Latino Review, generally a pretty reliable source as far as film rumors go, reported an interesting one Friday: that two Green Lantern sequels are already in development, and will be in production by the time the first one hits theaters next summer.
Not completely surprising, but this is: according to the article, “sources say” Warner Bros. wants one in 2012 and one in 2013, meaning a Lord of the Rings trilogy-esque pace of three GL films in three years.
As the post points out, if true, this almost surely means an expansion of the Green Lantern movie universe, and, hopefully, big-screen debuts for Corps members like Kyle Rayner, John Stewart, Guy Gardner. Why stop there? Let’s end the work week daydreaming about a big-screen Isamot Kol, or who’d we cast as Soranik Natu.
The Green Lantern feature film is scheduled for release on June 17, 2011 and stars Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Mark Strong and Peter Sarsgaard.
August 6th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
That’s how you do it! That’s what the Superman movies needed–a long-term plan for subsequent movies.
August 6th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Crazily enough … I think Green Lantern films could probably speedball ideas enough to make the “four musketeers” approach work in a suitable amount of time.
# 1: Origin
# 2: Fall of Sinestro
# 3: Replacement Lanterns
# 4: Emerald Twilight
# 5: Rebirth
August 6th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Mistake. Let’s get a good first film and then see how it goes. I’m disappointed by the effects/makeup from what I’ve seen. Looks hokey.
August 6th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
These is why I hate live actions movie
August 6th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
It’s not really a “mistake,” mike. If you DON’T get the ball rolling this early, you end up wasting a year getting a script everybody’s happy with, and then the sequel doesn’t come out for another two, three years on top of that.
I would be VERY surprised if they actually start filming before the next one is released; THAT’s a mistake.
But it’s extremely common for sequels to be “in development” before a movie is out, especially for big-budget movies like this that take a very long time in pre-production, production and post-production to get made — because at this stage in the game, all you need is a writer and a couple of producers to bounce it off (and often the director of the first movie). That’s the both cheapest part of making these movies, and one of the most time-consuming.
If things move along, you bring in a few artists, and you’re starting to spend a little bit more money. Then if the movie is a hit, they can sign all the people they need and get rolling pretty fast.
And if the first movie bombs, they’re out a few hundred thousand (if that)? That’s chump change for Hollywood.
August 6th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
There is no reason to be pre-development for the next two. I’m sure the actors have obligations stated in the contract, I’m shocked if not.
That being said…one GL film every year ala Lords of the Rings? That is a bad move. At least with Iron Man you get a couple in between to get pumped for the next.
August 6th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Man this rocks!!!!! Bring on Kyle!!!!!!!!! This is how you plan an epic!!!!
August 6th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
They’re going to end up very upset when the first one bombs.
August 6th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
They still haven’t shown that they can make ONE good Green Lantern movie. The idea of forcing a trilogy adds further doubt in my mind as to whether they even care about doing that.
No matter how many characters, movie stars sequels, and gimmicky special effects you throw at the project, none of that will make it good.
They keep saying things like, “oh man, sinestro and parallax and kilowog and 3D and CGI!” As though those are the key ingredients to making a great film about Hal Jordan and the Green Lantern Corps.
Tell me the actors are taking their roles seriously, and not just phoning it in for a paycheck.
Tell me they will have a fantastic origin where we care about Hal and his family and his motivations.
Tell me they are creating a brilliant score with an iconic theme that will be remebered for generations.
Tell me that they will add to the mythos by taking time to think about what sound the rings will make, or what the ring’s “voices” will sound like.
Tell me they will imbue the movie with a sense of daring and fearlessness that will make kids say they want to grow up and be a pilot or an astronaut.
Tell me that this is going to be something that appeals to the hardcore fans and newcomers alike, not because it panders to gimmicks and trends and easter eggs, but because it is a quality film that can be held up on its own as an example of finely crafted storytelling.
And then prove it.
August 6th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
I wonder if they were also that optimistic in the year leading up to the Jonah Hex movie.
August 6th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
From what I read, the first film’s script was designed as part one in a trilogy, the remaining two of which has already been plotted. If that is true then why the hell not apply a faster production timetable like with LOTR or the Harry Potter films? WB could save a bundle and the fans win.
