The Official Green Lantern Rumors/Speculation Thread - Part 1

[Jonwo]

It's interesting that Wahlberg was considered for Hal, he strikes me more of Guy Gardner.

Cruise does have star power but he is hit and miss outside of Mission Impossible. The Mummy was a good example of this and to a lesser American Made although the latter was a decent film.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

If this were a Hal Jordan film there would be no doubt, but I’m not sure they’ll go with that when starting with a GLC film, particularly if building up future Lanterns is the priority. We’ve seen very little of Peter Parker’s love life so far in the MCU for eg because there is too much else going on and he isn’t the ultimate focus.

Yeah, keep the focus on Hal and John and setting up the GLC. No need to spend any time on romance.

 

[Iceman]

It's interesting that Wahlberg was considered for Hal, he strikes me more of Guy Gardner.

Cruise does have star power but he is hit and miss outside of Mission Impossible. The Mummy was a good example of this and to a lesser American Made although the latter was a decent film.

For me his films can be hit and miss, but he himself is quite consistent.

And I wouldn't say a 100% no to Wahlberg but I'd be very wary.

 

[MaceB]

Yeah, say what you will about him... but you can always depend on Tom Cruise to bring his best. He would have been great for the role 20 years ago.

 

[TheVileOne]

Just cut Hal out and make it a John Stewart movie.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Just cut Hal out and make it a John Stewart movie.

If Hal is cut out, so is a massive part of the GL mythos, including both John Stewarts classic origin, and (indirectly) his modern origin. Also, John and Hal have worked as partners or in small groups of Lanterns more often than any of the other titular Lanterns. If John goes it alone, that means WB would have to present a completely new back story for him, which isn't something that non-comic people should be trusted to do.

 

[KalvinEllis]

Just cut Hal out and make it a John Stewart movie.

How can they do that when the latter pretty much has no material to offer as a standalone character. No classic arch-nemesis, little to no supporting cast members, no signature stories except for Xanshi which wasn't even a GL-themed story, no universe that's built in around on him. I'm not sure how you can build a movie franchise around a character like that, unless you borrow heavily from the guy you think should get cut from the movie, who actually has a GL universe that revolves around him. The JL cartoon did a commendable job showcasing Stewart's strengths as a valuable team member, without exposing his limitations as a solo character in the process, something the show's producers were clearly aware of. The GLC movie can try to do the same.

 

[Lantern Venom]

How can they do that when the latter pretty much has no material to offer as a standalone character. No classic arch-nemesis, little to no supporting cast members, no signature stories except for Xanshi which wasn't even a GL-themed story, no universe that's built in around on him. I'm not sure how you can build a movie franchise around a character like that, unless you borrow heavily from the guy you think should get cut from the movie, who actually has a GL universe that revolves around him. The JL cartoon did a commendable job showcasing Stewart's strengths as a valuable team member, without exposing his limitations as a solo character in the process, something the show's producers were clearly aware of. The GLC movie can try to do the same.

I remember when Superman: The Animated Series did that with Kyle. They gave him an amalgamated origin of both he and Hal. I'm sure that doing that in the social media age would cause of backlash, especially given John's historical significance and Hal's iconic status.

 

[TheVileOne]

No it wouldn't. Comic book movies do it all the time. MCU does it too.

 

[KalvinEllis]

Well I'm not one to "boycott" something if I don't get my way, so I would just choose to vote with my money instead. If Hal Jordan is not treated in a better way this time around and he's part of that movie solely to prop John Stewart, I'd probably just think twice about supporting it.

 

[Lantern Venom]

No it wouldn't. Comic book movies do it all the time. MCU does it too.

Oh, but it would. We're not talking about a bit player here. We're dealing with one of the most important mythos in DC's history. John Stewart is DC's first African-American hero. If WB tried gave him Jordan's story, which has been adapted numerous times over the years, fans would notice and find that insulting. Likewise, if John just showed up with no explanation, he would seem like a second-class hero.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Well I'm not one to "boycott" something if I don't get my way, so I would just choose to vote with my money instead. If Hal Jordan is not treated in a better way this time around and he's part of that movie solely to prop John Stewart, I'd probably just think twice about supporting it.

That's pretty much exactly a boycott. Not giving financial support to something.


I want them to give a more true to the comics adaptation than not but the sad truth is that it is possible to WILDLY deviate from the canon and still be successful. As Vile pointed out the MCU does it ALL THE FREAKING TIME. The "backlash" you predict would honestly be a drop in the bucket. The mass audience doesn't give a crap about fealty to the source material. All things being equal if they take a shine to whatever is put out the hardcore fans disapproval doesn't matter as much as we would like it to.

