f13.net

Was just browsing through the latest issue of Tribute Magazine at work (finally got the fuckers in) and noticed something that makes me wish I had a WB executive and a sharp object handy.

Jack Black, lately of School of Rock fame, has been cast to play the Green Lantern in a zany "Mask" like comedy take on the comic franchise.

Now, is it just me, or does anyone else find Black to be the absolute last person you would EVER imagine playing someone like Green Lantern!?

I sincerely hope that this info is wrong, but so far, most of my google search has turned up about equal weight either way.

WB has totally blown the superhero movie genre. They had a huge lead with Superman and Batman while Marvel was tooling around with direct to video schlock like Captain American and the Dolph Lundgren Punisher.

Warner and Black have come out since this was first leaked and said this isn't a done deal. Black said he was only approached, but there wasn't a script or anything.

IMO, they'd be better off just leaving it alone. There's better comics worth translating to film, serious or funny.

Warner appears to be doing the right thing with Batman Begins though, and they've nabbed Bryan Singer to make the Superman flick.

I never cared much for the Green Lantern. I like Jack Black, I could give a shit what he plays - he's entertaining. For some reason I fear that this thread will turn into another "OMFG THEY SHIT ON MY CHILDHOOD" thread - a la the I, Robot one. Must I remind everyone that I, Robot wasn't near as bad or insulting as anyone imagined - but quite good? Quit being so cynical, the only thing that's guaranteed to suck in this world is underfunded MMOGs.

The above message was paid for in part by Warner Brothers and Tenacious D.

Well, my problem isnt so much them doing a Green Lantern movie, or even a comedy type spin on a Green Lantern movie.  It is that I simply can not, in any way shape or form, picture Jack Black as the GL.

He is a good actor, I loved him in School of Rock.  He just does not strike me as being superhero material at all.

If you'd like I can tell you about young nastyman.

Jack Black could do some funny shit with that ring. I'm sure it'd be entertaining, and would probably even make money. It's a perfect Jack Black movie, but probably not the perfect GL movie. The story would probably go like this:

Slacker/Loner/Loser Comic Book Geek Jack somehow gets a hold of the Green Lantern

Slowly realizes it's powers, but uses it for personal advantages

Fucks all kind of shit up

Accidentally kicks Superman's ass

Meanwhile, Aliens come to conquer earth, hellbent on global annihilation

Jack realizes it's up to him, he becomes a true Green Lantern, and saves the world

It wouldn't make any GL fans happy though. They actually take it seriously..But to be fair, they're the ones that have kept him around so long. It's only right to not spit in their faces.

Bah, schild beat me to it. The first I ever heard of Black was his appearance on Conan O'Brien, dressed up as Wonderboy (with Nastyman, of course). D had the house band backing them, and I actually recorded it. Playing the tape back weeks later for some friends (I try to tape all cool live music I see on tv, if a band sucks live, a band sucks imo), someone said "oh yeah, Jack Black, he's hilarious.

I thought they were primarily a band :)

I can live with Jack Black, but not as the Green Lantern.

Here's the thing. If you are going to spend the assbuckets of money required to make a big-budget movie, and you are going to base that movie on an existing brand or franchise, you need to be damn sure that you are faithful and respectful of the fanbase of that brand. If the brand is a comedy, don't make a serious drama out of it. If it's a serious thing, don't try to make it into a comedy. Absorb the work that has been done on that franchise before and RESPECT it. That's the thing I think Warners has lost, it's respect for the work done on its franchises previously.

I'm not saying you have to do a shot by shot, line by line retelling of old work. But look at Spider-Man, then compare it to Catwoman. Any fan of Spidey is going to look at the movie and recognized situations and characters. Catwoman fans just look at Halle Berry in that costume and screech in terror. Batman fans saw the original movie and said, "This guy gets it." Then they saw Batman & Robin and wanted to lynch gay directors.

Treat existing fans of franchise characters with respect, and they'll buy the crumbs from your table.

I, Robot was a well done, entertaining movie that shit all over my childhood.

And I agree with everything Haemish just said.

