Which Green Lantern should be used? - Part 2

[LEVITIKUZ]

 

[The Guard]

Let me get this out of the way up front so people who don't want to read a novel don't have to.

Hal Jordan, John Stewart, Kyle Rayner, Guy Gardner, and a number of other Green Lanterns could carry a movie.

Looking for the "only choice" is kind of silly in context. It depends on the kind of Green Lantern movie they want to make, and who is making the movie.

Just like you cannot prove that. But anecdotally, we know that many people were unpleasantly surprised it wasn't "That black guy from the cartoon." Those people were not equally likely to go see GL2011. It was, essentially, the first bad word of mouth on the film. But you're right, I can't prove that bad word of mouth hurt the film. I shouldn't have to though.

I didn't say a word about you proving bad word of mouth not hurting the film.

But if you're trying to pretend that the bad word of mouth mostly stemmed from Green Lantern being white? No. Just no.

I don't even consider that "bad word of mouth". I consider that confusion.

Boiling John down to his occupations misses his persona entirely. You're not even describing the basics of the character, just labeling him. "Reducing" Hal to another character who is a fighter pilot who gets kicked out of stuff and has the same consequence-less flaws as Hal doesn't actually miss anything, except his Green Lantern powers.

I didn't seek to boil John down. In context, I used this as an example of how characters shouldn't be boiled down, period.

I didn't need to describe the basics of the Stewart character, you already did that.

Comparing commercial and critical acclaim in similar circumstances. GL Mosaic vs GL vol 2. JLTAS GL vs GLTAS GL. It's not even close.

And that proves what, when it comes to film, exactly?

If I remember correctly, GLTAS came after GREEN LANTERN, and could easily have been "tainted critically" by the movie.

I don't think all this proves anything about which CHARACTER would be better received.

Ah, I see where you're coming from pre-Johns Hal. The more I learn about that guy, the more I like him. Unfortunately, in the modern era, much of what you're describing was not done by Hal, but by Parallax, a different character, the embodiment of fear. Hal couldn't do those things because Hal "doesn't do fear." Even his problems with the Guardians has been explained as the Oans being evil fascist megalomaniacs. There's a new non-drunk origin story too, iirc. The Hal you're talking about, who is not perfect and always right no longer exists.

1. The same applies for a lot of the elements of John Stewart you described as his "varied experience.

2. I don't subscribe to that way of thinking when it comes to source material. Though much of it is not canon, it is still Green Lantern mythology source material. And much of it is more interesting and richer in story and character potential than what Johns has written, which is, quite frankly, quite generic compared to much of Hal's earlier material. Johns is not the end-all be-all, nor is the New 52.

3. Canon and source material are fluid and often cyclical. Look at Joe Chill.

We're not talking about better source material, we're talking about what GL should be used for a movie, which translates into a better or more successful film. My argument is that a richer more well received lead character will do that, even if they are infrequently a lead.

But many of your key points about why John Stewart is a richer, more well received lead character don't hold a lot of weight, since Hal is also lot of the things you claim Stewart has an advantage because of.

Well, John Stewart being kinda awesome is what allowed Hal to be a character who could quit the Corps, and the book still continue. If they had a pseudo-Hal, as Guy originally was, or someone less awesome, the storyline would not have worked.

There are plenty of times where Guy Gardner took center stage, and the Green Lantern title survived, and even thrived. Many people LOVED Gardner.

Even in his origin, John Stewart allowed Hal to be a prejudiced *****ebag, and be proven wrong, making his character more well rounded and more relevant.

Let's call a spade a spade (crap, that's not a racist term, is it?). John Stewart's origin is largely a cliche "racism exists" introduction of a black character to an existing superhero mythology.

Of course Hal was going to be a prejudiced *****ebag. But how exactly is proving a prejudiced *****ebag wrong a "deep" character trait for the person being wronged? It's a story, and a pretty common one in literature, to be honest, even in comics, which were basically liberal-minded moral institutions at the time.