August 6th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
While I love Kyle and Guy more than Hal, I’m less interested in seeing them in a movie than I am about seeing Atrocitus, Larfleeze, and Saint Walker
August 7th, 2010 at 12:43 am
It’s easy to introduce Guy Gardner in Green Lantern 2. Guy, as Hal’s dedicated backup is called up, except Sinestro had someone tamper with Hal’s power battery, causing Hal to believe Guy was killed. If you’re introducing the Sinestro Corps/Betrayal early on in the movie timeline, it makes perfect sense. You could have a deranged Guy out for revenge on Hal being Sinestro’s unwitting tool. Then Guy falls into a coma, and we get John in the third movie. That way Guy is written out of the storyline until later when he can return as his badass self.
Also, they should have a scene in every movie where Hal is just doing random crap like stopping a sun from going supernova or saving aliens in sector 2814 from bigger aliens.
August 7th, 2010 at 3:09 am
This mostly a good thing a storyline and ideas are already there why not the movies will come out faster.Like lord of th rings or the potter films besides GL has been(and always will be) more interesting then superman will ever be.No boreing human enemies like Lex Luthor to be the focus in every SINGLE movie as long the as HAL and company isn’t only taken out by yellow objects I wouldn’t abject.
August 7th, 2010 at 6:40 am
Hahaha!This news almost gave the Marvel zombies a heart attack if replies to this topic are any indication!
August 7th, 2010 at 6:54 am
All this talk of bringing other Green Lanterns into the film series, and yet, I’ve never heard anyone mention Alan Scott!! He was the first damn Green Lantern….will we EVER see this character on film??? Give the guy some respect DC, he’s been around longer than any other GL character and never had a motion picture to himself. Hell, aside from the brief reference on Smallville this past season, I don’t think Alan Scott has ever been a live-action character on the small screen either.
August 7th, 2010 at 7:07 am
The trailer for this film has not been out for anyone to make any snap prejudgments about it. As far as the sequels go, I agree with @nathanisthebest since this has been planned out and it would be best to film the others ASAP so that there could be some time for revisions to the final products. As far as the optimism with regards to Jonah Hex, this was already planned and westerns aren’t big box office even when you have Megan Fox attached to the project.
August 7th, 2010 at 7:11 am
@Master-Mysery: Alan Scott was 1940′s while Hal Jordan is more current. Alan Scott would be considered outdated as far as the current moviegoer is concerned and Hal Jordan is more accessible based on the material that is currently being sold at major bookstores and comic shops.
August 7th, 2010 at 7:59 am
Good old forum posters. Full of negativity. WE haven’t even seen the finished product and already they are bitching!
This will be a great movie because the right people are behind it.
I would also see Alan Scott making a proper appearance on Smallville sometime this season. As he already had a cameo so in fact has made his live action debut!
August 7th, 2010 at 8:28 am
I’m thinking Alan Scott may be a part of Checkmate.
August 7th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Deep_Shock Says:
August 7th, 2010 at 6:40 am
Hahaha!This news almost gave the Marvel zombies a heart attack if replies to this topic are any indication!
Nah,Marvel zombies are just laughing considering that the movie has no hype or any solid teaser material to back up the need for a triology. Also given the way jonah hex performed it shows that warner bros can’t even handle their lesser known properties.
This should be a nice explosion to watch
August 7th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Wouldnt it suck for Dc and Wb when they where already filming Green Lantern 2 and 3 and then heard the news that Green Lantern 1 was a flop. Damn i would laugh my ass off
August 7th, 2010 at 9:58 am
@eltitandeoro: Jonah Hex strayed away from the material and it was a western where those types of films do not perform well. It’s obvious that you have not seen the pop that Green Lantern received when they had a panel at San Diego Comicon. Do some reading and research before posting anymore replies.
August 7th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Obviously Ryan Reynolds schedule could get cluttered and Deadpool is delayed back to 2012 at earliest. Obviously Mattel will make Movie Masters made on the Green Lantern movies.
August 7th, 2010 at 10:54 am
That they’re planning, or hoping to get a trilogy out of this franchise is great! (if true)
That anyone here is cheering or anticipating without question) that these possible future movies focus on four consecutive male GLs chosen from Earth in a row? And not a single woman recognized or chosen amongst them, from the entire planet? Is not only stupid, and narrow-minded, but a completely offensive to half the population of Earth.
