Jack Black to play Green Lantern?

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

"You're missing my point.

 

GL is not a comedy character. If they want to have a comedic superhero character, then they need to put their crack team on the case and create a new property. Not go through DC's respected archives and bastardize existing characters with existing fanbases that will call BS on them both monetarily and creatively."

 

I know he's not, but in this movie he will be. I'd much rather see a comedy based on existing super hero lore than have a bunch of writers try and make some modern crap, and that's the point of the movie. If the existing fanbase is so deeply offended, DON'T GO SEE IT. Other people will want to, and they shouldn't be denied it because of up-tight comic book fans.

 

"I hope the fan community reams WB over this. There's plenty of reason for us to be "bitching" about it. It's NOT GL. It's not the character. It's not what the characters are about. If someone were to take characters I created, and turn them into a sideshow to make a few bucks off the stoner crowd that idolizes Jack Black, I'd be pretty offended. I don't like seeing characters screwed up like this. "

 

EXACTLY! It's taking the established idea and story and taking it a different route, it's not going to make the comics start melting in your closets. If you don't like seeing characters "screwed up"(which I assume means every existing copy of the comics will begin to re-write themselves based on the movie) then DONT GO SEE THE MOVIE. Your acting like this adaptation is being forced upon you, try not to forget you don't have to see the movie if you don't want to. It's the beauty of film.

 

"The point is that Catwoman, and the last 2 Batman movies were not "satrical comic book movies" as you think the GL movie will be, but quite simply bad movies. I'll be all for a movie that is that, as long as it's good. This movie just basically takes the idea of the character and shits all over it for a quick buck. "

 

Catwoman and the last 2 Batman movies are irrelevant as neither are billed as comedies. It's not shitting on anything, until they burn all the old comics and rewrite them with jack black you guys have no reason to complain.

 

"They can make a movie that takes the best aspects of the character, adds some humor for entertainment purposes, and have it play on the screen well. They could take another character and use them for a zany comedy movie (Plastic Man for example) but they choose not to. "

 

Yes, lets encourage hollywood to play it safer with there filmmaking, what a genius idea....

[Guest SP-1]

You're acting like this approach to GL is some big important, "Push the envelope" film making.

 

It isn't.

 

It's a studio that has already proven an inability to handle characters well trying to make a fast buck at the expense of an established and loved character. And it will be at the character's expense. It's nothing more than a fast buck movie. I hope that's all it makes.

 

$1.

[Cran Da Maniac 0]

"The point is that Catwoman, and the last 2 Batman movies were not "satrical comic book movies" as you think the GL movie will be, but quite simply bad movies. I'll be all for a movie that is that, as long as it's good. This movie just basically takes the idea of the character and shits all over it for a quick buck. "

 

Catwoman and the last 2 Batman movies are irrelevant as neither are billed as comedies. It's not shitting on anything, until they burn all the old comics and rewrite them with jack black you guys have no reason to complain.

No, it is relevant as it shows that WB is clueless in this regard to use themes that have been established to make a good story. And before you say something to the fact that establishment sucks, let me point out that the Spider-man movies use the same basic principles of the comics, but changes were made to make it accessible for todays audience. An approach that DC hasn't really had in their movies since Superman 2.

 

"They can make a movie that takes the best aspects of the character, adds some humor for entertainment purposes, and have it play on the screen well. They could take another character and use them for a zany comedy movie (Plastic Man for example) but they choose not to. "

 

Yes, lets encourage hollywood to play it safer with there filmmaking, what a genius idea....

 

Well I'd rather play it safe and make some money if I was a filmaker then do something stupid like this and lose a ton.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

"You're acting like this approach to GL is some big important, "Push the envelope" film making.

 

It isn't."

 

That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying compared to the recent crop of serious comic book movies it's fresh and innovative. I'd rather see a Green Lantern comedy with Jack Black than a serious telling with some "indy" actor.

 

"It's a studio that has already proven an inability to handle characters well trying to make a fast buck at the expense of an established and loved character. And it will be at the character's expense. It's nothing more than a fast buck movie. I hope that's all it makes.

 

$1. "

 

If you hope so than do go see it, don't talk about it, don't give it attention. Don't bitch because your somehow dellusioned into thinking this movie can erase any kind of legacy that lives with the hardcore fans of the story.

 

"No, it is relevant as it shows that WB is clueless in this regard to use themes that have been established to make a good story. And before you say something to the fact that establishment sucks, let me point out that the Spider-man movies use the same basic principles of the comics, but changes were made to make it accessible for todays audience. An approach that DC hasn't really had in their movies since Superman 2. "

 

Neither were comedy's, the point is irrelevant. Wait until the movies out to write it off based on quality.

 

"Well I'd rather play it safe and make some money if I was a filmaker then do something stupid like this and lose a ton. "

 

And that's why Hollywood cinema sucks.