From an interview with Neil Gaiman a few weeks ago :-


In bringing Marvel properties to the big screen, Marvel Studios President and CEO Avi Arad has worked with a variety of studios to bring Marvel characters to film. On the other hand, DC Comics properties are all handled by parent company Warner Bros., something Gaiman sees as a potential hurtle in realizing a faithful adaptation of the source material. Gaiman has found that many executives at Warner Bros. don't quite get the source material that they are adapting. "Warner Bros. generally doesn't seem to get that which I find very peculiar," said Gaiman. "They keep starting with two strikes against them. 'Catwoman' is a lovely example of where they started with two strikes against them and then they made a crap movie. It's not the Catwoman from 'Batman,' they're just using the name and it's crap. With 'Constantine,' the guys who made it are nice guys. They're all good guys. They mean well. One of the conditions for green lighting the movie was Keanu Reeves. He was what made that movie makeable. Nobody seemed to actually understand that Keanu Reeves was not something that would actually put bums in seats and guarantee a good opening and give them a great movie, but it was actually something that would make millions of people around the world go, 'That's not John Constantine. John Constantine wears a trench coat, he has blond hair and he's English.' They could have cast a hundred people who would have yellow hair, a yellow trench coat, and are English and who would have made people go, 'Cool, I want to check that out,' and you would have got them in."

Gaiman added that some executives at Warner Bros don't even seem to understand DC's flagship character. "I remember [DC Comics President] Paul Levitz telling me that the head of Warners was talking to him [about Superman] and the guy eventually sort of sighed at the end of the conversation and said, 'Well, okay. I'll take your word for it. If Superman has to come from Krypton and Krypton has to be destroyed at the beginning of the movie, fine. But I still don't get why. I still don't get why its important.' And you want to go. 'It's important for the same reason you don't have Jesus Christ springing down from the cross at the end of 'The Passion of the Christ,' picking up his machine gun and saying, 'Okay guys, now let's march on Rome!' Because that's not how the story went and that's really it."

Warner makes fucked up calls on all kinds of films, and is probably the worst of the bunch. With comic books, it's even more of an issue. It's too bad they hold some control over DC too.

Even though they've finally made a pretty good decision with Superman by getting Singer, I doubt they really knew what they were doing. They probably told themselves, "Hey, this guy made X-Men, so he's gotta be good", without taking into account that Superman and X-Men are nothing alike. Good thing is, he's a good director, period. The guy made the Usual Suspects, after all...I think Richard Donner is associated with the new Superman in some capacity too, and from what I've heard, Singer plans on making it a sequel, and keeping the continuity with the previous Superman flicks. Now all they need is Jim Caviezel.

... but that's the version, I'd pay for.

I'm sure they're typing up the design doc for Painkiller 2 as we speak.

<Rasputin> Way to react to month old false rumors from AICN: http://www.superherohype.com/index.php?id=1843

anarch..

While I agree with Gaiman's general sentiment about WB not understanding their properties, I think his specific points are completely off.  Far more people will go see the movie because Keanu Reeves is in it than who won't go see it because he's not a blonde Englishman.  Catwoman didn't suck because it was a different character.  It sucked because it was a bad movie.

His Superman point only barely flies.  But you could, theoretically, retell the Superman mythos without the destruction of Krypton.  Heck, it's been done in what ifs before.  More to the point, one of the central themes of the original Superman mythos was the death of Ma and Pa Kent, which Byrne did away with and which turned out to be an entirely palatable idea that's been used in all the other Superman versions since.  You wouldn't want to change Superman's costume, or his powers too much, but his origin?  I don't think Krypton has to explode in order for people to go to the movie.

Bruce

I took the quote to mean that the executive didn't understand why Superman had to come from Krypton rather than Baltimore for instance. Certainly if it was more about Krypton exploding then thats a bit more 'meh'. After all over the years its seemed half the population escaped and made its way to Earth anyway.

This is Keanu Reeves we're talking about.  I've got a plant in my cube that can emote better than him.

I think what Gaiman is saying, and what was wrong with Catwoman, and especially what's wrong with Reeves as Constantine comes down to respect. Respect for the source material.