Granted it’s what the comic “fans/creators” have put out there and come to accept because …well I don’t know why? Complacency?
But outside that complacent little ghetto, that idea will not fly. Four men chosen in a row? It not only reads wrong conceptually, considering what the ring seeks-out and “recognizes” in us, but statistically falls flat on it’s face. It just contradicts everything the ring is supposedly about.
But yeah, go ahead and argue why it doesn’t, or why that fact can be ignored.
August 7th, 2010 at 11:09 am
@ mondragon: No. If there’s a female character made in the comics who gets the ring? Great. But the movies are adapting forty years worth of stories–what right do they have to go adding new shit?
August 7th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Sidenote: There ARE females in the GLC. Why so Earth focused?
August 7th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Yep and as predicted here come the myopic arguments, and excuse to why this can just be ignored. Or heaven forbid go against tradition and continuity..
Guess what, the movies veer away from comic ‘continuity” all the time. They can easily make one of them a woman; Guy or Kyle for eg… Nobody would care other then the little ghetto of obstinate fans. So sorry, that is not an excuse. But more importantly the point is, why would you even want to make that excuses for it? Like I said, the idea of four exclusively male GLs chosen in a row from Earth is stupid and straight up offensive , but yeah let’s defend and protect it! Because why? It’s all we know or are complacent with?
That is what I don’t get?
As to “why so Earth focused” question? That’s not me, I might ask you the same thing. It’s what the article is conjecturing and what subsequent replies are applauding and celebrating or at least anticipating. Not me.
For me personally the Cosmic focus or drive of the concept gets diluted as you introduce excessive Earth GLs. Especially in the short span of a trilogy (the topic put forth by the article, not me).
So yes, why so Earth centric?
The idea of a back-up, or better partner is great, but why would they even be from Earth again? The second GL Broome and Kane developed was the female Katama Tui, driving home the open nature of the ring, this was 1964. And yet on Earth today we get exclusively males? With the third then fourth being chosen as a male again it becomes preposterous, and as I said completly offensive.
If your going to make it Earth centric, bring in John, that’s freaking awesome! But after that, bring in at least one woman. It’s the first thing anyone (outside this ghetto) will be asking themselves.. Why isn’t a woman chosen?
It’s actually sad to see anyone here wouldn’t see that obvious question coming, or would obstinately argue against it.
August 7th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
This is a huge gamble and a mistake. I have a feeling the first one is going to bomb. The comics is cosmic and I don’t think WB’s budget is big enough. They’re going to end up making a small movie about an earth cop with a power ring and it’s not going to fly with GL fans. Face it, outside of comics, not a lot people know about GL.
WB should spend its resources in the first movie, instead of the three, and make it great. This movie has disaster written allover it.
Furthermore, Ryan Reynolds is wrong for the role. He’s a comedian and a joker. I don’t think he can carry off the role.
August 7th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Jonah Hex was a mistake, key problem being the script and it’s approval by DC’s execs, after that it devolved into a big waste of money and everyone’s time. The hype and good vibe at the convention panel sure didn’t translate into tickets or good reviews (from both fans, fanboys or critics).
“Trying a new take” on known DC property for live films it’s the biggest coin toss ever, and when in pays it pays good like the current Batman franchise, guess they’ll play for keeps this time given all they’re investing on the GL movie, so I’ll watch it.
August 7th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
First off, all this should be taken with a grain of salt, especially these hard dates. And the speculated subject of the later movies (ie the four Earth GLs). None of that is confirmed.
Berlanti and crew way back (from his interview) pitched them on the possibility of a Trilogy. That is nothing new. It is that they glommed on to, and what pushed GL (amongst other things) onto the front burner and production. So it is that extended vision of many GL movies we in part have to be thankful for.
How is that bad?
That Campbell is willing to hold back and only set up the main villain Sinestro for the next movie and not throw it all into the first film, shows huge confidence in the material and the strong concept for a series of movies.
Again how exactly is that a bad thing or a “mistake”?
Pretty much every interview with Campbell and Strong talk about the bigger picture and story arc that these characters and concepts provide, this is great! With production wrapping for the first already, nobody wants to walk away after one.
