Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Flying Spaghetti Monster, Jun 6, 2012.
Who really wanted him as Hal Jordan GL in the first place?
This is only a positive bit of news is it not?
Simple solution: pull a Justice League cartoon and bring in John Stewart. Distances itself from the 2011 film, emphasizes that a "Green Lantern" is more like an intergalactic cop than one superhero's identity, allows for a more stern figure than contrast with the more light-hearted Flash, and of course, adds some diversity. Sorted.
John Stewart? that fake news guy?
I think Warner Bros. has always maintained a "Let the cartoon people do their thing, and we'll do our thing" when it comes to live-action projects.
It's also pretty telling back when Batman and Robin was released, they delayed the direct-to-video animated Sub-Zero movie (which also had Mr. Freeze and Batgirl) several months because Sub-Zero was a better movie than B&R, and WB didn't want to be upstaged by an "inferior"
project. This is even more galling when you realize there was B&R merchandise released that has the movie characters done up in an animated style!
Not to mention that it gets rid of one uninteresting character and replaces him with a more interesting one.
Replacing who plays the green lantern is one of the easiest things a "Justice League" movie could do. They have 3 human choices
Or they could drop Green Lantern and not use him at all. His movie was a flop, the character isn't well known and his powers will eat the cgi budget and in return we'll either get silly constructs or a collection of green shields, beams or bubbles.
I still want the big three plus Cyborg and Zatanna.
I really think an Iron Man type of character like Cyborg would only reinforce the you copied Avengers crowd with the general audience. Would much rather have John Stewart on the team as GL.
Just to clarify, though, "the cartoon people" are also Warner Bros., just a different division thereof. So it's not WB vs. someone else, but WB's live-action feature unit vs. their animation unit.
Actually five, counting Jade and the new guy, Simon Baz.
I want pants on the former and not on the latter...
Why are we sticking with humans? Let's get really diverse.
G'Nort. Motion capture Jack Black. Done and done.
Bwah hah hah hah.
Driq of Criq. Cash in on the zombie craze.
That's a fair enough position, although I still think it's likely we'll see one of the GLs in one form or another.
Ehh, that's not really a line-up that's inspiring. Cyborg's an okay character, especially in the Wolfman/Perez NTT stuff, but I've never really liked this push in recent years to make him one of the Big Seven. Zatanna's good too, but I think introducing magic and a sorceress is going WAY too far for a first film, especially if this is going to include Bale's Batman or even Cavill's Superman. We're not quite in the age of Dr. Strange / Dr. Fate films quite yet where superheroes doing spells is no big deal. Introducing it with a minor character in a film introducing like 3-4 other new people is too much.
Just in general though, I think both are pretty low on my list of who'd I want to see in a JL movie. I'd like a line-up as close to the Big Seven as possible. Aquaman is (sadly) out-of-the-picture due to the perpetual mockery he's received from pop culture. J'onn could go either way; he's expendable, but if they decide to do White Martians, him hiding on Earth would make a great impetus for the team to come together. Supes/Bats/WW are a given. GL is likely although they'll definitely distance themselves from the 2011 film. And the Flash would make a great POV character, the likable, down-to-Earth, former police scientist, witnessing the gods around him.
Hell no! If those are the two to be used, let's have some equal opportunity objectifying here. Zatanna in those fishnets, but Cyborg's bare legs for the ladies (and plenty men)...
I liked the Green Lanter movie and I do not want to see Reynolds replaced. I think he himself played the character well.
Really? I thought Ryan just played Ryan in that movie.
How different would writing & directing be for animation compared to live action? I would think it would be pretty much the some before and after the animators have done their thing. I've always been kind of surprised how little crossover their seems to be with the two styles.
Except that animation writing and directing is more art-driven. Live-action writing begins with the script, and storyboards/animatics come later and are even optional. Animation writing/plotting often happens mostly in storyboard form, and the artists/animators are the ones driving the process rather than following someone else's lead.
Although the case can be made that many live-action feature-film directors work a similar way, spearheading the process with their ideas of what scenes and set pieces they want to feature, with the scriptwriters simply there to follow their instructions and piece those elements together.
But animation is still a different visual language with different mechanics and details. You have far finer control over every detail of image and motion, yet conversely there's much less room for improvisation and spontaneity. Great care has to be put into designing and creating things that can just be pointed at and photographed in live action. Everything has to be planned out on a much more granular, frame-by-frame level, and everything is made from scratch. It's a very different experience.
Of course, animators can make the transition to live action quite successfully. Tim Burton began as an animator. Brad Bird, I felt, did a great job directing Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol, his first live-action film, and I noticed ways in which his experience and sensibilities as an animator helped him do interesting things with the film, not just in terms of look but in terms of story details, the progression of actions and gags, things like that. The kind of structural precision that comes from experience in the meticulous field of animation where every last detail has to be worked out in advance.
Plus there's the fact that modern action movies are increasingly becoming part-animated anyway. CG special effects are essentially just cartoons with a photorealistic design aesthetic. So experience directing animation can definitely be useful for directing a CG-heavy film.
^Not arguing with you (Bird is the perfect example of how such a background can be useful when doing live-action movies), but of course, there's the infamous example of Andrew Stanton with John Carter, to show how it can work the opposite way. Didn't the movie run over budget because Stanton insisted on redoing things much like he could have done (more cheaply) with an animated movie?
I think John Carter was a fantastic movie, aside from an overly cluttered plot and weakly paced opening. I don't agree at all that Stanton was a failure as a live-action director. I think the film's failure had more to do with the new Disney regime not supporting the project and giving it minimal promotion, and maybe with some editing problems in those opening scenes. Stanton did great work and I hope the film's reputation doesn't ruin his chances of doing more.
Separate names with a comma.