These kind of genre pics have an installed fan base, many of whom would buy shit in a box if it was labelled right (see Star Wars fans). They are guaranteed money, so long as you at least RESPECT the thing they like about the property in the first place. These are the very first people you should be concerned with making happy. And when the pics of Catwoman were released to the Net, the very people you should expect to give you buy-in on the project, the ones who could have accepted a black Catwoman so long as you kept true to the story, they fucking hated it. And they were right. That wasn't Catwoman on the screen, not at all. Pfeiffer's Catwoman was a much more respectful interpretation of the character, and that was a pretty different interpretation. The Berry Catwoman's very costume just shit all over the fans.

Superman not coming from Krypton isn't Superman. It just isn't. The Ma and Pa Kent thing worked because while it changed a detail of the past, it didn't totally invalidate that past. If Krypton doesn't blow up, there's no reason for Superman to be on Earth, and there's no magic rock that is his greatest weakness. It's integral to the story of Superman, instead of just some super-strong guy in a cape. And anyone who doesn't get that shouldn't be in charge of a big budget movie of the character.

As for Constantine, his British-ness is a significant part of the character. I'll probably go see the movie, but I don't have high hopes for it AT ALL.

My point was this is Gaiman's strongest point, and even it could be questioned.  I've read Superman stories where Krypton didn't explode, and they do work, but it is perhaps a bridge too far for most of today's movie audience.  And his examples for Catwoman and Constantine were even weaker.  I agree with the underlying point, that there needs to be respect for the source material, but  I think one also has to be willing to change the source material, particularly for a movie adaptation.  If you followed Gaiman's advice strictly, Smallville and Lois & Clark couldn't have been done because their version of Superman had differences from the standard mythos.

Bruce

I think I missed your point. How would that be a bad thing?

/rimshot

All kidding aside, I liked Lois & Clark until it degenerated into gay soap opera, right about the time they got married in that... whatever that was. I think I blocked that episode. Smallville I refuse to see on the principle that it tries to have it both ways. It wants to tell a Superman story, with all the mythos and fan loyalty that implies, but it doesn't want to show the costume. Like the Krypton thing, if it ain't got the red, yellow and blue, it ain't Supes.

The stories where Krypton didn't explode can and have been interesting, but they are "what if" stories. They take the established mythos and run in the other direction with it. Which is not what you should be going after in a mass media adaptation. Removing Krypton from Superman in a movie is akin to filming "Moby Dick" and making the whale into a marlin. Sure, it may be a clever take on an old story, but it isn't "Moby Dick." It's a re-imagining.

But I would say by that same logic one could say that allowing Ma and Pa Kent to live is a re-imagining.  Those who don't get this probably do not understand just how important their deaths were to the classic silver age Superman mythos.

What this is really getting down to is a semantic argument not about what is central to the character but what is central to the broad public's PERCEPTION of the character.  And I would argue that, although certainly at the limits of the envelope, a Superman whose Krypton doesn't explode could be accepted in the public consciousness as still Superman, just as a Batman who was serious and brooding and not "campy" was accepted.

And, in any case, I said (for like the third time now) that this example is Gaiman's strongest case; that is, the public just might not accept that.  But that his other examples were far, far weaker, to the point where I think they are completely erroneous.

Bruce

If the public can't accept it, it won't make a good movie, because the public has to accept it in large numbers for the expense to be worth it to a producer.

I'm going to side with Haemish on this one.....I'd prefer to see movies of this type AT LEAST be respectful to the canon. To put it very simply, that respect forgives a lot of sins.

LOTR being the best example in recent memory, but the appearance of the Green Goblin in Spider-Man was another great example.

Catwoman, Batman and Robin, Batman Forever.....no, sorry. Didn't do it.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

You guys continue to argue about something not in dispute.  We agree there has to be respect for the canon of the character; the issue at hand is the extent of that respect.  Past movies have clearly shown that it doesn't have to be 100%, and furthermore, that Gaiman's examples are largely those of the type that don't have to be respected.

