardless of alter-ego identity, they're both characters that came later within the overall story arc of the comic books.

You're kidding me. The characters of Spider-Man and Batman remain (generally) the same, the points in time of the story are COMPLETELY shifted around.

And your Batman analogy is ludicris. Look at X-Men. Was the public's first intro to the X-Men world with the origional 5? This idea that comics continuity is important in making the movies about these characters has been proven wrong again, and again and again.

And allow me to make one more point. I'm proposing a solution that would most likely allow the three most popular Green Lanterns of 2814 to star in or at least have a major role in a film, and even possibly Guy. Hal for the first movie, Hal and John as a team for 2 and 3, and Kyle for 4. Dont start with this "trilogy" crap, not every movie franchise has to end at 3.

What planet do you live on, where people make more than trilogies? Either Planet Rocky or Planet 15+ years later (Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, etc). In either case come to the 2000s and get real, dude. If you can explain WHY it is that all movies come in trilogies nowadays, then perhaps you can explain why a GL movie would be immune to this?

Regardless, since we're offering:

GL1: Hal, John, Sinestro, Katma Tui, Kilowogg.
GL2: Hal (ringless), John, Guy, Katma, Fatality, Arisia, Tomar-Re, Kilowogg
GL3: Parallax(Hal), John, Kyle, Guy, Kilowogg, Mogo, Raker Quirrigat, Arisia

Then I'd spin Kyle off into his own TV show, either as "The Last GL" or an Ion thing. It's just naive to think he can get his own movie or trilogy just because he had a lot of comics.

See how that includes everyone? And the only sacrifice is that Hal Jordan is not the centerpiece. An easy price to pay, imho.

 

[Katsuro]

MORE semantics. I say: "The only difference is that Alan isn't GLC", and then you turn and say: "No!" and start describing the GLC. That's silly. Why should I respond to this?

The point I'm trying to make is that not being part of the GLC is a pretty big difference. Oh, he's just like the others expect not part of the GLC. Yeah, that's called not being just like the others. The GLC is a huge part of what defines them.

If Alan Scott interacting with Corps members doesn't "make sense" to you, then go read some more comic books.

i said that them interacting in a movie doesn't make sense, because it doesn't. The general movie-going public is not going to accept half the **** that goes on in comics. You cant do universe-merging crossover events and retcons and **** like that in movies. My point was that it would be impossible to make a single movie with Alan Scott where he interacts with the Green Lantern Corps, and have the movie be anything but a jumbled confused mess only comic-fans could understand.

My earlier statement, shows why John could be used for the purpose you think he cannot, just like Anakin could have been the starting point for Star Wars, but the story simply decided to pick up later, which worked out GLORIOUSLY.

You know, they probably could do a Star Wars like thing. Instead of starting with the Anakin Skywalker-type (Hal), I guess they could start off with the Luke Skywalker-type. Of course, that's not John. That's Kyle. I still dont think that'd be nearly as good as a Hal movie, partially because Parralax isn't near as good a villain as Darth Vader to get people interesting in knowing who he was before hand.

A Batman was a cold hearted killer long before he had any code against killing. Your trivial comic facts consistently have no implications on a future movie. It's scary how many of your points hang on this falsehood.

Ah, yes. The killer Batman. Also known as the Golden Age Batman, similar to how Alan Scott is the Golden Age Green Lantern. Yet, I don't recall that Batman being the one we saw in Batman Begins. No, they chose to start the story where current continuity starts it, which is at Year One.

Neither have you. You've pointed out the order of events in comics and imagined that somehow that everything has to happen JUST that way in the movies even though you have loads of evidence to counteract this.

I'm not saying it has to happen word for word panel for panel like Emerald Dawn. I never once said that. I simply feel it should happen along the same lines, like all good comic-movies have so far. Peter Parker's bitten, he wrestles, Uncle killed, becomes Superhero. Krypton explodes, Kal-El lands, meets the Kents, goes to Metropolis, becomes Superhero. Trivial basics, details aren't a big deal.

Wow, nice spin on my cat-call. Regardless, the cop analogy continues to have no merit, since dozens of Corps members are already designed characters.

