• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Green Lantern - Ryan Reynolds costume revealed!

^ I know. I mean, given that we've had a (brilliant) Wolverine who's about a foot taller than his comic counterpart, a (brilliant) Kingpin who's a different race than the comic version and a (pretty good) Irish Ra's Al Ghul, I can't believe people are nitpicking Reynolds' hair and jawline.
 
^ Well this is the same board that had one poster complain about Zachary Quinto being cast as Spock and questioned why Paramount couldn't find one person on the entire planet who looked exactly like Leonard Nimoy.
 
And especially since comic book characters always tend to look slightly different, depending on who is drawing them. I mean, which Batman is the movie hero supposed to look like? Bob Kane's? Neal Adams'? Frank Miller's? Kelly Jones'?

There's plenty of wiggle room there.
 
^ Well this is the same board that had one poster complain about Zachary Quinto being cast as Spock and questioned why Paramount couldn't find one person on the entire planet who looked exactly like Leonard Nimoy.
It wasn't me. :shifty:

If Bradley Cooper got the role of Green Lantern, folks would be griping about his height, not his hair.
 
The way Gil Kane drew Hal Jordan shifted over the years to a wider, more square-jawed face, but if you look at the cover Nerys Myk posted on the previous page you can see how Kane drew Hal's face through the 1960s: it was thinner and a bit less square-jawed than his later approach. But really focusing on the exact dimensions of a jaw and the exact style of a haircut is incredibly nitpicky. Reynolds is a closer fit for his comic book counterpart than a lot of actors cast in comic book movies, many of whom turned out to be very good in their roles despite the fact that their jawlines and hairstyles didn't exactly match the way their characters are drawn.

All of which is Absolutely Right(TM).

Hal was a slender, oval-faced fellow back in the day and quite a departure from the heavily musculatured, circus strongman types drawn by, for example, Wayne Boring that had carried DC through the 1950s. Jordan was rather unique in many respects (early Marvel would push the who-cares-how-they're-built-they've-got-powers logic even a bit further for a while).

Posting a single later drawing does nothing to obviate that...though I suppose the fact that it's not from what I think of as Kane's looking-up-their-noses period of favoring low angles is a small blessing. :lol:

And of course as far as I'm concerned Hal as he appeared in his early adventures when I was a kid is Hal as I think of him and prefer to see him.

Early Sinestro...not so much. He's improved with the decades. I like the Hitler look a bit better than the Satan look. :cool:
 
The way Gil Kane drew Hal Jordan shifted over the years to a wider, more square-jawed face, but if you look at the cover Nerys Myk posted on the previous page you can see how Kane drew Hal's face through the 1960s: it was thinner and a bit less square-jawed than his later approach. But really focusing on the exact dimensions of a jaw and the exact style of a haircut is incredibly nitpicky. Reynolds is a closer fit for his comic book counterpart than a lot of actors cast in comic book movies, many of whom turned out to be very good in their roles despite the fact that their jawlines and hairstyles didn't exactly match the way their characters are drawn.
It's not a question of being nitpicky; it's a question of bringing the character to life. Hal Jordan was always depicted as mature and filled out, and muscular in an old-fashioned weight-training kind of way; Kyle Rayner, from what I know of him, was younger, a civilian and muscular in a lean, jogging or biking kind of way. This guy more favors the Rayner type.
 
A lot of it is just changing times. George Reeves was a stocky, 1950's conception of Superman. Christopher Reeve looked more like a seventies leading man, which was perfect for that era.

This is a 2011 movie, so expecting him to fit some early 1960's conception of what Green Lantern should look like misses the point. This the new movie version of Hal Jordan, played by a modern-looking leading man. Exactly as it should be.
 
Who happens to look a lot more like the 1960s version than the current comic book version. :lol:

Reeve's hair in the Superman movies was sometimes unfortunately on the cusp of the 1970s/80s.
 