And Reynolds no doubt is signed for a trilogy as is custom. This is nothing new.
How anyone would think this forward thinking, planning and anticipation by production and crew would take away from the franchise is beyond me?
This shows commitment, and everything we’ve heard and seen about the first one, shows they are giving it all they got.
Is this a gamble? Of course, what movie isn’t.
Is holding back stuff, introducing material now and setting up for a “hopeful” trilogy and their approach a mistake? To me not looking at the bigger picture, and not taking this gamble now would be the mistake.
August 7th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
With the greatest due respect to Mondragon, and while acknowledging that there is a gender bias in the Laterns from sector 2814, there is a significant reason why the corps has been as such: The primary audience of comics in today’s world is teenage to adult males, who often (at the risk of stereotyping) are not the strongest or most physically intimidating individuals around. Comics are a means of fantasy: a reader can relate to the characters he reads about, and can envision him/herself acting in a fashion similar to said characters. Since more men read comics than women, DC was appealing to its market demographic in the hopes that their enterprise would be profitable.
Having said that, is it fair that they chose all-male human lanterns? Probably not, but there is sufficient gender diversity in the DCU that I am surprised you are bothered by such a bias in that one book. The number of powerful and independent female characters throughout their comics is quite balanced: Catwoman, Wonder Woman, Zatanna, Batwoman, the Question, Jade (Alan Scott’s daughter), Hawkgirl, Mera (Aquaman’s wife), Lois Lane, Raven, Starfire, Dove, Oracle, etc. And with the notable exceptions of Zatanna and Starfire, none of the above list is portrayed as being overly-sexualized.
In addition, when you look outside the Green Lantern Corps, note that Star Sapphire is (and always has been) a woman, and that the White Lantern Corps, being developed by Geoff Johns, has a notable female contingent.
Finally, with respect to the movie, while it would be equitable for them to introduce a female human Green Lantern, it would stray so far from the source material as to cease to ring true. the sad reality is that tradition is important to many comic readers, and thus movie goers. I will confess, I am a traditionalist myself, and thus prefer when comic movies stick to cannon, even at the risk of not being politically correct; I do hope that you do not find me myopic or of the ghetto for appreciating the work of 55 years of writers. The moment a female human is written in as a Green Lantern, I will proudly cheer for her, and urge that she be filmed.
August 7th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
While I like the idea of having the films made as a trilogy, I don’t think it would help the Green Lantern franchise in the long term.
After the trilogy, regardless of it’s success or failure, no director, actor(s), writer is gonna want to be the guy that replaces the previous person from the ‘original’ trilogy. It will be hard to find a replacement for Ryan Reynolds, just as it’s been hard to replace Christopher Reeave.
The best long term would have been to do a CGI animated film. The consistency is easier to maintain, just look at all the SHREK sequels. American audiences are dying for a mature CGI film, but moviemakers are convinced animation is for kids.
August 7th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
green lantern 2 will probably be about Star Sapphire
August 7th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
MOGO!
August 7th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Two and three already in development? One word: shocker.
He says with deadpan sarcasm.
Lance Roger Axt
The AudioComics Company
August 7th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Not a proven franchise. I think this movie will fail, because DC is a failure. Yellow is a weak weakness. Green Lantern is dumb.
August 7th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Gay Gardner you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Yeah, DC had a few flops but less than say…Marvel. In the comic book movie industry, we have classics like DC’s Superman, The Dark Knight, Batman Begins. Marvel has it’s few good ones but a lot aren’t worthwhile…i.e. Daredevil and Fantastic Four. Not a proven franchise? Both DC and GL have a huge following. Your argument failed. It’s weak. You’re dumb.
August 8th, 2010 at 6:51 am
Finally, a movie studio has a clever thought. I’ve always thought potential franchises should have a game plan, so that if the first is a surprise hit, there’s not a lot of downtime between sequels.
August 8th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
This will be one of the most epic flops in Hollywood history. Nobody except DC loser nerds have even heard of Green Lantern. Once again DC is trying to copy Marvel but DC can NEVER be Marvel. Because for years Marvel has been KICKING DC’S ASS. In comics, in movies, in recognizable characters, in EVERYTHING. Give it up DC. Losers.
August 8th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
xantm70: Jade is a female human, and a Green Lantern (these days).