John, and the 'controversy' about using him in JLTAS made the show more relevant than ever, and proved to be one of the deepest most dynamic characters on there, free to do things like date Hawkgirl, date his trainer, change his look to update the series, and generally just make GL one of the most dominant memorable things about a dominant memorable series. Because he was different. Because he wasn't tied down to the Superhero tropes (cliches?), further, they weren't even available to him or else he'd be a "black Hal." "Green Lantern" being known to this age group is crucial, for reasons you likely know.

Opinion, opinion..

My opinion, and the opinion of many? He wasn't that different a hero, and he wasn't that deep, either. He was a stripped-down, watered-down version of a much more interesting John Stewart from the comics, and in many respects, yet another stoic, morally absolute superhero with many of the same conflicts as other heroes, including cliches/superhero tropes.

I don't find anything about John Stewart's portrayal on JLTAS particularly deep, other than perhaps the trial storyline, where he had a few deep moments.

I don't see how dating Hawkgirl means much of anything. Is it because he's a human and she's an alien?

What does changing his look have to do with anything, let alone this debate?

I'm not talking about emotions (idealistic isn't an emotion, for instance), I'm talking about characterizations, the core of the character. When Hal summarizes himself, he's basically the ultimate Green Lantern, in so many words. When John summarizes himself... you get something diverse.

Again, you can reduce anything through summarizing.

That's no way to accurately compare or value characters.

This is a good point. I don't consider it relevant because the modern Hal Jordan could never partake in most of these storylines, but you have raised a good point. Keep in mind that the most diverse of these storylines were taken up because Hal was becoming less and less popular, and that they are not part of the core of the character or what fans would expect or even accept from a Hal-centric trilogy.

And the same could be said for John Stewart.

Or was he chained to MOSAIC because he was wildly popular? Nope. MOSAIC actually jump started a character whose popularity was waning.

When his popularity waned again he was crippled and more or less forgotten for a while.

Yes there is. I think this is a key component of the discussion that you haven't seen yet. The nature/themes/core of a character inform the rest of the story. You can't just drop Clark Kent into Batman's story and Bruce Wayne into Superman's story, their themes are not compatible. The character informs everything else, including constructs, heroic arc and things of that nature.

Nope. Sorry. There's no rule about what Green Lanterns can and can't do, especially when starting from relative scratch (a film origin/adaption).

The fact that writers have thus far chosen to limit the characters has no bearing on what an artist adapting the broader Green Lantern mythology could do. We can argue could and should/shouldn't, but can and can't? Not really.

Creativity has no limits.

Not at all, a character being received better, on the basis of the character's nature, in one media gives the next media a starting point that will be at least as well received by the same audience.[/quote[

Simply not true. Witness Hal Jordan's incredible character of the comics (one media) and the reception of the film.

A character existing and being received well in previous media simply makes, via marketing and funding choices, more adaptions of that character likely. It doesn't inform the quality of the media itself.

[quoteThis is the same reason why we have multiple movies with Lex Luthor and none with Ultra Humanite. The quality of a character before they get to the screenwriter is definitely relevant.

mmm...no.

We have multiple movies with Lex Luthor because Lex Luthor is an incredibly important character to the core Superman mythos, and has been for a long time.

Despite his earlier origins...Ultra-Humanite? Not so much.

I suppose that's more arguable now. I think any positive things that have come from the modern Hal push have been skewered by the negative reception of Green Lantern. So I suppose Hal is more iconic in a bad way.

Any positive things that came from ANY GL push may have been skewered by the negative reception. It's not just Hal.

And Hal Jordan is iconic, period. He was one of the reasons the Silver Age of comics took off, and he's been an iconic character for some time.

That's not how characters work. You can't do anything with any character, because character and story are in symbiosis.

You can do anything you want with any character, and you can write any story you want. If you couldn't, Hal wouldn't have killed a bunch of GLs and guardians and the concept of Parallax wouldn't exist.