The way Gil Kane drew Hal Jordan shifted over the years to a wider, more square-jawed face, but if you look at the cover Nerys Myk posted on the previous page you can see how Kane drew Hal's face through the 1960s: it was thinner and a bit less square-jawed than his later approach. But really focusing on the exact dimensions of a jaw and the exact style of a haircut is incredibly nitpicky. Reynolds is a closer fit for his comic book counterpart than a lot of actors cast in comic book movies, many of whom turned out to be very good in their roles despite the fact that their jawlines and hairstyles didn't exactly match the way their characters are drawn.
It's not a question of being nitpicky; it's a question of bringing the character to life. Hal Jordan was always depicted as mature and filled out, and muscular in an old-fashioned weight-training kind of way; Kyle Rayner, from what I know of him, was younger, a civilian and muscular in a lean, jogging or biking kind of way. This guy more favors the Rayner type.
Again it would depend on who's drawing. A Gil Kane drawn Rayner would probably have the same build as a Kane drawn Hal Jordan. All of Kane's male heroes have that same look. Even Spider-Man who was leaner when Ditko drew him. Most artists, especially in Kane's day, don't have different bodytypes for different heroes. If their bodytype changes its because the artist changes not because they've been working out.
ETA: Here ia pi ture of three GLs. Jordan by Kane, Scott by Nodell and Rayner by Banks. The guys who created the visuals for each.
GLs3.jpg


Rayner doesn't look any less "buff" than Jordan and probably has an even squarer jaw. The main difference is Kane deliniates muscles more than Banks does.
 
Last edited:
Hal Jordan was always depicted as mature and filled out, and muscular in an old-fashioned weight-training kind of way...

He really, really wasn't.

.


Nice selection of art! Well done.

And, yeah, I've never thought of Green Lantern as a muscular, Charles Atlas type. Ad why should he be? He's not a physical powerhouse. He fights evil with a magic ring.
He was a civilian test pilot back in the day ( the USAF stuff is a recent addition, IIRC) and while he probably needed to be in good shape he probably wasn't "Ahnald". And if he wanted to be an astronaut he was probably on the smaller side as well. (5'11" 180 was what they were looking for back then)
 
And if he wanted to be an astronaut he was probably on the smaller side as well. (5'11" 180 was what they were looking for back then)

Which, BTW, was not "on the smaller side" back then. ;)
True, it was average. I'm about ten pounds over average right now. :p Back then I was skinny little kid who played astronaut using Matt Mason dol....er, action figures.
 
The average height of an American male today is 5' 10'' - in 1960 it was closer to 5'8".
Was it? I had no idea. 5'11 has been stuck in my head as average for some reason. My Dad was average for his generation then. Height wise at least. Weight wise was he was slim and wirey.
 
Hal Jordan was a well-built muscular hero type, which, as Nerys Myk pointed out, was standard for the day-- and which the links to classic artwork supports. Note how he is built no differently than Flash. And it's certainly true that concepts and body types do change over time-- Superman was originally built like a flabby wrestler and contemporary art is still influenced by Image-style grotesquery-- but this actor just does not say Hal Jordan to me. Seems too young and is lacking in gravitas.
 
Reynolds has the right kind of build to play Hal Jordan in my opinion (lean, muscular and athletic, but not a hulking gym fanatic). At 33 he's also the right age for the part. Whether he has enough gravitas for the role is of course subjective. I think he does, but to each his own.
 
Hal Jordan was a well-built muscular hero type, which, as Nerys Myk pointed out, was standard for the day-- and which the links to classic artwork supports. Note how he is built no differently than Flash. And it's certainly true that concepts and body types do change over time-- Superman was originally built like a flabby wrestler and contemporary art is still influenced by Image-style grotesquery-- but this actor just does not say Hal Jordan to me. Seems too young and is lacking in gravitas.
IMO, Infantino's Flash had a slightly leaner look because that how Infantino drew. He got a little heavier as time progressed and Infantino's style changed. Similarly Batman got leaner as the Adams look took over as the standard from the Kane look.

Reynolds main problem ( at least for me) is he is associated with smart ass, wise cracking characters. So that's a hurdle his acting will have to overcome. Of course if they write Hal that way there not much he can do.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top