I said the GL characters already exist, implying that cop characters for cop movies coming out in the next ten years DON'T already exist. You are demonstrating a lack of reading comprehension now. That's why the analogy doesn't fit.

That doens't matter at all. These movies are designed for those who know nothing of the comics. A Corps member existing in the comics is no different than a cop character existing in the screenplay for the film. As far as your average moviegoers mother is concerned, these characters dont exist.

I'm glad you can admit that you are selectively responding to the points I'm making. Regardless, your attempt to pass off well executed major changes as 'incidentals.' As though making Batman Dick Grayson is a major change but Making Ra's Al Ghul into Henri Ducard is a minor change, shows the faultiness of your ability to fairly judge the situation at hand. Batman Begins took huge steps from the comics, things like order, ages and 'seeing X in action' weren't even considered, and no one cared, because those things are not the heart of the movie, the story or the characters.

You dont see the difference between combining Batman and Robin, and Ra's al Ghul and Ducard? Two iconic characters who's names are known by all, vs. one semi-popular villain amongst comic-book fans, and one minor character whos appeared in maybe a couple comic-issues. Trust me, there's a difference.

What movie villain exists simply to "test the hero's mettle..." in any movie ever? They almost always use faceless goons that need NO backstory and ADD to the main villain substantially. Storytelling in movies is different than that of comics.

Carmine Falcone? Him and his henchmen were Batman's first fight, to kind of set himself up and let him be known to the public. After that, he went after the real menace in the film. Just because Carmine Falcone didn't have superpowers and wasn't a giant yellow monster doesn't make it count any less.

And honestly, if Ra's Alghul can be Henri Ducard, Sinestro can kill Abin Sur.

Okay, sure. No big deal really. Still think Legion could work, but they could definatley do it without him. Granted, we'd probably end up with some kind of cheesy final death scene where Abin is like "the... traitor... is... Si.. blegh!" and dies, or he'd already be dead and he wouldn't get to speak to Hal about the ring and the Corps. But i'm sure a good writer could do it without Legion if it were neccesary, but I dont think it would be. Like I said earlier, most hero movies start off with the hero going after nameless thugs, saving people from various catastrophies like plane crashes, or fighting villains unrelated to the main conflict. Hal's got to do something before Sinestro betrays the Corps, dont see why that can't be fighting Legion.

As I said before, that's simply where the comic picks up the story at. The story of the Green Lantern Corps as told by the comics starts with Rori Dag of Rojira. The comics first picks up at Hal Jordan, the movie could very well pick up later. Star Wars picked up with Luke Skywalker, even though Anakin was the one to "start the story off."

They started with Luke because that was the story that would most easily bring the audience in and excite them. Lucas knew that starting with Episode 1 might not grab the audiences attention (and boy oh boy was he right) and he might not have even had a chance to tell his other 5 stories. Of course, that doesn't apply to Green Lantern. A lot of people have read Emerald Dawn, it's a good book. That gambles not really there, at least not more than any other Green Lantern movie. The Green Lantern concept could be a hard one to sell, and Emerald Dawn's proven it can do it quite well.

And your Batman analogy is ludicris. Look at X-Men.

How does that statement make sense?

Was the public's first intro to the X-Men world with the origional 5? This idea that comics continuity is important in making the movies about these characters has been proven wrong again, and again and again.

No, but it should've been.

What planet do you live on, where people make more than trilogies? Either Planet Rocky or Planet 15+ years later (Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, etc). In either case come to the 2000s and get real, dude. If you can explain WHY it is that all movies come in trilogies nowadays, then perhaps you can explain why a GL movie would be immune to this?

Regardless, since we're offering:

GL1: Hal, John, Sinestro, Katma Tui, Kilowogg.
GL2: Hal (ringless), John, Guy, Katma, Fatality, Arisia, Tomar-Re, Kilowogg
GL3: Parallax(Hal), John, Kyle, Guy, Kilowogg, Mogo, Raker Quirrigat, Arisia

Then I'd spin Kyle off into his own TV show, either as "The Last GL" or an Ion thing. It's just naive to think he can get his own movie or trilogy just because he had a lot of comics.

