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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Seems strange to think of comic books as either/or things.

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.

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!

Lance Roger Axt
The AudioComics Company

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.