It's not my fault his advantages can be summed up. Those are two very big issues, so all the examples of his advantages mentioned so far have fallen in those two categories.

You can do the same for any character. You're so biased when it comes to this silly idea that John Stewart cannot be "summarized" that it's not funny.

"Black superhero with a power ring"

See, I just did it. It's quite possible.

And much of that has been retconned, and would be out of character for the Geoff Johns GL. And again, based in our reality, any GL that comes out right now will be the Geoff Johns GL.

You're clinging to this silly idea that somehow they can only use New 52 ideas. That's ridiculous. And it wouldn't serve your argument for using John Stewart over Hal any more if it WAS true.

And you don't know that. For all we know, Geoff Johns won't even be WITH WB/DC in 2019. It's likely, but we don't know for sure.

That's what movie execs do in the board rooms, they reduce characters. Acting like they'll take 60 years of comics into account would be foolish. And even if I was doing it for me and not because of the reality of the movie business, that wouldn't make me wrong either.

Well, you should hope that's not what they do, because otherwise, "Black Green Lantern" has little chance.

Basically your argument reduces to: things that people making movies think about are irrelevant to making a movie and I'm summarizing everything too much... not incorrectly, just too much.

I don't recall making any argument about the movie business.

Most of my posts was in relation to you trying to prove John is a more interesting character than Hal, and your attempts to do so.

I see no evidence here that I don't have a very strong point. You have a point too, that Hal used to be an interesting character, but that doesn't actually conflict with my point at all, as much as you try to make it.

Your point that John Stewart is a strong character capable of carrying a franchise is accurate.

Your point that somehow John Stewart is a stronger character than Hal or a better choice to headline a film, and the actual reasons you give for it? Not so strong. Mostly opinion. And frankly, missing the point. See my first sentence or so to this post.

 

[CaptainWagner]

I'll admit my opinion isn't the most informed, as I've really never read many Green Lantern stories. Most of my exposure to the Lanterns is from their appearances as members of the Justice League. Hal always bored me in that position, so I'm rather biased in who I want to see on the big screen.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

anyone seen the league last night? jerry o'connell for hal anyone?

 

[Mindreaper21]

I still want Chris Pine as Hal. Other than him, I'm lost.

 

[dude stannis]

Honestly why just stick with one? Make it an ensemble.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

John Stewart for the win!!!

 

[dude stannis]

Having Hal go crazy and die so his ring goes to Kyle is a story that covers two films and you've got an instant training day movie with Jon Stewart and Kyle Rayner.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Having Hal go crazy and die so his ring goes to Kyle is a story that covers two films and you've got an instant training day movie with Jon Stewart and Kyle Rayner.

A Training Day esque GL movie is a Hal/Sinestro movie along the lines of First Flight

 

[dude stannis]

Ha, I used the phrase 'training day' without even thinking of the movie!

Jon and Kyle would be something like Lethal Weapon where Kyle is out there and really creative and Jon is gettin' too old for this sh...

 

[WBwins]

I forgot to note, that is a pretty bomb storyline. I really can't be mad at it at all.

I think another advantage that John Stewart has is that if you put the whole story in space, you don't lose his supporting cast, the GLC *is* his supporting cast. First Flight has the disadvantage of cutting Carol and Tom and the Jordan family and a lot of really important stuff, but if you launch John Stewart into space early on... you don't really lose anything. Even his comic book origin story where he bucks his trainer and uncovers can be done just as easily with Katma or Kilowog or Sinestro as it is with Hal. Also you don't have to show Hal as being an obtuse jerk like he was.

I feel this is actually Johns biggest advantage.

Like i said both John and Hal cld carry a movie individaully

 

[Naked Shia]

instead of making GL, they should make GL corp. That way you can have Hal, John, Guy, Kyle...