See how that includes everyone? And the only sacrifice is that Hal Jordan is not the centerpiece. An easy price to pay, imho.

Just because they dont make more than 3 movies doesn't mean they shouldn't. Look at the Spider-Man films. They have 2 great movies out already, and the third looks awesome. Everything I've heard about the plot suggests that at the end, even if they dont go through with another one, they'd be able to and it'd be great.

Of course, the biggest problem is getting the cast and crew to come back, but with a Green Lantern series switching off main characters every so often, that wouldn't be a problem. the only cast you'd have to keep around are the side characters, which never seems to be a problem. Michael Gough stuck around for all the old Batman films. The kid who played Jimmy Olsen did all 4 Superman films and even Supergirl.

There's no magic curse that immediatley makes 4th films suck. I'm sick and tired of everyone always babbling on about "trilogies". Everytime a movie franchise is announced or even talked about, people want it to be a trilogy. Thor trilogy, Green Lantern trilogy, Iron Man trilogy, Ms. Marvel trilogy, Martian Manhunter trilogy. Shut up with the damn trilogies!

 

[GL1]

The point I'm trying to make is that not being part of the GLC is a pretty big difference. Oh, he's just like the others expect not part of the GLC. Yeah, that's called not being just like the others. The GLC is a huge part of what defines them.

Without the GLC, John, Hal and Guy, and ESPECIALLY Kyle would still be the same types of people, the same types of heroes. You are incorrect.

i said that them interacting in a movie doesn't make sense, because it doesn't. The general movie-going public is not going to accept half the **** that goes on in comics. You cant do universe-merging crossover events and retcons and **** like that in movies. My point was that it would be impossible to make a single movie with Alan Scott where he interacts with the Green Lantern Corps, and have the movie be anything but a jumbled confused mess only comic-fans could understand.

What is it about Alan Scott meeting Hal Jordan that the public would not understand?

"Hi, I'm Alan."
"Hi, I'm Hal."
*Audience's heads explode!!!!*

Movies are faithful to the CHARACTERS (at best) not to the STORIES.

You know, they probably could do a Star Wars like thing. Instead of starting with the Anakin Skywalker-type (Hal), I guess they could start off with the Luke Skywalker-type. Of course, that's not John. That's Kyle. I still dont think that'd be nearly as good as a Hal movie, partially because Parralax isn't near as good a villain as Darth Vader to get people interesting in knowing who he was before hand.

What stops movie Parallax from being that good? What stops the GL franchise from using a John-type instead of a Luke-type?

Movies are faithful to the CHARACTERS (at best) not to the STORIES.

Ah, yes. The killer Batman. Also known as the Golden Age Batman, similar to how Alan Scott is the Golden Age Green Lantern. Yet, I don't recall that Batman being the one we saw in Batman Begins. No, they chose to start the story where current continuity starts it, which is at Year One.

Movies are faithful to the CHARACTERS (at best) not to the STORIES.

I'm not saying it has to happen word for word panel for panel like Emerald Dawn. I never once said that. I simply feel it should happen along the same lines, like all good comic-movies have so far. Peter Parker's bitten, he wrestles, Uncle killed, becomes Superhero. Krypton explodes, Kal-El lands, meets the Kents, goes to Metropolis, becomes Superhero. Trivial basics, details aren't a big deal.

John Stewart gets a ring, he gets trained, John is unorthodox, John is questioned and hated on, John turns out to be right in the end and saves the day. Trivial basics... details (Guy being before John, John seeing Hal in action) aren't a big deal.

See your double standard? John has to conform to details while no one else does?

That doesn't matter at all. These movies are designed for those who know nothing of the comics. A Corps member existing in the comics is no different than a cop character existing in the screenplay for the film. As far as your average moviegoers mother is concerned, these characters dont exist.

Neither do any of the stories, which you keep adamantly presenting as how things should go.

Movies are faithful to the CHARACTERS (at best) not to the STORIES.

You dont see the difference between combining Batman and Robin, and Ra's al Ghul and Ducard? Two iconic characters who's names are known by all, vs. one semi-popular villain amongst comic-book fans, and one minor character whos appeared in maybe a couple comic-issues. Trust me, there's a difference.

