Not sure why this suddenly became a "Kyle versus Hal" thing. It's not even an important question. Hal is number one by pure popularity anyway; it's just a question of whether or not Kyle also gets the recognition he deserves.
I knew you would point to Harvey Dent but its not a proper comparison.
Harvey Dent was allowed to be built and destroyed in one film because the other characters didn't have to be. Bruce and Gordon were established in the first film, the Joker was established in the first scene and needed no further explanation.
Nonsense. You can build more than one character in a film.
With Hal Jordan you are going to need to dedicate the first act to building Hal, the second act building Hal the Lantern and the third act is Hal saving the day.
And you can do this while doing the necessary work with Sinestro, too.
No reason to blow your load in film one - especially when Green Lantern doesn't have Batman's rogue gallery.
Indeed; and having Sinestro fall in the third act does not constitute "blowing your load." It's just good sense: you never know what happens with a sequel, so make the movie count. I'd hate to see the franchise canned or the filmmakers replaced by Bret Ratner while having foregone Sinestro for the sake of Legion.
I should be clear: I understand the desire to have this broken up over two films. That's fair. I just refute that it's
required.
I don't mean that as a slight. It's just not a very rich history. Not like a test pilot with the right stuff who was chosen by his successor and is an enemy with his teacher?
What is more rich about a test pilot with "the right stuff" as opposed to an average person suddenly flung into a world way over his head with most powerful weapon in the universe and a responsibility to perform the duties of 3600 people? What is more rich about being selected by a predecessor as opposed to being thrown into the deep end by a little blue alien who needs to protect the legacy of the Green Lanterns, regardless of the cost to the individual burdened with it?
...so if Kyle Rayner is such a fantastic character, why did DC Comics decide to bring back Hal Jordan?? Why not have Kyle Rayner be the torchbearer for the GL and the rebuilding of the GL Corps??
Because people like Hal. You give the people what they want. This doesn't say anything about the quality of Rayner. Hell, Hal got canned plenty of times, too. Incidentally, they
also want Kyle, which is why he still has his own book (co-starring with Gardner, admittedly).
an unemployed artist with daddy issues is actual characterization?? the whole point of super heroes is that they are a fantasy of people we'd like to be....I never wanted to be Kyle Rayner
Superheroes don't have a unifying "point." The purpose of each is unique. Most generally, they are often used to illustrate human conflicts. The idea that a hero needs to be someone you'd want to be is ridiculous.
