Forget About Black Ty Or Common Playing Green Lantern

Ryan Reynolds Reportedly Cast As Green Lantern
Jul 10, 2009, 10:13 PM | by Jeff Jensen

Warner Bros. has tapped Ryan Reynolds--most recently seen opposite Sandra Bullock in The Proposal (and on EW's summertime Must Issue cover)--to bring the DC Comics' superhero Green Lantern to life, reports Variety. Reynolds is said to have beaten out Bradley Cooper (The Hangover) and Justin Timberlake for the hotly sought role. Don't know your comic books? Green Lantern is part of an intergalactic police force who fights baddies using a magic ring that can conjure almost anything its wearer can imagine. Martin Campbell (Casino Royale) will direct the film. Shooting is reportedly slated to begin in January. This is the second superhero franchise Reynolds has scored this summer: his cameo as Deadpool in "Wolverine" was cool enough to inspire Fox to begin developing a spin-off.

 

heh... GL and Deadpool? curious...

 

how does this guy keep getting work? He ruined blade 3 for me too.

 

The ladies love him, period. Matter of fact, I heard a lot of women went to see Wolverine on the strength of his cameo appearance. They'll even sit through a wack ass movie like "The Proposal" for a chance to see him shirtless. Do not underestimate the power of his magic six-pack.

 

Hal Jordan was white Black Green Lantern came later as John Stewart

 

Damn skippy we love Ryan Reynolds. haha

Though my own personal affection for the actor has less to do with his looks, and more to do with his personality. He's one of the few comedic actors that can have me laughing constantly. His delivery is great! He's taken some not so great jokes, in my opinion, and made them actually funny.

Blade Trinity was ruined for me by the sheer fact that it was a third movie in a franchise. It's very rare for me to like a movie that was preceeded by multiple others...the script has to be tight as hell, fresh, and enthralling to get me to enjoy a third movie as much as the first. That said, though, I still liked the movie (liked, but not loved, as I did the first one)...but Ryan Reynolds was effing hilarious in it.

I don't really have an opinion of him as Green Lantern, though, since I'm not a major DC fan and don't know much about the character. That statement will likely get me bashed by my super nerdy friends. haha. But I'm a Marvel fan, damnit.

 

ryan reynolds is much better than justin timberlake (one of the 3 names for the role)


and he is married with scarlett (lucky guy)

 

nice post

RR blows!!!

 

I always laugh when I read people's coments about being Marvel fans. As if which company a superhero comes from makes any difference. In the end superhero stories are pretty much the same. Just as a fastfood burgers are pretty much the same despite whatever preference you may have for a particular fastfood franchise. When it comes to comic book movies its all about the script and the execution. I'm a DC guy but in the end I care only about the quality of the film, not the company fro which the character came from. I didn't know jack about Iron Man because he was always a very uninteresting character to me. But I saw the movie based upon the word of mouth. I enjoyed the film anyway despite the fact I knew very little about Iron man and despite the fact that Marvel Comics has basically sucked for 25 years and is simply still riding off what it accomplished in the 60s and 70s.


As for Ryan Reynolds...he may be a very good choice and he has some talent. And ladies do love him. Hey, now that's a thought. Get some pretty white boy with some talent and the guy has a chance to gain a following and become a star based upon his appeal. But black dudes too often want their images to be represented by dudes who want to look like DMX. The result is no new black male matinee idols. Seriously the original post mentions Tyrese and Common. Two guys who are musicians, not actors. Two guys with limited acting range. Two guys who have not build a fanbase when it comes to movies. And two guys who don't look the part of the John Stewart I recall growing up with (one with a full head of hair).

 

I think Batman is a far cry from Nightcrawler, and Superman doesn't exactly have much in common with Elektra. lol

I'm a Marvel fan because the characters I've encountered in Marvel comics interest me more than the ones in the DC universe, usually. It has nothing to do with the company and everything to do with the stories I've read being far more interesting and appealing to me, regardless of how "similar" you say they are. I don't care how similar they are, I still like a lot more Marvel comics than DC, so I don't think it's silly to call myself a Marvel fan.

Just because the ingredients are essentially the same, it doesn't mean the end product is going to be an exact replica. Sure, Burger King and McDonald's both sell burgers, but the taste is different. People go to many different colleges...everyone learns about the same thing, depending on their major, but different school's carry more influence than others on applications.

Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington are both male, black, and actors. Same thing, right? I guess they're both essentially the same person, and having a preference one way or another is absolutely laughable, huh?

 

Its the same thing if Denzel and Morgan are doing the the same movies I guess.

And no offense but you didn’t seem to quite grasp my comment. Ultimately Marvel and DC have been doing similar stories for forty years now. The plots, the dialogue, the handling of characters, the ways stories are presented? Sorry to break it to you but they are the same. Now folks have their preferences and sure enough Marvel fans (they used to be described as Marvel zombies) are really particular. I used to work in a comic book store for a few years and used to read everything. When DC and the independent companies were winning all the industry awards (which Marvel hasn't done that well with over the last 25 years), marvel fans would still flock to Marvel comics. They would claim how fresh Marvel was and how Marvel characters were more "human" but the reality was that Marvel comics had that edge in the Silver Age and through the 1970s. But ever since the 80s the other companies either caught up to them or surpassed them. And without going into the specifics or particulars of titles let me point out that both marvel and DC have been sharing and the same writers and artists for the past 30 years. Therefore the same minds are coming up with material for both companies, sometimes simultaneously, sometimes during different decades. And as much of a fan of DC as I am I have to admit that they too are taking the safe approach and producing mostly the same, generic superhero titles as Marvel is doing these days. Neither one is currently rewriting the rules and the only ambitious projects they both have are multi-series crossovers...which were played out...back in the 80s! So for truly unique and different perspectives you have to rely mostly on independent comic books which for the most part have "grown up" and abandoned the superhero concept.

So, yes, you are indeed getting the same type of material from both companies. To think one is very different from the other is simply to admit unknowingly that you have preferences or biases. Batman may not be the same as Spiderman but there are Marvel characters similar to Batman and DC characters that share common traits with Spidey. Electra may not be Wonder Woman but yes there have been DC characters created over the last 30 years that are as gritty as Electra USED TO BE. Its kinda easy to pick two very dissimilar characters from two companies when you can always find more similar characters to make comparisons. Saying that there is a major difference between current Marvel and DC characters is akin to saying there are major differences between Michael Bay movies and McG films. Oh, sure there are some subtle unique aspects that the other does not share. But ultimately in the end they produce the same loud, effects filled monstrosities that put more emphasis on CGI and eye candy than they do on character development and dialogue.

 

So we have to suffer shitty acting because women are horny? Put him in chick flicks, let the men have our movies untainted.

Wolverine was bad on it's own accord, he brought it at least 2 additional notches lower.

 

It's called a fucking preference. Get over it.

Though, to be honest, I didn't really read much of that, but I caught the last part about the emphasis in movies on cgi and eye candy. Funny, that's the type of thing I plan on doing in movies when I graduate with my animation degree. Wonder why I enjoy the eye candy so much? Perhaps the world will never know.

 

Where were the complaints when they cast an eventual Sexiest Man of the Year as Wolverine earlier this decade? If the Marvel lovers are true fans of Wolverine then they know he is a short, hairy guy who is more creepy looking than handsome. But TPTB cast beefcake for the role and hardly anyone complained. This is our current reality in Hollywood. Even if the character was meant to be average-looking Hollywood wants to cast pretty boys to play the roles. They know the straight guys who are fans of the characters (fanboys) will see the flicks regardless. Casting hunks gives the studios though a better chance at bringing in the ladies and perhaps the gay audience too. I suppose its good business even though it screws around with the fans' perception of the characters.

Of course I should add this rule only applies to white males. If say they were casting someone to play a well known black superhero, well, then any ol' nigga will do. Which is why guys like Common (nice, smart dude who is a great musician but not much of an actor) would get picked for some of this shit without having to audition or beat out other actors.

 

Please stop. I already called it a prefrence in one of my posts if you had paid attention. So I already knew what your line of thinking was when I first read your remark last night. My point about the two companies wasn't meant to be a slam of you; it was meant to be a frank remark of the quality and similarity of storytelling from those two giants. And trust me I no longer take sides in the DC/Marvel wars to care what product people pick because they are picking the same damn thing anyway. So I have gotten over it if I may say so. I simply couldn't stop from rolling my eyes reading posts by people who somehow think one group of characters are naturally superior just because of the goddamn company logos on the covers. And I certainly couldn't help myself from responding to your "lol" rebuttals which only further proved the lack of substance in your argument. But it wasn't as if I was trying to pile on or anything. If I were I would have spent another two paragraphs shooting down your notion that the burgers at fast food restaurants are different because of slight variations on how they taste. :roll: If you actually think that there is no point having any further discussions with you on these subjects. Good day.