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

I want John. Nothing against Hal fans (Ror2012) but John is one of my favorite DC characters and there isn't much I'm excited for about the DCCU. I don't think Gal is a good actress so I'm eh about her and her leading a Wonder Wonan solo film (unless they get a great director). I'm very meh on Ezra as Flash. I like Ray for Cyborg but I don't feel Cyborg belongs in the JL and the fact he's getting a solo is laughable. I think Momoa is good and the direction of the Aquaman film interest me. Unless Deathstroke or Black Manta is in Suicide Squad (or Robbie as Harley) I have no interest in that. I'm only excited about Shazam because Black AdRock.

I'm disappointed no Sandman is confirmed. No JL: Dark. No Martian Manhunter. If Martian Manhunter is in JL, I will be fine with Hal but the fact J'onn may not be pissed me off.

John Stewart would get me something to be excited about.

 

[DrCosmic]

Let me get this out of the way up front so people who don't want to read a novel don't have to.

Hal Jordan, John Stewart, Kyle Rayner, Guy Gardner, and a number of other Green Lanterns could carry a movie.

Looking for the "only choice" is kind of silly in context. It depends on the kind of Green Lantern movie they want to make, and who is making the movie.

Total 100% agreement. I actually detailed this differences in what types of movies would be best suited for them not too long ago.

I didn't say a word about you proving bad word of mouth not hurting the film.

But if you're trying to pretend that the bad word of mouth mostly stemmed from Green Lantern being white? No. Just no.

I don't even consider that "bad word of mouth". I consider that confusion.

I also didn't say a word about mostly or any such comparison. So you're not disagreeing with my statement.

I didn't seek to boil John down. In context, I used this as an example of how characters shouldn't be boiled down, period.

I didn't need to describe the basics of the Stewart character, you already did that.

But not only are characters necessarily boiled down for promotion, but comparing Hal too a similar perhaps deeper character doesn't qualify as boiling him down.

And that proves what, when it comes to film, exactly?

If I remember correctly, GLTAS came after GREEN LANTERN, and could easily have been "tainted critically" by the movie.

I don't think all this proves anything about which CHARACTER would be better received.

It's just a trend, not evidence, because there is no evidence.

1. The same applies for a lot of the elements of John Stewart you described as his "varied experience.

2. I don't subscribe to that way of thinking when it comes to source material. Though much of it is not canon, it is still Green Lantern mythology source material. And much of it is more interesting and richer in story and character potential than what Johns has written, which is, quite frankly, quite generic compared to much of Hal's earlier material. Johns is not the end-all be-all, nor is the New 52.

3. Canon and source material are fluid and often cyclical. Look at Joe Chill.

Afaik, Stewart's failings haven't been retconned as anything but his personal fault, and yes, I suppose in some eventuality a non-generic Hal, and Hal film, could happen.

But many of your key points about why John Stewart is a richer, more well received lead character don't hold a lot of weight, since Hal is also lot of the things you claim Stewart has an advantage because of.

There are plenty of times where Guy Gardner took center stage, and the Green Lantern title survived, and even thrived. Many people LOVED Gardner.

That was the version of guy that wasn't Hal-lite, some head injury or some such. And I don't think I can agree with you that Hal has those things that he used to, though I definitely understand why you would feel he does.

Let's call a spade a spade (crap, that's not a racist term, is it?). John Stewart's origin is largely a cliche "racism exists" introduction of a black character to an existing superhero mythology.

Of course Hal was going to be a prejudiced *****ebag. But how exactly is proving a prejudiced *****ebag wrong a "deep" character trait for the person being wronged? It's a story, and a pretty common one in literature, to be honest, even in comics, which were basically liberal-minded moral institutions at the time.

Being allowed to be ignorant is the hallmark of a balanced story that allows it's characters to grow. The origin does definitely have a huge cliche, but Stewart bucking the hero of the comic, that was groundbreaking at the time.

Opinion, opinion..