Bruce

I see what you're saying. I've heard bitching about Spider-Man having organic webs in the films. Considering that to be canon and essential to the story is probably taking it a bit too far. I myself didn't know any better, and I wouldn't care either way. But what if they took out Aunt May? Or had the story take place in Cleveland, instead of NYC? That's more akin to the issue with Superman and Krypton. Not really a fine detail, I'd say.

We simply disagree about what can and cannot be dismissed.

The destruction of Krypton is a big plot point to start the movie....hey, here is why we have to send our baby across the galaxy to the planet earth....which has a yellow sun, thus granting him his powers. Oh, and by the way, the destruction of our planet also creates his only weakness....kryptonite.

No Krypton, no Krypton destruction...no kryptonite, and Superman just cruises the the entire film like a gamer using god mode....plus we have no idea why this kid was sent to earth, and maybe no idea why he has his powers at all.

Whether the Kents die or not...that's a bit less important. When Supes moves off to Metropolis, his adopted parents are out of sight, out of mind for viewers. The original film did this justice, but IIRC, didn't kill off Ma Kent.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

This STILL bugs me.

Well, if nothing else, it's kind of annoying because running out of "web juice" was a frequent problem, and the invention of the web-slinger was a cool part of the classic canon.

But again...the respect for the canon and the character forgives a lot of sins. As much as the Goblin's Power ranger appearance bugged me, or the organic webs bugged me....I still love the movies.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

Organic webs is minutia. Only broken spirited geek fanbois living in basements will let that stop them from seeing the movie.

Krypton, Bat Nipples and Cat Scratch Fever costumes makes baby jesus cry.

They had a montage where he came up with the costume. Then they had the wrestling bit. If they'd taken both of those out, and the costume had fallen from the sky like mana from some god on high, perhaps they could have had a shitty web slinger creation montage. Fuck web juice, and fuck montages. They don't make for good movie watching.



Good man.

I rather liked the whole organic webs and finger barbs thing.  It ties in very nicely with the whole DNA tampering vs Atomic radiation update they did to the character background.

Besides, in the origional backstory (radioactive), did the EVER explain how peter manages to cling to walls?  I know his radioacive blood gave him super human strength and agility, but how does that let him stick to walls?

Being bitten by a radioactive spider seemed to carry with it many spider-like qualities. I don't think they explained *how* he could cling to walls....it was just kind of accepted that it was one of the spider-like qualities he got from the bite.

At the time, I think the audience was a bit more accepting....after all, nobody really questioned how Superman generated the thrust needed to maintain flight, or to hover in mid-air.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

In the comics, there really aren't a whole lot of "spider-like" qualities that Peter Parker posseses from the accident. He wasn't much different from Norman Osborne, except in the gadgets they used. The genetic tampering only made them superhuman. In Spidey's case, I think there was only one extra thing, which was "spider-sense" (whatever that is). He was a science geek, and everything else that gave him spider-like qualities was from the gadgets and gizmos he built into his suit.

I prefer Raimi's version though, which is kind of like the Fly or the Metamorphosis. It's sounds funny, but it's more plausible than some lone geek creating all of this unheard of technology in his Aunt's basement. Peter Parker in the movies is a dork, to be sure, but it'd be boring if they went too far with it.

Did neither of you see the sequence in the first movie?  Little spiky hairs grow out of his fingers, just like spiders have, which act as anchors.  This is generally the explanation in the comic books as well.

Of course, how those manage to work THROUGH A COSTUME, well...

The comic books over the years have gone through lots of explanations for various Superman minutae.  For example, originally he didn't fly; he just had super-leaping.  When people wondered how come his costume never got a scratch from an exploding tank shell, it was explained that his costume was actually sewn (with the help of SuperBoy's powers, of course) from the waddling cloth that came with him from Krypton.  When people wondered why his heat vision didn't melt Clark Kent's glasses, the glasses were made out of special crystals... etc.

Anyway, part of what made Spider-Man more of a geeky hero was that he actually made his webslingers.  In the movies, you see him hanging out with these smart villians as a student, but he doesn't really get to show off his scientific talent.  (Unlike, say, Bruce Banner in The Hulk.)