[Cran Da Maniac 0]

Hollywood cinema sucks because they throw out any kind of stupid hare-brain movie in hopes it would make money, regardless of quality. And yes, I may be a bit quick to judge this movie, but I believe the precedent that I have stated above is that is enough to show that my experience (and a lot of other DC and movie fans in general) have not been the best when it comes to changing a character in this radical of a way.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

Hollywood cinema sucks because people are afraid to jump out of the box with an idea, it causes them to make safe movies that are formulaic and exhaust specific trends until they become overly predictable.

 

Green Lantern is perfect because it's not in the league of Superman or Spiderman or Batman but it's still familar and established. If your afraid there going to botch the story or make a bad movie, DONT GO SEE IT. Very, very, simple. Don't take some kind of offense because you were a fan of the comics, it's retarded thinking that's not based on any kind of logic.

[King Kamala 0]

I know you're all gonna bash me for defending WB's decision to cast Jack Black as the Green Lantern. However, Jack Black did do a dramatic turn as the villain in the Neverending Story III. Ok, I got nothing. I don't think anybody can defend the decision to cast Jack Black as the Green Lantern. Speaking of comedians as superheroes, I read on IMDB, that producers were originally interested in casting Bill Murray as Batman.

[Cran Da Maniac 0]

Why should fans of the character have to decide to not see it because they feel alienated? Can they not make a movie that appeals to the hardcore fans and newcomers alike? And I'm not saying they need to copy what every single comic book movie has done before, but they can use an established character as a foundation and build upon it in interesting ways.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

To add my two cents:

 

The whole point of making a movie based on a comic book is that you have an established fanbase to work with. If you take an X-files movie, and turn it into a comedy, you alienate the entire established fanbase. Same principles apply here. You take the character, use the base, but destroy the story and the true fans are left out. It doesn't make any sense.

 

It was a horrible idea to completely rewrite Catwoman and leave out the Batman element, because you have an established fanbase of Batman AND Catwoman fans who will watch the movie. Now, if they go, they get a movie that is in no way shape or form what they thought it was, they'll ask for their money back and shit on it to all their friends. Not only have you lost guaranteed money, but you also lose the money connected to them. This is why the complaining is valid. If you want comedy movies, get comedy characters. You don't take the Sandman and turn it into Shallow Hal. There are people in Hell for lesser offenses.

[Cran Da Maniac 0]

To add my two cents:

 

The whole point of making a movie based on a comic book is that you have an established fanbase to work with. If you take an X-files movie, and turn it into a comedy, you alienate the entire established fanbase. Same principles apply here. You take the character, use the base, but destroy the story and the true fans are left out. It doesn't make any sense.

 

It was a horrible idea to completely rewrite Catwoman and leave out the Batman element, because you have an established fanbase of Batman AND Catwoman fans who will watch the movie. Now, if they go, they get a movie that is in no way shape or form what they thought it was, they'll ask for their money back and shit on it to all their friends. Not only have you lost guaranteed money, but you also lose the money connected to them. This is why the complaining is valid. If you want comedy movies, get comedy characters. You don't take the Sandman and turn it into Shallow Hal. There are people in Hell for lesser offenses.

I have to agree with everything you said.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I always thought that Green Lantern was so lousy as comics go that a comedy makes more sense than trying to do it "right" by taking it seriously.

[Guest JMA]

I always thought that Green Lantern was so lousy as comics go that a comedy makes more sense than trying to do it "right" by taking it seriously.

That's a misconception. Green Lantern actually has many, many fans. The concept and characters were just so innovative (especially for their time). The Green Lantern/Green Arrow team-up series even got coverage by the media in the seventies.

[Guest suplexmasta]

Shoot me, but I actually agree with Nelly's Bandaid here, as I think it will be a pretty good movie, despite the comic smarks shitting all over it like a giant porcelain power ring.

 

See, GL has always had a lighter side, especially the Kyle version (sorry to dash your dreams, this will be the version adapted,) which is especially suited to Black's brand of humor.

 

Don't believe me? Look at some late 90's Winick stuff, particularly the interactions with Plastic Man and Booster Gold. Sure, it's not complete comedy gold, but it's a base.

 

As long as the writing is there, the director is artistic instead of autistic, and the supporting cast is a step above brain-dead, Black will bring the funny. Case closed.

 

Don't like it? Don't spend a dime on it, or spend another microwatt typing up your gripes on a board. Really, anything short of a hundred-thousand-person strong mailing campaign will stop them.

[Guest JMA]

Really, anything short of a hundred-thousand-person strong mailing campaign will stop them.

I don't buy that. WB quickly backtracked when their first Superman script was leaked. The resulting petition and negative press forced them to scrap their ideas.

 

The same thing could easily happen to this movie. You can't mess with a long-time character like this and expect there not to be a backlash. WB even did this despite DC's objections; that, to me, seems very inconsiderate.