My opinion, and the opinion of many? He wasn't that different a hero, and he wasn't that deep, either. He was a stripped-down, watered-down version of a much more interesting John Stewart from the comics, and in many respects, yet another stoic, morally absolute superhero with many of the same conflicts as other heroes, including cliches/superhero tropes.

I don't find anything about John Stewart's portrayal on JLTAS particularly deep, other than perhaps the trial storyline, where he had a few deep moments.

I don't see how dating Hawkgirl means much of anything. Is it because he's a human and she's an alien?

What does changing his look have to do with anything, let alone this debate?

Dating Hawkgirl was a huge through of the show and provided it's major twist. It's not a storyline that any other character could have engaged in. Same with changing the visuals thematically as the shows theme changed. Being versatile allowed him to elevate the show in a way that couldn't happen with another lantern who is not as versatile.

Again, you can reduce anything through summarizing.

That's no way to accurately compare or value characters.

Of course it is. That's what happens at the beginning of every comic book, every pitch meeting, every introduction, summarize to communicate value. If you do it well, it's accurate.

And the same could be said for John Stewart.

Or was he chained to MOSAIC because he was wildly popular? Nope. MOSAIC actually jump started a character whose popularity was waning.

When his popularity waned again he was crippled and more or less forgotten for a while.

What metric could possibly be used to gauge the popularity of a supporting character? His popularity was not waning before MOSAIC. Nor was it waning at the end when it suddenly disappeared and turned up crippled sometime later. That's just not true.

Nope. Sorry. There's no rule about what Green Lanterns can and can't do, especially when starting from relative scratch (a film origin/adaption).

The fact that writers have thus far chosen to limit the characters has no bearing on what an artist adapting the broader Green Lantern mythology could do. We can argue could and should/shouldn't, but can and can't? Not really.

Creativity has no limits.

...yeah, technically they can just faceroll the keyboard and there's nothing stopping them from doing that... but audience expectations and market demands propose very serious limits on how much money can be spent or recuperated on a given adaptation.

mmm...no.

We have multiple movies with Lex Luthor because Lex Luthor is an incredibly important character to the core Superman mythos, and has been for a long time.

Despite his earlier origins...Ultra-Humanite? Not so much.

He became an important character by happenstance? Someone picked out of a hat? Or he had quality stories someone followed up and expanded on? Even when changing continuities?

Any positive things that came from ANY GL push may have been skewered by the negative reception. It's not just Hal.

And Hal Jordan is iconic, period. He was one of the reasons the Silver Age of comics took off, and he's been an iconic character for some time.

Iconic is a messy word, but in the future, any GL film will need to separate itself from GL2011. Nothing does that faster than Chiwetel Ejiofor on the poster.

You can do anything you want with any character, and you can write any story you want. If you couldn't, Hal wouldn't have killed a bunch of GLs and guardians and the concept of Parallax wouldn't exist.

That's not a crazy example in terms of theming. That fall perfectly within the theme of Hal's character as much as him flying a jet or talking back to authority. A crazy example would be: Hal becomes a doting mother of three. And yes, you can write that, and no one could stop you, and no one can say you "shouldn't," but from the perspective of getting and keeping an audience, it's a bad idea unless you're talking about a Hal-in-name-only situation.

You can do the same for any character. You're so biased when it comes to this silly idea that John Stewart cannot be "summarized" that it's not funny.

"Black superhero with a power ring"

See, I just did it. It's quite possible.

If I was so biased, why are you quoting me summarizing someone I believe can't be summarized? I'm not biased, I'm just accurate. "Black superhero with a power ring" says only one thing about Stewart while Solo/Maverick/Kirk-type says all but one thing about Hal Jordan. Notice how one summary says nothing about personality and theme, but the other encapsulates nearly everything about personality and theme. You suggest that since every character can be summed up, summaries are irrelevant, as though all summaries are equally accurate and all characters are as easily summed up as all others. This seems to be self evidently false, I don't know how to illustrate it to you any better.