 

[TheVileOne]

Oh, but it would. We're not talking about a bit player here. We're dealing with one of the most important mythos in DC's history. John Stewart is DC's first African-American hero. If WB tried gave him Jordan's story, which has been adapted numerous times over the years, fans would notice and find that insulting. Likewise, if John just showed up with no explanation, he would seem like a second-class hero.

We literally have an Ant-Man franchise now where the main Wasp is HOPE VAN DYNE, and Hank Pym is a man in his 70s Yellowjacket was a completely different character.

Sony Pictures is literally doing a Venom movie without Spider-Man that has nothing to do with Spider-Man and Spider-Man is nowhere even near this story.

It's not about giving him Jordan's story. It's just making the movie a John Stewart story. Just make it John Stewart's story without Hal.

 

[flickchick85]

Nah. Hal and John, please. I want the buddy cop angle.

 

[Lantern Venom]

We literally have an Ant-Man franchise now where the main Wasp is HOPE VAN DYNE, and Hank Pym is a man in his 70s Yellowjacket was a completely different character.

Sony Pictures is literally doing a Venom movie without Spider-Man that has nothing to do with Spider-Man and Spider-Man is nowhere even near this story.

It's not about giving him Jordan's story. It's just making the movie a John Stewart story. Just make it John Stewart's story without Hal.

Ant-Man still has Hank Pym passing on the mantle to Scott Lang. That would work with Green Lantern too.

The problem with a "no Hal" approach to the Green Lantern mythos is that it changes almost everyone and everything. All of the other titular Lanterns are tied to Hal (except for Alan Scott since his ring's power source is different) as are all of the major villains. John was originally Hal's back-up (as was Guy Gardner) and in John's modern origin, the GotU offer him a ring when they see him save Carol Ferris at Ferris Air.

Take all of that away and it would mean that WB would not only have to completely reinvent John, but also reinvent the GL mythos. I don't trust them to be able to do that effectively, not one bit. Stick with what made the character popular in the first place.

 

[TheVileOne]

Ant-Man still has Hank Pym passing on the mantle to Scott Lang. That would work with Green Lantern too.

The problem with a "no Hal" approach to the Green Lantern mythos is that it changes almost everyone and everything. All of the other titular Lanterns are tied to Hal (except for Alan Scott since his ring's power source is different) as are all of the major villains. John was originally Hal's back-up (as was Guy Gardner) and in John's modern origin, the GotU offer him a ring when they see him save Carol Ferris at Ferris Air.

Take all of that away and it would mean that WB would not only have to completely reinvent John, but also reinvent the GL mythos. I don't trust them to be able to do that effectively, not one bit. Stick with what made the character popular in the first place.

Civil War has Baron Zemo as a Sokovian black ops soldier who's family died as collateral damage offscreen in Age of Ultron.

These movies change course all the time. So to me this attitude that we can't change the movie to a John Stewart GL movie because reasons makes no sense.

The 2001 Justice League animated series had John Stewart and only John Stewart for YEARS. Hal Jordan had a token cameo about several seasons in as a throwaway joke when time was being tampered with.

Lantern Venom, you are a biased Hal Jordan fan. That's fine. I love Hal Jordan as well. But I can't understand this attitude that you can't do a movie or story without him. Yes you can really. You just don't write him in.

How did Justice League Timm-verse work without Hal? They did it. He was that Earth's Green Lantern.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Civil War has Baron Zemo as a Sokovian black ops soldier who's family died as collateral damage offscreen in Age of Ultron.

These movies change course all the time. So to me this attitude that we can't change the movie to a John Stewart GL movie because reasons makes no sense.

The 2001 Justice League animated series had John Stewart and only John Stewart for YEARS. Hal Jordan had a token cameo about several seasons in as a throwaway joke when time was being tampered with.

Lantern Venom, you are a biased Hal Jordan fan. That's fine. I love Hal Jordan as well. But I can't understand this attitude that you can't do a movie or story without him. Yes you can really. You just don't write him in.

How did Justice League Timm-verse work without Hal? They did it. He was that Earth's Green Lantern.

Actually, my favorite DC character is Kyle Rayner, not Hal. I'd like both John and Hal without a preference to one.

You brought up two points that scare me as a fan of the Green Lantern Corps as a whole. John never had an origin story in the Timmverse, which was a mistake given that a Lantern *earns* his or her power. GL and Flash got reduced roles in JLU, so I certainly hope a live-action movie doesn't give us that limited level of development. John deserves better. Green Lantern fans deserve better.