[MrRant 0]

This may make me take a steel sponge to my arm....

[Guest SP-1]

Swigg pretty much summed it up. It's just stupid to alienate the fans like this.

[Damaramu 0]

What was the original superman script like?

[Guest JMA]

What was the original superman script like?

Well...

 

- Krypton didn't blow up

 

- Lex Luthor was a Kryptonian

 

- Jor-El kills HIMSELF to convince a dying Superman "not to"

 

- A Superman suit that comes out of a can

 

- A gay Jimmy Olsen

 

...and I could go on.

 

Edit: I found a link to the review of the aborted Abrams script. Go here.

[Guest JMA]

I wonder what Shane Helms/The Hurricane thinks about all this. He's a huge Green Lantern fan himself.

[Zorin Industries 0]

Do we know which GL he is going to play?

[Beast 0]

I'm thrilled that Jack Black is going to play a superhero. I never expected this to happen. As a huge fan of comic books, movies, and Jack Black, this is going to be the ultimate movie for me. True, it would be cool to have a regular Green Lantern movie to pay tribute to the character of Hal Jordan, but let's stop and think for a second. The past comic movies that have been generalized by the public as "good movies", (Batman I and II, the X-Men series, the Spider-Man series) are pretty wacked out. It's hard to compare a movie about a guy who dresses up to fight crime with his spider-based powers or a group of outcast mutants who fight a guy who can control metal with his mind, to movies like The Godfather I and II and The Shawshank Redemption. True movies like Star Wars and the LOTR series are masterpieces, but most comic movies try to combine real world people and over the top superheroes like Daredevil and Catwoman. While LOTR had a ton of fantastic adventure stuff, it took place in another world so it seemed more plausible and not distracting. Watching Halle Berry in a cat suit jumped stories and landing on her feet from a balcony just looks stupid. I'm as big of a X-Men fan you can get, but even I'll admit that if I wasn't a fan before the movies, I wouldn't have been the least impressed with the story or characters. Truly, Spider-Man 2 was the first of the comic book movies since Blade came out to impress me not just as a comic book movie, but as a movie in general.

 

Now, with them deciding to make Green Lantern a comedy, I think it's a good chance to open up the superhero genre to more than the basic hero aquires powers-fights villian movie. I'm sure WB execs were drooling at the comedic possibilities in a power ring which can create anything you can imagine. Personally, I can't wait to see it. It's kind of a bonus for a comic reader like me. If I want to read classic stories like the Lantern-Arrow team ups, I can pick up a TPB or comic and read. Now, instead of having to sit and watch GL get his origin and fight Sinistro in a straight-laced film that changes a lot of the GL story and myth to fit the 2 hrs time slot, I can watch something that I'm not expecting and be entertained with. Hopefully some members of the comic industry agree, because the only thing that would change my mind, would be if everyone was as offended as you all are. Here's hoping that people like Geoff Johns or Kurt Busiak can look past the changes and be alright with this new concept.

 

I know I rambled a lot, but it's early here, (8:00) and I had a lot of things to say.

 

P.S. - My number one concern (question) - What GL is he gonna be? I'd love for it to be Guy.

[DerangedHermit 0]

The worst thing about online petitions is I can't wipe my ass with them.

Yes you can. Print it out.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

Hmmm....never thought of that.

 

 

"Why should fans of the character have to decide to not see it because they feel alienated? Can they not make a movie that appeals to the hardcore fans and newcomers alike? And I'm not saying they need to copy what every single comic book movie has done before, but they can use an established character as a foundation and build upon it in interesting ways. "

 

We don't know if they can or can't, obviously only one side of the coin is even willing to wait until it's made to find out. The idea is a good one regardless and has the potential to be a good movie, whether hardcore GL fans like it or not(if you ask them now, it's not).

 

"The whole point of making a movie based on a comic book is that you have an established fanbase to work with."

 

So then it would be about nothing but making money, and that should anger you more. It should be about having an existing STORY to work with, not fanbase to bank on. Doing something like this shows there not completely reliant on the existing GL fanbase for one reason or another, and that's a good thing no matter how you slice it. It's a studio not being safe, it could be a way for people who don't know the story to go back and check it out after they see the movie, if it does make money it will influence other studios into taking bigger risks.

 

The worst that happens is they make a bad movie and it doesn't do to well, that's it. Your GL comics are not gonna implode, the ink won't magically start to vanish. The story you guys are ready toi create petitions over is still there, where it always was. This bitching is just pointless.

[EricMM 0]

X-files movie, and turn it into a comedy, you alienate the entire established fanbase

 

Even Aquaman has depth now.

 

were either of these supposed to be puns?

 

All you have to do is look at the treatment Marvel characters have gotten recently compared to DC characters.