You're clinging to this silly idea that somehow they can only use New 52 ideas. That's ridiculous. And it wouldn't serve your argument for using John Stewart over Hal any more if it WAS true.

And you don't know that. For all we know, Geoff Johns won't even be WITH WB/DC in 2019. It's likely, but we don't know for sure.

We don't know for sure if anyone will be alive in 2019, saying the most likely events aren't guaranteed begs a very different type of discussion.

But you bring up a good point, as long as we're stuck with boring Hal, we're also stuck with boring/supporting John Stewart.

Well, you should hope that's not what they do, because otherwise, "Black Green Lantern" has little chance.

It is what they're going to do, and Black Green Lantern does have very little chance. I established that a long time ago.

I don't recall making any argument about the movie business.

Most of my posts was in relation to you trying to prove John is a more interesting character than Hal, and your attempts to do so.

That is the context for this discussion, but even outside of that, it doesn't appear we're talking about the same thing anyway. You're talking about an ideal Hal, while I'm talking about the current iteration (Geoff Johns' Hal is also pre New 52), which we both agree is generic.

Your point that John Stewart is a strong character capable of carrying a franchise is accurate.

Your point that somehow John Stewart is a stronger character than Hal or a better choice to headline a film, and the actual reasons you give for it? Not so strong. Mostly opinion. And frankly, missing the point. See my first sentence or so to this post.

I can't miss a point I already made. Even you agree that different Lanterns are better suited for different types of stories. I think the type of story John Stewart is best suited for would be more appealing, on account of uniquness if nothing else, than the kind of story Hal Jordan, even the interesting version, is best suited for.

Now if you believe that the characters are interchangeable, since they're fictional and their histories have no necessary bearing on their futures, then you probably disagree. I live in a world, however, where current iterations of characters draw on previous ones, and the most critically and comercially viable keep character themes consistent.
==========

Totally. As long as Geoff Johns has weight it's always going to be Hal.

You're just so wrong DrCosmic. Sorry

Let the record show that I *tried* to agree with Rorschach. All I got was namecalling and cursing.

Lol. Very mature. I won't cry if Hal's announced. I didn't cry last time. I knew he would fail & patiently waited for it to happen. If they're not using Flash like a crutch to prop Hal's lame ass up(Hal would probably have just dragged Barry down w/him anyway), I don't see big things for another Hal solo flick. He doesn't stand well on his own. We've got plenty of time for WB/DC to come to their senses tho.
Pretty much. It's hard for a villain to really become megapopular when the hero he's up against doesn't have much going for him. It's like if Darth Vader always fought Jar Jar Binks. Han or Kirk would be ****ing AWESOME w/a power ring!!I think it's one of those "to each his own" type of things that fanboys don't seem to get. The appeal to me is the corps aspect.
Pretty much. It'd be awesome if WB cut him out of the picture because they want to actually MAKE money this time instead of losing lots &lots of it

Lol. I can't disagree with you.

There is one way they could make Hal super successful. It kinda has the same problem as a Hulk movie in being a mega-expensive adolescent power fantasy that is expected to have deeper themes at the same time because of the genre and the long gone deeper themes of the 70s comics, when really the core current fanbase who fell in love with the recent revivals of the character just wants to see cool powerful ish happen.

The way forward, if they're dedicated to a Hal movie is to go with the raw power fantasy version, to do a sort of Transformers take, or, if you are allergic to the word, a Pacific Rim style whiz bang, where it is clear and present and explicit that we are here to see cool stuff and that this is the value and contribution of the film. It is not a deep treatise on the nature of fear, because when you look at the comics honestly, from a psychological perspective, the Green Lantern gets fear all wrong as it's a "force" to be "overcome." That's not fear, that's ignorance. These films have modest cliche and almost meaningless personal arcs that work largely as sideshows to the main event: awesome characters doing awesome things that look awesome.

