MessiahDecoy123
Psychological Anarchist
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 25,415
- Reaction score
- 4,376
- Points
- 103
Should they get someone other than Ryan Reynolds or stick with him?
Please state your reasons.
Please state your reasons.
Agreed on all points.The Incredible Hulk underperformed as well. Excluding budget, they took in about the same amount at the domestic box office (130/116). Which means that they received about the same amount of attention from viewers... Green Lantern was just a failure because it cost more to make...but it still about as many asses into the seats as Hulk's flick did.
Neither got sequels.
People thought that there was a fundemental problem with the character or that the public just didn't like them...
Then The Avengers happened. We got Hulk in small doses, and done by a director who understood what made that character fun and successful and it worked.
Reynolds wasn't the reason the first film failed -- he delivered a great rendition of Hal Jordan. A Hal Jordan that I think would be a great foil for a veteran Batman or a serious Superman. A Hal Jordan straight from the New 52.
If a director who is worth his salt and understands Green Lantern comes onto this project, he can deliver us everything Martin Cambell didn't or couldn't. And I will take that bet and bet on Reynolds' Hal Jordan.
Hulk WAS recast....but the FILM was kept within continuity. And the actor was recast for reasons not having to do with his performance...
But it's pretty universal that comic book fans don't blame Ryan Reynolds for the failure of that movie. Just as they didn't blame Norton for his. Norton wouldn't have been recast if it weren't for a diva/power struggle between him and Marvel. Reynolds has no such situation. So when comparing the FILMS, Marvel made the smart choice and left The Incredible Hulk as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's continuity. Even though it underperformed. Again, if Norton and Feige hadn't had a power struggle, Norton would have returned as well...
Fan didn't hate Reynolds' Hal Jordan. Actually, a large portion of them LIKED his portrayal, and felt that he deserved a better script. GIVE HIM THE BETTER SCRIPT.
The major narrative in this very thread is that people "wish they could keep Reynolds, but erase Green Lantern from the continuity." You can't do that...
People are also forgetting that erasing Green Lantern from the DC Continuity would also take away Mark Strong as Sinestro in an eventual Green Lantern Sequel or a Justice League follow-up. And that would be a crime.
Keep Reynolds as part of the team. Keep the film as a vague point in the continuity. There's no need to reference Hector Hammond or anything like that....
But keep what worked. Ryan Reynolds and Mark Strong.
-R
I thought Reynolds was fine. Replacing him would be casting blame where it doesn't belong.
Didn't Reynold's act more like Wally West than he did Hal Jordan?
Nope. He was Hal for sure. Hal Jordan is a cocky jerk when he first gets the ring.
In all probability they'll recast. But it wasn't Reynolds that was the problem with GL.
But if being cocky and sarcastic is Ryan Reynold's specialty why would he be the best choice for a post origin Hal Jordan who is no longer cocky and sarcastic.
But if being cocky and sarcastic is Ryan Reynold's specialty why would he be the best choice for a post origin Hal Jordan who is no longer cocky and sarcastic.