Hal Jordan isn't known by all, neither is Emerald Dawn... sounds like they can be changed completely by this standard.

Carmine Falcone? Him and his henchmen were Batman's first fight, to kind of set himself up and let him be known to the public. After that, he went after the real menace in the film. Just because Carmine Falcone didn't have superpowers and wasn't a giant yellow monster doesn't make it count any less.

Carmine Falcone was hired by Ra's. He was an integral part of the story to transfer the viewer from the realm of the mundane (organized crime) to the fantastic (a league of ninjas that take over the world). He served several purposes, the least of which was to 'test the heroe's mettle.'

Okay, sure. No big deal really. Still think Legion could work, but they could definatley do it without him. Granted, we'd probably end up with some kind of cheesy final death scene where Abin is like "the... traitor... is... Si.. blegh!" and dies, or he'd already be dead and he wouldn't get to speak to Hal about the ring and the Corps. But i'm sure a good writer could do it without Legion if it were neccesary, but I dont think it would be. Like I said earlier, most hero movies start off with the hero going after nameless thugs, saving people from various catastrophies like plane crashes, or fighting villains unrelated to the main conflict. Hal's got to do something before Sinestro betrays the Corps, dont see why that can't be fighting Legion.

What superhero movie has villains unrelated to the main conflict? Especially in the first film? Namless thugs and natural disasters are one thing, but when you introduce a villain and you build him up, he has to go somewhere or you're making a bad movie.

They started with Luke because that was the story that would most easily bring the audience in and excite them. Lucas knew that starting with Episode 1 might not grab the audiences attention (and boy oh boy was he right) and he might not have even had a chance to tell his other 5 stories. Of course, that doesn't apply to Green Lantern. A lot of people have read Emerald Dawn, it's a good book. That gambles not really there, at least not more than any other Green Lantern movie. The Green Lantern concept could be a hard one to sell, and Emerald Dawn's proven it can do it quite well.

A lot of people have read Mosaic, it's a good book. That gamble is not really there, even less so than any other GL movie. Mosaic has proven it can do it quite well, even without marketting and against editorial.

No, but it should've been.

Just like the Public's first intro to Star wars should have been young Anakin? Either we need to start at the beginning or start at the one which best introduces the audience to the characters, MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

Movies are faithful to the CHARACTERS (at best) not to the STORIES.

Just because they dont make more than 3 movies doesn't mean they shouldn't. Look at the Spider-Man films. They have 2 great movies out already, and the third looks awesome. Everything I've heard about the plot suggests that at the end, even if they dont go through with another one, they'd be able to and it'd be great.

Of course, the biggest problem is getting the cast and crew to come back, but with a Green Lantern series switching off main characters every so often, that wouldn't be a problem. the only cast you'd have to keep around are the side characters, which never seems to be a problem. Michael Gough stuck around for all the old Batman films. The kid who played Jimmy Olsen did all 4 Superman films and even Supergirl.

There's no magic curse that immediatley makes 4th films suck. I'm sick and tired of everyone always babbling on about "trilogies". Everytime a movie franchise is announced or even talked about, people want it to be a trilogy. Thor trilogy, Green Lantern trilogy, Iron Man trilogy, Ms. Marvel trilogy, Martian Manhunter trilogy. Shut up with the damn trilogies!

Would you be excited to go see a new Matrix movie just because it didn't star Neo? The biggest problem has always been keeping interest, that's not just actors, that's directors and audience as well. To say nothing of marketting by big studios who know the trilogy sells better than anything else. To say nothing of classic beginning middle and end storytelling. Your understand of the trilogy concept is misinformed, and you have failed to provide a reason why a GL franchise can overcome it.

Now can you address your double standards? Or your inability to deal with the fact that the storylines for a GL movie not only can, but WILL be drastically different, just as they are in other comic book movies you love? Or that it's okay for a GL movie to pick up later in the story than Hal's origin?

 

[Katsuro]

Without the GLC, John, Hal and Guy, and ESPECIALLY Kyle would still be the same types of people, the same types of heroes. You are incorrect.