Instead of trying to force the current and beloved Green Lantern mythos to be something deep or grounded, they need to embrace that this is jet pilots using bright colored anvils to smash people in the heads with a background narration about using the power of heart. They would need to fully embrace that this is, essentially, the ultimate version of kids playing pretend trying to one up each other. If they run with that, fans will be so enthralled that Green Lantern is finally what he should be and so faithful to the comics, and the general audience can be caught up in the visual spectacle and all the innovative new things that can happen in a Green Lantern battle that no one will realize, or care that Hal Jordan is largely a static character. He doesn't need to grow or realize anything beyond 'now some of my friends are aliens.' No one came to see Hal Jordan grow out of his womanizing or conquer the terror that grips him while being a test pilot. That's not what Hal is for, that's what Kyle is for. Hal is for kicking butt and taking names and always coming out on top while refusing to have a plan or bow to any authority figure. That's what Hal is for. That's what Indiana Jones is for. That's what James T. Kirk is for. And if the GL movie of the future embraces that fully, if they just accept that the main character of Geoff Johns' GL is not the selling point or source of success for the modern GL franchise, but it's the larger than life conflicts and visuals, without the tedious weight of nuance and vagueness, they can do gangbusters. Same with the Hulk movie, as much as I love Ruffahulk, his cuddlyness is not enough to sate the millions (and millions!) of weight lifters, wrestling fans and general strength fetishists who boast Hulk (not Banner) as their favorite superhero, even though longtime fans of the character want exactly that kind of nuanced Banner and Hulk dynamic that Ruffalo can totally provide.

I don't think it would make Sinestro mega-popular though, in the same way Megatron or any of the villains from Indiana Jones never became mega-popular. They are, in the end, fodder for the hero's awesomeness. Sinestro has a sort of arc as a traitor, but really it's all about Hal Jordan jumping into the central battery and putting a whomping on him to give him his comeuppance. So went the best Green Lantern movie ever made. Khan was enabled to become popular because Kirk, aging, had become more than just an adolescent power fantasy, thanks to ST:TMP.

I think a Flash/GL movie would have been interesting, I was excited for it, because it would have been different. A buddy superhero film. It also promised to not try and make Hal deep, he could have just been *that* guy from the buddy cop films with Barry being the straight man with the actual arc. Alas, tis not to be.

 

[cleverusername8]

I would be comfortable with John being introduced as alongside Hal and letting them be Green Lanterns together. That would probably hike up the SFX budget on the JL movie if they're both members of the team together though.

So if John is used as GL alongside Hal with equal screen time and plot relevance in the solo, I'm all for it.

However, I do feel that Hal would be better suited for the Justice League movie because I think he should be established as the first human Green Lantern. Much like my feelings about Barry Allen being established before Wally or Bart come into the picture, Hal sets the precedent for the humans that come after him into the Corps. He is the definitive GL for me and I would rather have him on the team than John.

Plus, John doesn't have a really strong relationship with any Flashes. The GL/Flash relationship and dynamic is one of the most fun parts of Justice League. I could get behind a Wally-as-Flash if they included Kyle as the GL and gave them the same dynamic that they had in Morrison's famous JLA run from the 90's. Likewise, Hal and Barry's 2010-2011 and New 52 dynamic is equally fun and would be great to see on screen.

Who would John be paired up with? Amalgamated Wally that acts like Bart and has the background of Barry? Been there, done that with the DCAU. I didn't enjoy their relationship nearly as much as Wally/Kyle or Bary/Hal.

 

[ZIPBAGS]

Hal Jordan.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Hal Jordan!

 

[TheNextNolan22]

I think I'm going to go with Hal Jordan.