And don't even get me started on how pathetic "Zemo" was in Civil War. He would be Marvel Studios worst character if not for the even more insulting version of Mandarin. I'd be furious if John got that kind of disrespect.

 

[KalvinEllis]

How did Justice League Timm-verse work without Hal? They did it. He was that Earth's Green Lantern.

Because it was a Justice League/DCU-themed show, not a Green Lantern show. All kids want to see is heroes and villains punch each other. If it was a Green Lantern show, I highly doubt Hal wouldn't be in it.

Also, Timm made Sinestro John's enemy in the DCAU, since the guy has no arch-rivals of his own. They also made him a former marine because they wanted their GL to have a military background like Jordan did. The JL/JLU producers were fully aware that John Stewart had very little to offer as far as solo material is concerned, so they had to "borrow" from the one who had that material to offer. Is it really smart to do a GL movie reboot and completely exclude the character the franchise revolves around in order to use someone who has basically nothing to offer as a solo character.

 

[KalvinEllis]

That's pretty much exactly a boycott. Not giving financial support to something.


I want them to give a more true to the comics adaptation than not but the sad truth is that it is possible to WILDLY deviate from the canon and still be successful. As Vile pointed out the MCU does it ALL THE FREAKING TIME. The "backlash" you predict would honestly be a drop in the bucket. The mass audience doesn't give a crap about fealty to the source material. All things being equal if they take a shine to whatever is put out the hardcore fans disapproval doesn't matter as much as we would like it to.

What I see as boycott is what some of the SW fans are doing. And even though I hardly agree with some of their tactics, they are making their voices heard that they don't like the direction Disney is taking the franchise in. I never see myself going on social media or making YT videos ranting about how my favorite Green Lanterns are treated by WB, so I would just consider whether to support the movie or not depending on how the characters are treated. I already supported one GL movie where Hal Jordan was treated like dirt and I don't plan to do it again if he gets the same treatment. And if this time the end result is great and people love it, and ends up making tons of money in the process, that's all fine and good with me. I would just have a clear conscience that I did not support another movie where Jordan was tarnished or mistreated.

 

[TheVileOne]

Because it was a Justice League/DCU-themed show, not a Green Lantern show. All kids want to see is heroes and villains punch each other. If it was a Green Lantern show, I highly doubt Hal wouldn't be in it.

Also, Timm made Sinestro John's enemy in the DCAU, since the guy has no arch-rivals of his own. They also made him a former marine because they wanted their GL to have a military background like Jordan did. The JL/JLU producers were fully aware that John Stewart had very little to offer as far as solo material is concerned, so they had to "borrow" from the one who had that material to offer. Is it really smart to do a GL movie reboot and completely exclude the character the franchise revolves around in order to use someone who has basically nothing to offer as a solo character.

Yes because these movies do it all the time. Once again, Ant-Man franchise made HOPE VAN DYNE the current canonical Wasp. A character who only appeared as an MC2 villain in the comics.

Hal Jordan had his chance and failed.

 

[KalvinEllis]

Hal Jordan had his chance and failed.

I've been hearing that BS claim for 7 years now. The studio failed, not the character the movie happened to be based on. The movie didn't fail because Hal Jordan was the main character, if you put Stewart in that same movie with the same type of people making it, the result would be the same. Would you still say that John Stewart had his chance and failed? Something tells me that probably doesn't suit your narrative much tho. If characters like Hulk, Punisher or Daredevil could be redeemed, I don't see why Hal Jordan couldn't. What makes this character so unworthy of a second chance on the big screen just because he happens to be part of a legacy franchise.

 

[TheVileOne]

No because he hasn't.

Just make it a John Stewart movie.

 

[KalvinEllis]

lol I'm pretty certain you won't be making the same claim either way, but again, whatever suits your biased narrative. And like I said before, John Stewart is a team-up character, not a solo protagonist. He has nothing to offer on his own.

 

[TheVileOne]

lol I'm pretty certain you won't be making the same claim either way, but again, whatever suits your biased narrative. And like I said before, John Stewart is a team-up character, not a solo protagonist. He has nothing to offer on his own.

Based on what exactly? Where is there any proof that Stewart couldn't star in his own movie?

When was Scott Lang a solo character before Ant-Man in 2015?

 

[Lantern Venom]

Based on what exactly? Where is there any proof that Stewart couldn't star in his own movie?

When was Scott Lang a solo character before Ant-Man in 2015?

Ant-Man wasn't a solo movie where Marvel ditched the entire mythos and had Lang off on his own. He was still a legacy character who was largely supported by the stories and prescence of his predecessor.