Bruce

Yes, true. And now it's just said he can fly.



And now it's said that anything touching his skin (within x amount of space) is invulnerable as well.



In Lois & Clark he tilts his glasses down to shoot his heat ray. Otherwise the glass would melt.

Comics have the same rules as Calvin Ball. Which is to say the rules are invented and changed as necessary.

I to was raised on comic books. But I don't see any reason to believe that stories once told have to remain true forever. If you feel the need to cling to the original Lore of a fucking comic book, do yourself a favor and hop in a furnace.

My interpretation of Superman (which also stems somewhat from my history of playing psychic characters in the RIFTS PnP RPG) is that most of his powers come from the fact that he is a super powerfull self focused Telekenetic Psychic.

- He can fly because he psychicly wills himself to fly through the air
- he is invulnerable because he is surrounded by a telekenetic aura that stops most incoming damage

The main reason I came to this conclusion is because it is the ONLY way he could concievably do many of the insane feats of super strength he pulls off.  For example, realisticly speaking, if a single being tried to save a sinking ship by getting under it and then "lifting" (which Sups has done numerous times), the sheer force he would be exerting on that tiny surface area would cause him to punch right through the ship, regardless of the fact that he could actually lift its entire weight.  Instead, the ship maybe bends a little bit around the point he is lifting on.  My conclusion is that he is telepathicly "lifting" the entire vessel, spreading some kind of mental field around it when he contacts it, so as to distribute the force while lifting.

It's one thing to lift an icy Lake 'Kamooga' (or whatever), it's entirely another for a sheet of ice that large not to snap under it's own weight.

Things like the lifting of ships and such that would crumble under their own weight was one of the reasons I liked spiderman more than things like superman, but then spiderman does just as many dumb physically impossible things.

Mainly with his webbing.  I cringe every time he does something like make a webbing fucking hang glider (in mid fall mind you) or some stupid thing like that.  How the same webshooters can make string, shields, nets, hang gliders, parachutes, domes, etc... is way beyond me.  I am waiting for the issue where he shoots out his webs and it forms a fully functioning car that he then hops in and chases the baddies with.

This is why Batman is the better hero. Rather than "Has super powers" the out is "Is rich, white sociopath genius.".

Geek alert. Feh.

Static electricity was how he was able to cling to walls. Something Electro took advantage of once, when he figured it out.

End of Geek Alert.

Hmmm, that's triggering a big 'my arse' detector.

(For the explanation, not at you Grelf...)

Fuck that - How the hell did it manage to work THROUGH HIS NIKES ???

I have a really hard time deciding whether or not big changes from canon are bad or good.  If done right, a big change can avoid the need of a large and unwieldy explanation of how things came to be, but on the other hand a big change done wrong could actually ruin the entire movie series' chances.

The rumored venom plot for Spiderman3 could be a good thing, since trying to explain the secret wars and all the baggage that comes with that would turn off all but the strictest of comic fans, but then if they replace it with something else that is supremely stupid(such as that nonsense in Supes where one script called for Lex being an alien) it won't matter, canon or not: the movie will suck.

Eh, Venom is still best explaned in movie context in much the same way they handled it in the animated TV series:

Jameson's son finds funky looking rock on asteroid/moon during one of his space trips, and brings it back.  Rock turns out to have been frozen Alien Symbiote, which thaws out on shuttle, attacks crew, causes crash, and winds up bonded to Parker when Spidey saves shuttle crew from reck.

But then you'll have to spend 5 minutes or so explaining what the fuck a symbiote is to the general public in a movie theater. I really hope they don't put fucking Venom in Spidey 3.

Likewise.  I think hobgoblin/green goblin v.2 and "Lizard" would be much better for Spidey3, since there is slight foreshadowing in both movies of seeing Lizard, and the obvious foreshadowing of Harry Osborne taking his father's place.  Plus you get to have more Parker angst since he would be up against two people close to him.