 

[Micromind]

Maybe it's just me.... but I fully expect GL Reboot to feature both Hal Jordan and John Stewart, which would be one way to establish it as a different movie than the earlier 2011 movie.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Once people get a basic understanding of the primary GL mythology, they should be able to realize that Hal Jordan is completely integral to the plot of the GL universe. The dude is at the center of the universe, removing him would be idiotic. Hal and Kyle are the most crucial earth GLs. Removing them drastically changes the mythology for the worse. Removing John or Guy wouldn't have nearly the same impact. The universe would still be completely recognizable and intact without John and Guy in the universe.


So basically take Hal or Kyle away and the universe is ****ed up, take John or Guy away in the universe survives fine enough.

They should use all four for the movies, but it's undeniable that Hal and Kyle are the most important members

 

[chamber-music]

Jack Raynor would make a good Hal I think. The guy is a solid actor

 

[Rowsdower!]

I want John. Nothing against Hal fans (Ror2012) but John is one of my favorite DC characters and there isn't much I'm excited for about the DCCU. I don't think Gal is a good actress so I'm eh about her and her leading a Wonder Wonan solo film (unless they get a great director). I'm very meh on Ezra as Flash. I like Ray for Cyborg but I don't feel Cyborg belongs in the JL and the fact he's getting a solo is laughable. I think Momoa is good and the direction of the Aquaman film interest me. Unless Deathstroke or Black Manta is in Suicide Squad (or Robbie as Harley) I have no interest in that. I'm only excited about Shazam because Black AdRock.

I'm disappointed no Sandman is confirmed. No JL: Dark. No Martian Manhunter. If Martian Manhunter is in JL, I will be fine with Hal but the fact J'onn may not be pissed me off.

John Stewart would get me something to be excited about.

Anybody got a violin?


Just kidding, Levi. If they do go with John, I'd love to see Boseman in the role, or Billy Brown.

 

[He-Man]

Omari Hardwick for John Stewart. He's great in Power. Can't wait for Season 2 to start.

 

[WBwins]

Freaking aweomse choice but has already been cast as Panther

 

[mace1]

Warner Bros Announces New Green Lantern Movie Scheduled for 2020 Release

by Desh on October 15, 2014

During a Warner Bros. investors meeting, Warner Bros. CEO Kevin Tsujihara announced the WB DC Comics films slate going up to the year 2020. Among the films was a new Green Lantern movie scheduled for a 2020 release.


Now to address the point all of you are wondering about. Will John Stewart be the star of this upcoming Green Lantern film? Well… we have no idea.


There is something very suspicious going on with that property. Most of the other movies announced have their stars listed with them. Jason Mamoa is confirmed as Aquaman, and Ezra Williams will be The Flash. The Shazam movie has yet to announce its star, and Green Lantern is a big question mark, as well.


For so long, Warner Bros. has been holding off on revealing the secret about how they will approach the Green Lantern franchise for their new cinematic universe. Many fans (including yours truly), have hollered out for John Stewart to be the star, especially considering the 2011 Green Lantern film featured Hal Jordan and ended up being a failure.

There are many positive reasons to make the change. First, John Stewart is already very well known to audiences from his starring role in the popular Justice League and Justice League Unlimited cartoons. Secondly, changing the face of the Lantern for future films will help in distancing them from the 2011 flop. Third, it would be great to see more major superheroes who are Black on the big screen.


The cries for John Stewart can’t be ignored, and I’m sure they have made their way to executive ears. The only reasons I can see for WB being so secretive about Green Lantern are that they’re not sure what they’re going to do, or they’re going to do something different and are waiting for the right time to drop the news on fans. If it is just the same old stuff over again, I don’t see the point of the closed mouthed attitude they’ve been taking.


As usual, we’ll just have to sit back and wait and see what happens, as well as continue to support Green Lantern John Stewart. Click the link below for more information on this new development:


http://deadline.com/2014/10/kevin-t...stor-day-warner-bros-ceo-presentation-851823/

To read more open link below.


http://www.greenlantern.co/


Green-Lantern-John-Stewart-Appreciation-Thread

http://community.comicbookresources...ntern-John-Stewart-Appreciation-Thread/page68