August 8th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I wouldn’t wipe my ass with a Marvel comic. I read both DC and Marvel, but Marvel has lost my business due to unintelligent writing and awful story lines that go nowhere. Marvel outsells DC, so what? Mindless individuals will buy anything.
Troll all you like from your mom’s basement, while I’m giving it to her upstairs. Yeah that’s right, stare at your toy collection, dreaming of something you’ll never have: a woman.
Go Green Lantern Go!
August 8th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
After reviewing some of the more negative posts represented here, I can see why there are so many popular stereotypes about comic book fans. People are already calling this movie a failure because…well, because they WANT it to fail, for whatever odd reasons. And the sniping about “better” characters and properties, not to mention the “MARVEL IS SO MUCH BETTER” posts…
Reminds me why the Unternet was started in the first place.
August 8th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
So Batman, Superman and GL22 = THREE DC Movies in 2012 – gosh that would be a DREAM!!
August 8th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
That’s 2. Not Twenty Two. Not yet.
August 8th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Honestly, if I were the head of development at a movie studio, I would never pay attention to actual comic book fans, given the “helpful” criticism offered on this site. Half the folks who have posted in response to this article have declared “Green Lantern” a flop based on a handful of images in Entertainment Weekly, which were published well before the film had been through the special effects process and edited.
Comparing “Green Lantern” and “Jonah Hex” seems ludicrous. Sure, they’re both DC properties, but they’re different genres that were licensed and developed separately from one another. With “Green Lantern”, WB and DC seem to have a mission in mind–a coherent DC film universe, and the focus on that unifying should help to ensure a good product. There’s a lot riding on this, and everyone involved is going to do his or her best to make it work and work well.
August 8th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Another thing: I’ve never understood the whole DC-is-better-than-Marvel/Marvel-is-better-than-DC mentality. For the past 39 years, I have read and collected comic books–DC comic books and Marvel comic books, among many others; but I’ve never been one to declare a particular publisher better than the other. Of course, there have been times when more of the creators whose work I enjoy are producing for a particular company, but even then, I couldn’t say one company was better than another.
Seems strange to think of comic books as either/or things.
August 8th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
I would love to see the Green Lantern franchise play out this way…
1. After finding Abin Sur, accepting his ring, learning its power and getting tips on how to use it from a reluctant Sinestro, Hal Jordan eventually fights and defeats his mentor by the end of the 1st movie. This movie should focus primarily on establishing Hal Jordan as a new Green Lantern. (No Oa, No Kilowg, No Guardians).
1. The first 30-minutes of the sequel, Hal (while test piloting a fighter jet) learns of a terrorist/hostage situation at a large airport close by. He ditches the jet, changes to Green Lantern and flies off to confront the terrorists. On the tarmac, Hal uses a T-Rex construct to scare the terrorists on the ground, then uses a multitude of other constructs to subdue them. In his arrogance and cockiness, he fails to stop the plane from taking off, so he flies after it and uses a series of constructs to distract and eventually capture the plane and return it to the airport. Soon after flying away, he is met by an unimpressed Kilowog and 3-5 other lanterns who escort him to Oa, where he learns of the Green Lantern corp, The Guardians and the GL mythology, mission, etc. After all of the friendly exchanges, Hal mysteriously becomes infected by the yellow impurity from the core Lantern and progressively becomes Parallax near the end of this (2nd) movie. He attacks Oa and returns to Earth to wreck havoc. The end of this movie shows an injured Ganthet flying to earth with 3 rings to recruit new Lanterns to fight Parallax, since all the other Lanterns have been captured, not murdered on Oa. (It’s a nice cliffhanger to leave the audience begging for more).
2. Movie 3 begins with scenes of Parallax laying waste to Coast City. The next scene is of Ganthet [individually] meeting Kyle, John Stewart and Guy Gardner who become Green Lanterns to fight, defeat and exorcise Parallax from Hal (midway through this “3rd” movie). Together, led by Hal (along with Kilowog and other members introduced in movie number 2) the Lanterns defeat and imprison Parallax back into the core lantern on Oa.
Using Hector Hammond in the 1st movie should only be to set up a confrontation with Green Lantern in movie number 4, if the franchise goes that far. Personally, I wouldn’t feature him as a primary villain at all, because (IMO) he’s just not very interesting, but if he assembled other GL villains, then he could earn his value in that manner.