 

The only one purporting any sort of Marvel/DC war is you, dear. All I said was that I like Marvel...I didn't dis DC, I didn't say anything bad about the company. I simply stated that I don't bloody know much about Green Lantern cause I don't read much DC. Jesus. I don't have a freakin' problem, you're the one writing a fucking dissertation and reading waaay too much into my remarks.

...and since when is "lol" a rebuttal? I thought it was a fucking acronym. lol



Lay off the haterade, homie. I really don't understand why you're so up in arms.

 

Keep claiming comic movies for men only, and you'll wind up with the same sorry rut the industry was in during the mid 90's.

 

So where's your outrage that they don't cast women that fit the look of their characters in the books? Oh, that's right, if they did that, the women couldn't act because they'd be tipping over from gravity every two minutes.

If the comic book industry is forced to cast a good looking man once in awhile amidst the porn stars that are female comic book characters, the world won't end.

And, btw, Wolverine was always good looking. Short & hairy, but with a strong jaw, expressive eyebrows and scruffy facial hair. He didn't look at all like the guy they cast for him, and he didn't wear freaking bootleg jeans either, but he was not unattractive.

By contrast, look at who they cast to play Gambit. He looked like crap, and Gambit was supposed to be fine. Also, he was supposed to be a little mixed, if I remember correctly.

If you're trying to argue that they cast too many good looking guys in comic book movies, you're going to find yourself short on evidence.

 

As a woman that hates so called chick flicks (and love action, horror movies, suspense etc)..
Heck, I even cringed at the kissing scenes in Matrix. I felt it was used as filler, nothing more... I dont think Reynolds is an actor that I would expect to get the role, EVER....I see a much rougher look, GL was not a clean cut Reynolds imo... hmm.. who....
I hate to say it... Will Smith (yes, I have a crush).. he is be clean cut, but he can be rough.. he has a variety that I think a LOT of actors today lack...
he grew from being mediocre at best to being just spectacular...
Yes, he is mainstream, but he is my best choice for that charachter....
Reynolds, no!!!!

Edit: that choice was made on acctually trying to sell tickets as well

 

Jesus, you know nothing about the comic industry. The truth is that everyone is in on the joke that the majority of female characters are not only impossibly beautiful but they have these fantasy bodies in which their waists are thin and their breasts are gigantic and curvy. There have been actual discussions, essays and articles about how the images of women in comic books, as is the case of video games, set ridiculous standards for girls in terms of what is the ideal feminine look. So if TPTB of films have cast actresses that were walking boobs rather than true thespians then they woud actually would be guilty of being true to the representation of women in comic books.

And for your information countless fanboys (as geeky as this may sound) have debated in public and over the internet about whether the right actresses were cast for Storm and Jean Grey. No one thought Halle Berry looked like Storm. And the woman playing Jean Grey was deemed too old, not cute enough and not as shapely as Jean Grey was shown to be in the comic. So, yes, the debates concerning the female characters and actresses were constant. But discussions about Wolverine and High Jackman basically never surfaced.

No one takes issue with good looking guys playing a Superman, Batman, Thor, Iron Man, Human Torch, Robin, Captain America, etc. Why? Because that's the way the characters were portrayed in the comic books either when out of costume and/or when in costume. Christian Bale fits because Bruce Wayne is supposed to be a dashing, tall, playboy. So there's no big deal. If anything many thought Robert Downey Jr wasn't dashing enough to play Tony Stake/Iron man and frankly before the masses saw that film that was a legitimate argument. So if you thought I and other guys objected to the idea of good looking guys playing these roles you were wrong. The objection comes when pretty boys are cast to play the characters that were never known for their looks.

So this is why Wolverine, back in the day, didn't think Jean Grey could love an ugly little runt like himself (which is basically how he described himself when the new X-Men had burst on the scene). That Wolverine was NEVER portrayed as a handsome, lady's man. Not even a handsome rugged man. He was not "dreamy" as the Hugh Jackman character has been described as in the media. Now perhaps over the last ten years comic book artists have started drawing Wolverine as a guy who could be mistaken for a GQ model but back when the X-Men was actually a good comic and Wolverine was still fresh (rather than overexposed) he was drawn and described as an average looking and somewhat creepy guy. So can we dismiss with the revisionism?