EDIT: God.  I'm such a fucking nerd.  I was just thinking, "and it's a damn good thing to stay away from Venom because otherwise they would open themselves up to having Carnage in one of the movies."

As I stated in one of the other Spidey related threads, if Venom DOES show up in the 3rd movie, it wont be a character appearence, but rather a character background thing, setting up for a character appearence in the 4th movie.

IE:  Symbiote arrives on earth (through whatever means you want)->Symbiote gets attached to Pete->Pete experiments with new powers (symbiotes for dummies course is presented to audience)->Pete uses Symbiote suit to defeat the movies chosen villian(s) in an near fatal fight->Pete realizes Symbiote is corrupting his personality and drives it out of his body->end movie with foreshadowing of Symbiote finding Brock (or whoever)

Do we REALLY need another Green Goblin Spiderman movie?  Is the Spidey universe that bereft of interesting villains?  Why not cast him alongside the supervillainess Rita who was accidentally released by astronauts and can only be stopped by teenagers with attitudes and fucking give up?

Well...apart from the fact that the previous movies have foreshadowed the appearance of both Hobgoblin/green goblin and the Lizard, there is also the sticking point of just how far past "reality" they can go with their villains(or heroes, for that matter) before things turn from supernatural to overly silly.  Seeing shit like Sandman or Mysterio would just kill the movies for me.

Actually, Mysterio would be a kickass villian.  After all, there is nothing "mystical", "supernatural" or "over the top" about him at all.  He is a criminal genious and a kickass special effects wizard, who just happens to have the bad luck to be wearing a fishbowl on his head.  It wouldnt be nearly as bad as trying to introduce the Lizard or Vulture or similar character.

I agree. Makes me wonder though: Who would do a better job at that? Sam Raimi or Tim Burton?

As for Sandman, I think they'd definitely have to change a lot of background for that character, since he's basically just a stupid thug in the comics. His powers kick ass though. A lot more cinematic than most of the other villians at least.

Screw this alien symbiote stuff, just make the Venom suit a variation of the tenticles that Dr. Oct(k?) had.  Some stupid living geneticly modified living exoskeleton armor thing that develops intelligence.

Anyway, the potential villain for Spider 3 doesn't bother me.  The fact that Marvel might insist on having a crossover with one of its other franchises bothers me.  You know it's coming.

Marvel Vs. Capcom?

Similar to how Venom worked in "Ultimate Spider-Man" then?  In Ultimate the 'symbiote' was a goo that was designed by Peter's dad and a friend of his to cure cancer.  It would merge with your genetic code and then absorb the cancerous cells or somesuch.  It was never tested before they died, and turned out to augment psyical traits and feed off emotions.  So peter touches the stuff and it gets all over him.  He uses it to defeat a few villians and then realizes that the suit is pushing him over the edge when fighting the bad guys and goes about getting it off with the help of connors I believe (connors knows he is spiderman in ultimate).  The brock character is a childhood friend of peter who is also the son of peter's dad's partner.  Peter gets caught by brock stealing the goo in order to desroy it in an incinerator.  When caught peter spills his guts to brock about who he is and what the goo did to him.  Brock pretends to agree with him, but in reality he is jealous of peter and pissed off that he lied to him and that he wanted to destroy his father's life work.  Brock is aware of another set of goo and sticks his arm in that.

Venom fights then sortof happen as brock tries to control the goo without much success.  In the struggles the suit with brock get eletrocuted on power lines, peter is distracted by something and then when he turns back brock and the suit are gone.  Carnage was later introduced to the Ultimate universe as well, but I didn't read those so I don't know if it involved any more info on venom or not.

I'm more worried about a special guest appearace of Wolverine.  Although it's more likely The Hulk would show up, considering he's nothing but CGI.

Why does this worry you?  Spider-Man/Hulk was one of the first Marvel crossovers, IIRC.  Spider-Man/Fantasic Four was also around the same time.

Bruce

Spiderman was crossing over with fab four by the fourth issue I think (or was it even the first?  I can't recall, but he was even on the cover.  Human torch has been part of spiderman on and off from the beginning, with hulk being the next most common I can recall.