All of this may seem like a lot of material to cover in just 3 movies, but if The Lord of The Rings can do it…so can a Green Lantern trilogy. I have high hopes for this franchise, I hope it doesn’t let me down.
August 8th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
GL not being as widely known as other hero’s doesn’t really matter.Iron Man did fine,and people aren’t going to ever know who he is if you don’t put the character out there anyway.
Ryan Reynolds being right for the part is an unknown,but remember when Heath Ledger proved the bitter internet nerds wrong?
It’s defanitly a good move to go in with a long term plan.
August 9th, 2010 at 5:53 am
I believe that in the movie world, a rising tide lifts all boats. A successful GL movie will only help in getting us more superhero movies, whether Marvel, DC or Other. I can’t understand why anyone who likes any kind of comic book movies would want any of them to fail.
I typically prefer Marvel’s characters to DC’s, and have been a faithful Captain America fan for decades, but I honestly think GL is going to be the movie to beat next summer. I wish them all well.
August 9th, 2010 at 6:38 am
Xkot,
I couldn’t agree with you more.
I, for one am VERY glad to see comic book, superhero movie adaptations do as well as they have been since the release of the 1st Blade movie. Even though Superman The Movie was arguably the 1st successful superhero movie endeavor, I think it’s safe to say that Blade (at the very least) successfully reinvigorated the genre and began the “movement” we all continue to enjoy today. For every “bad” comic book/superhero movie released, (i.e. Elektra, Punished: War Zone and Jonah Hex/Ugh!), I only wanted them to succeed so that the genre would continue to thrive. Thankfully, there have been far more Good/Awesome movies, than bad ones.
Going forward, the pallet looks GREAT for the next 2 years. With THOR, Captain America, Green Lantern and The Avengers all “Coming-to-a-theater-near-you”…the future of superhero themed movies still looks VERY positive.
August 9th, 2010 at 7:21 am
well anything that we don’t like will be fixed with a Superboy continuity punch and POOF all will be forgotten
August 9th, 2010 at 9:03 am
One very important name you are missing in the article…as long as they don’t go all Jar Jar on us. G’nort Esplanade G’neesmacher.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:46 am
First off, to those bashing, they are still making Avengers even after Iron Man 2 sucked. What’s it with Marvel Heroes dancing? It’s absurd.
So in 2012 we have Batman 3, Green Lantern 2, Superman, Spiderman reboot, and Avengers…..I think Marvel Studios will have the fifth highest grossing Superhero movie, since it’s Sony who is doing Spiderman.
Suck it.
It makes sense from a financial stand point. Oh and Superman was not even released when Superman 2 was being shot. Hell it wasn’t even edited.
August 9th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
This is a good sign for the *first* movie: Warner wouldn’t greenlight development on sequels unless they REALLY liked the dailies from the one they’re making now. They’re obviously confident, and so they’re investing in building a franchise. Good.
Still, I’m sure if the first one tanks they’ll eat the development costs for the sequels, and they’re done.
This is WB, folks – until they’re filming, it ain’t really happening. Still, this is a very good sign.
August 9th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
So far, Marvel has done pretty good with its movies in the past decade (some would argue the third Spider-Man and third X-Men left something to be desired), so it makes sense that WB would do this. I just hope the first one is as good as we hope. And I personally would like to see John Stewart in one of the future movies.
August 10th, 2010 at 7:39 am
DC is terrible at everything they do: bad comics, bad characters, bad movies, bad writing, bad EVERYTHING. They are the living definition of third-rate. All the exciting and important characters, stories, and movies are coming from one company and one company only: MARVEL.
August 10th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Nat. Did you see Iron Man 2? What was up with that movie? The last 30 minutes was good. But the first hour or so was Spider Man 3 all over again. The last good Marvel superhero movie was the Hulk. And even that, they have got rid of their actor for the Avengers. FAIL
And I am sorry that you think DC Movies are bad, but I would put up Batman Begins over anything ever done at Marvel.
And what was going on with X-Men Origins : Timber Wolf? Why didn’t Deathstroke talk throughout the movie. You had Ryan Reynolds and you pretty much muted the merc who never shuts up?