I just plain ol' disagree. Not much else I can say but that.

What is it about Alan Scott meeting Hal Jordan that the public would not understand?

"Hi, I'm Alan."
"Hi, I'm Hal."
*Audience's heads explode!!!!*

Wow. that's absolutley brilliant. Where did you get your screenwriting degree? I guess I was wrong. Here you have presented a perfectly logical scenario in which two heroes with the same power and same name, yet completely different unrelated origins come together without the need for the merging of multiple earths or tons of crazy explanation. Could you perhaps write a scene in which Earth 1 Superman and Earth 2 Superman meet, without a Crisis? I mean, i've kinda got an idea in my head of how it might go, but i'm no screenwriter. Could you give me some pointers. Here goes:

"Hi, i'm Clark"
"Hi, i'm Clark too!"

How's that?

What stops movie Parallax from being that good? What stops the GL franchise from using a John-type instead of a Luke-type?

Nothing "stops him from being good", he just really isn't. He's an okay villain, but Vader is ****in' legendary. And as for using a John-type, wtf is a John-type anyway? Anakin's the great big hero who falls and destroys the rest, Luke's the young, inexperienced new guy who rebuilds it from destruction, what is John? Some random chump along the way? Star Wars could've started from Anakin or Luke, but it never would've started with some random Jedi that came after Anakin. Star Wars didn't really have anyone like that, so I cant give an example, but you can imagne what I mean.

John Stewart gets a ring, he gets trained, John is unorthodox, John is questioned and hated on, John turns out to be right in the end and saves the day. Trivial basics... details (Guy being before John, John seeing Hal in action) aren't a big deal.

See your double standard? John has to conform to details while no one else does?

Once again, you dont seem to see the equality between the statement "seeing Hal in action" and "succeding Hal". They go hand in hand. Are we to assume that John is recruited into the Green Lantern Corps having zero clue as to their existence, even though Hal's been acting as the Green Lantern of that Sector for years?

Guy, on the other hand, could probably be left out, I'll agree to that. He's easily the least popular of the 4 bigger Lanterns of 2814.

Neither do any of the stories, which you keep adamantly presenting as how things should go.

Any good adaptation should be able to both remain faithful to the original stories, AND be coherant enough to bring in newcomers.

A lot of people have read Mosaic, it's a good book. That gamble is not really there, even less so than any other GL movie. Mosaic has proven it can do it quite well, even without marketting and against editorial.

Can anyone who's never read a Green Lantern comic in their life, nor know anything about him, pick up Mosiac and have a good idea of what's going on? Are you suggesting they base the first film off of Mosiac, because if not, your point was lost completely. My point was that it's been proven that Hal Jordan's origin is a good starting point for the series.

Just like the Public's first intro to Star wars should have been young Anakin? Either we need to start at the beginning or start at the one which best introduces the audience to the characters, MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

Like i said earlier, the only way to truly "start at the beginning" is to open the film with the dawn of time. I've told you a thousand times that when I say "start at the beginning" i mean start where the original story started in it's original form.

And I dont need to make up my mind, when I can have both. Hal Jordan does both of those, John Stewart does neither.


You still haven't given me a single good reason to start with John Stewart, other than him being your favorite. This whole argument seems to have been Hal vs. not-Hal. I provide why it should be Hal, and you attempt to disprove that. There's not one thing John could offer that Hal, Kyle, or even Guy would offer in terms of storytelling.

 

[DrayvensCrow]

Yikes! I thought this was the GL casting thread and somehow I've stumbled upon the War And Peace discussion! Jeez those are some loooong answers!

 

[GL1]

Wow. that's absolutley brilliant. Where did you get your screenwriting degree? I guess I was wrong. Here you have presented a perfectly logical scenario in which two heroes with the same power and same name, yet completely different unrelated origins come together without the need for the merging of multiple earths or tons of crazy explanation. Could you perhaps write a scene in which Earth 1 Superman and Earth 2 Superman meet, without a Crisis? I mean, i've kinda got an idea in my head of how it might go, but i'm no screenwriter. Could you give me some pointers. Here goes:

"Hi, i'm Clark"
"Hi, i'm Clark too!"