 

WB is NOT good at this kind of thing theatrically.

 

I mean there are LOTS of good comedic comic book characters to make into silly movies, I'm sure. Hell, I kind of wish Spiderman would crack a few more one-liners, or that Toby McGuire was a little more witty.

 

But GL is totally serious. They're going to have Jack Black making giant middle fingers or something.

[Guest suplexmasta]

What was the original superman script like?

Well...

 

- Krypton didn't blow up

 

- Lex Luthor was a Kryptonian

 

- Jor-El kills HIMSELF to convince a dying Superman "not to"

 

- A Superman suit that comes out of a can

 

- A gay Jimmy Olsen

 

...and I could go on.

 

Edit: I found a link to the review of the aborted Abrams script. Go here.

I agree. This is part of my point: THE SCRIPT FOR THE SUPERMAN MOVIE SUCKED!

 

But you're debating the merits of a casting decision. A good script will save just about any movie. Good casting will rarely save a shitty script. If you give Jack Black a good script, he'll do fine. Maybe the hardcore comic fan won't like some of it, but the average popcorn eating populace will not care if they screw up part of the origin, or make GL into a comedy charcter. They just want to see dick jokes and explosions.

 

Bottom line, please reserve your bitching until you see a script, or even an outline.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

So then it would be about nothing but making money, and that should anger you more. It should be about having an existing STORY to work with, not fanbase to bank on. Doing something like this shows there not completely reliant on the existing GL fanbase for one reason or another, and that's a good thing no matter how you slice it. It's a studio not being safe, it could be a way for people who don't know the story to go back and check it out after they see the movie, if it does make money it will influence other studios into taking bigger risks.

Honestly, Hollywood filmmaking is generally about making money, and nothing more. If we were talking independent films or foreign films, then I wouldn't be thinking about the money. The problem is, WB and corporate America as a whole only thinks of one thing: MONEY. The logic behind casting Jack Black is this:

 

If we take the existing fanbase of the Green Lantern comic book (which includes Green Lantern and JLA marks), and we mix it with Jack Black's existing fanbase, we'll make MILLIONS!!!

 

It worked mixing Batman and Michael Keaton, but only because the producers were taking what they were doing seriously. They respected the mythos of the character. Though GL's producers may respect the mythos of GL, they aren't doing it or the fans any justice by making it a comedic movie. Not to mention they are doing it against the wishes of DC. I can imagine what this will be like, and I don't like it.

 

As a huge fan of comic books, movies, and Jack Black, this is going to be the ultimate movie for me....Watching Halle Berry in a cat suit jumped stories and landing on her feet from a balcony just looks stupid.

 

I'm hoping you know that Halle Berry's movie is LOOSELY (And I mean LOOOOOOOOOOOSELY) based on the comic book character. In the comics, Catwoman does not have powers, including the ability to always land on her feet. Any huge comic book fan would know this.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

"Honestly, Hollywood filmmaking is generally about making money, and nothing more. If we were talking independent films or foreign films, then I wouldn't be thinking about the money. The problem is, WB and corporate America as a whole only thinks of one thing: MONEY. The logic behind casting Jack Black is this:

 

If we take the existing fanbase of the Green Lantern comic book (which includes Green Lantern and JLA marks), and we mix it with Jack Black's existing fanbase, we'll make MILLIONS!!!"

 

If they were really after GL fans they would of made a serious movie, this is an attempt at giving fans a refreshing break from a common theme all while staying close to it. We know what the people funding the movie want, you can't assume you know what the people actually making the movie are gonna wan't, so you can't pass judgement until it's out.

 

"It worked mixing Batman and Michael Keaton, but only because the producers were taking what they were doing seriously. They respected the mythos of the character. Though GL's producers may respect the mythos of GL, they aren't doing it or the fans any justice by making it a comedic movie. Not to mention they are doing it against the wishes of DC. I can imagine what this will be like, and I don't like it. "

 

It's a comic book, they don't have to respect anything. If you feel they disrespected something by making it a comedy, don't go see it, instead go read the comics again and really involve yourself in the actual story. Don't sit here and tell us how it's sure to suck before it's made.

[Guest JMA]

Bottom line, please reserve your bitching until you see a script, or even an outline.

No can do. The mere fact that they're making a Green Lantern comedy starring Jack Black is enough to warrant bitching. Some concepts are just bad; this is one of those concepts.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

Why? Because it's not true to the comics? Because it's sacriligious in some weird nerdy way?

 

You can do, you just lack the good sense to do so.

[Guest JMA]

Why? Because it's not true to the comics? Because it's sacriligious in some weird nerdy way?

 

You can do, you just lack the good sense to do so.

If you don't have respect for an existing character, then you should not make a movie about said character. That's just common sense. Clearly, the WB doesn't respect the character if they're considering casting Jack Black.

 

This is BEYOND being not true to the comics.