How's that?

With two Supermen you have to explain how one got to a different dimensino.

With two Green Lanterns you have to explain how one got to a different city. Furthermore, their origins ARE related.

Nothing "stops him from being good", he just really isn't. He's an okay villain, but Vader is ****in' legendary. And as for using a John-type, wtf is a John-type anyway? Anakin's the great big hero who falls and destroys the rest, Luke's the young, inexperienced new guy who rebuilds it from destruction, what is John? Some random chump along the way? Star Wars could've started from Anakin or Luke, but it never would've started with some random Jedi that came after Anakin. Star Wars didn't really have anyone like that, so I cant give an example, but you can imagne what I mean.

Read the comics if you don't know what a John type is. He's certainly not a random GL. He has very specific strengths and character traits that have had a severe impact on the GLC. But you would have to know comics to know stuff like that.

Once again, you dont seem to see the equality between the statement "seeing Hal in action" and "succeding Hal". They go hand in hand. Are we to assume that John is recruited into the Green Lantern Corps having zero clue as to their existence, even though Hal's been acting as the Green Lantern of that Sector for years?

There is no equality.

Movies are faithful to the CHARACTERS (at best) not to the STORIES.

Any good adaptation should be able to both remain faithful to the original stories, AND be coherant enough to bring in newcomers.

By "faithful" do you mean: keeping only the most basic details?

Can anyone who's never read a Green Lantern comic in their life, nor know anything about him, pick up Mosiac and have a good idea of what's going on? Are you suggesting they base the first film off of Mosiac, because if not, your point was lost completely. My point was that it's been proven that Hal Jordan's origin is a good starting point for the series.

Yes. They can. Not only that, but it illustrates that your percieved value of ED's success is completely irrelevant.

Like i said earlier, the only way to truly "start at the beginning" is to open the film with the dawn of time. I've told you a thousand times that when I say "start at the beginning" i mean start where the original story started in it's original form.

Origional form or present continuity? Start at the beginning or start at the beginning of the story? You have no point.

And I dont need to make up my mind, when I can have both. Hal Jordan does both of those, John Stewart does neither.

Wow. Hal Jordan started the GL Corps? Amazing. Furthermore, I have to ask... what does the GLC mean to you? Because if what you saw in ED is what you know about the GLC, then it's no wonder you think a Hal-centric franchise can capture Green Lanterndom.

You still haven't given me a single good reason to start with John Stewart, other than him being your favorite. This whole argument seems to have been Hal vs. not-Hal. I provide why it should be Hal, and you attempt to disprove that. There's not one thing John could offer that Hal, Kyle, or even Guy would offer in terms of storytelling.

A challenge!

1) Analysis. John Stewart is the thinker, and as such, provides the best narration, reflection and analysis of the world. He asks the most questions every day of the week, and thus, is the best for helping the audience understand the Green Lantern Universe.

2) Contructs. John builds things from architecture, than seem real and practical. That makes not only for the coolest looking special effects, but it also makes them seem less cartoony than having hands and magna characters pop out of thin air.

3) Exposure. John is the most exposed and publically identifiable GL at this time.

4) Most connected to the GLC. Hal has close bonds with all of Earth's GLs, especially Kyle. Not that the GL movie has to follow the comics exactly, but there is a basis for close relationships with all the supporting characters other than being just their savior (in the case of Hal). John has the most diverse relationships, and is thus, the most interesting to see played out.

5) Diversity. John is markedly different from other dime-a-dozen superheroes, from his look, to his attitude, to his background, to his media exposure. He's just different, and that piques curiosity, which is obviously a VERY good thing. Nobody wants to go see "Spider-Man with a ring" or "Super Top Gun."

 

[batbat_29640]

Nice 'Mal' Jordan there Maj! But do I spy Ernie Hudson as John?And no offense but I don't want to see Gyllenhal anywhere near a DC movie. I'd rather see Milo Ventimiglia ( Peter Petrelli from Heroes) as Kyle. But that's just my opinion. For some reason I just don't like Gyllenhal. Might have something to do with the whole "Gyllenhal for Dent" mess. Hudson would have been a great John though.