JacketFlap connects you to the work of more than 200,000 authors, illustrators, publishers and other creators of books for Children and Young Adults. The site is updated daily with information about every book, author, illustrator, and publisher in the children's / young adult book industry. Members include published authors and illustrators, librarians, agents, editors, publicists, booksellers, publishers and fans. Join now (it's free).
Login or Register for free to create your own customized page of blog posts from your favorite blogs. You can also add blogs by clicking the "Add to MyJacketFlap" links next to the blog name in each post.
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: Green Lantern, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 24 of 24
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: Green Lantern in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
Geoff Johns’ final storyline as Green Lantern Chief is ‘Wrath of the First Lantern’, a storyline which will conclude with issue #20 of the main book. The event has brought in, as is always the case, the other three Lantern titles as a crossover, and tells the story of a new/old threat to the Lantern Corps. And while it’s a solid storyline, it’s also a very strange one for Johns to bring to the table at this point…
Wrath of the First Lantern sees the very first Green Lantern ever, Volthoom (get used to hearing some very silly names, guys), escape a prison he was put in and subsequently go on a rampage around the Universe. He moves from one lantern to another at a time, therefore creating the crossover, and goes on the offensive. The strange thing about the storyline is that each time he catches up to one – be it John Stewart, Atrocitus, Kyle Rayner, or whoever – he effectively recaps their origin to them, making this one of the best stories to jump onto in a while.
Yes – the very last storyline from Geoff Johns is also essentially a series of origin stories for every single one of the main characters in the Green Lantern franchise. It’s rather strange. Volthoom’s power appears to be that he can rewrite timestreams, going backwards and forwards in time to change the lives of other people. So he can create a world where Hal Jordan’s father doesn’t die, or he can maintain the status quo and keep Poppa Jordan dead. For the last few weeks, Volthoom has gone over to a series of different characters, shown them alternate lives they could’ve lived, and then refused to change them – every week that’s happened. Readers get a potted history of whomever Volthoom has caught now, and by the end of the issue Volthoom has refused to change the origin, and also captured the hero.
This does allow Johns access to a reset button should he choose to take it. The last ten years have been one of change for the franchise, with grand sweeping gestures and smaller character-focused moments all built up on each other for a series of pretty successful storylines. Some of the stories have been better than others, but for the most part the Geoff Johns era of Green Lantern has been a pretty amazing success, creatively. Not only does Green Lantern now support four titles simultaneously, but it also tells stories which change the sweep of the DC Universe – from Sinestro Corps War to Blackest Night. There’s a clear vision for the characters, who have all been developed fairly well for ten consecutive years.
That can all be reset and cleared away if Geoff Johns wants to, via Volthoom. I’m hoping he doesn’t choose to take this route, because Volthoom hasn’t really worked as a villain so far. As a character, the villain has mainly existed as a fountain of exposition, narrating the lives of Guy Gardner or Carol Ferris like some kind of malevolent David Attenborough. He hasn’t had a particularly visible goal as a villain, and his progress has been very repetitive indeed. The saving grace has been that his powers offer artists a chance to try out some fantastically experimental page layouts, as they pull apart the lives of characters and arrange the important moments into spider-webs, and tapestries.
The story has served to underline the strength of the main characters. There are now around 20 characters in the Green Lantern franchise who could be used as the lead for one of the books, which speaks to how well the writers have managed to pick out underused, well-conceived characters already floating around in the DC Universe. There are several characters who had fallen into obscurity over the years, and writers like Peter Tomasi have done brilliant work in repurposing them. If nothing else, Wrath of the First Lantern has proven to be an excellent showcase for the franchise itself, and the directions new writers and artists could choose to take it in. Hopefully they won’t choose to, y’know, murder half of them.
Wrath of the Green Lanterns isn’t finished yet – Green Lantern #20 is the finale for the storyline, and for Geoff Johns’ run as a whole. It’s been very strange to take this moment in the run and start retelling everybody’s origin storyline – but it’s been a nice little showcase for the characters, and given the various creative teams a chance to experiment a bit with their storytelling. Fun, if a little unnecessary.
3 Comments on REVIEW: Green Lantern’s ‘Wrath of the First Lantern’ Event, last added: 4/5/2013
Volthoom was the wizard who gave the original Earth-3 Power Ring his, um, power ring, I believe. That was right off the top off my head, no Google check!
barry buchanan said, on 4/5/2013 6:28:00 AM
d good call.
via wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_Syndicate_of_America
“Power Ring: the counterpart of Green Lantern. Pre-Crisis, Power Ring gained his magical ring of power from a Tibetan monk named Volthoom, and has powers similar to the Silver Age Green Lantern. Post-Crisis, the original Power Ring (who still got the ring from a Tibetan monk named Volthoom) was an American named Harrolds, but the JLA: Earth 2 hardcover established that the original Power Ring later gave the ring to a young blond man, the counterpart to Kyle Rayner. His ring was inhabited by the spirit of Volthoom who often spoke on his own, making inane observations and taking up residence in the ring wielder’s mind; all of which is considered a curse to the ring’s wielder.”
Snikt Snakt said, on 4/5/2013 7:31:00 AM
Ah, now I remember why I dropped reading the pre-52 GL family of titles, b/c of the constant crossovers or building up to the next crossover.
A panel on Friday, March 29th, the first day of programming at WonderCon brought together a rather iconic cast to discuss “iconic characters” and what keeps a character “true” to their origins over long periods of time. Mark Waid opened as moderator by pointing out that the table full of seasoned pros had more than 125 years of comics experience between them and most had worked on longterm characters and newer creations alike. The essential question posed by Waid was how to “vault” characters “into the 21st century without losing what keeps them special”. The question seemed particularly pertinent to Waid, whose ongoing work on DAREDEVIL has evoked critical acclaim. Waid asked his panellists how they handle the “core elements of characters” to face this challenge.
J. M. De Matteis introduced an image that stayed with the panellists as a reference point for discussion. He felt that creators handling long-lived characters work “within a cage”, so they can’t “go wide” with the character in term of change, but they can “go deep” in terms of making new discoveries. For De Matteis, personally, it’s all about the “Big Why” of characters, figuring out what makes them tick. He prefers working with super-villains to pose questions about the formative impact of their past histories because there’s “always a little corner of the psyche to dig into”. Ann Nocenti, however, in her recent work with Catwoman found that “her archetype was pretty clear” as a troubled kid originally, “on the streets” originally, and moving through “foster homes”. Her intuitive approach is to “play with a character and see what feels right” and she doesn’t mind the fact that later creators will do the same with long-term characters. It’s “like treading water”, she said, “You give a sense of constant, dynamic action, but you’re really not moving far”, and she expects later creators to be under the same constraint.
Doug Mahnke’schallenges, as an artist working on long-term heroes, is rather specific, handling costumes and their overtones. He observed that heroes, even today, often don’t look “contemporary” because their appearance has become iconic and we no longer question the anachronism, like Superman’s “underwear outside his pants”. Other features like capes and boots, Mahnke said, “made sense at the time” they were created based on a “swashbuckling” influence. In fact, he explained, an artist’s job is to “bring out the majesty in the character. It doesn’t matter so much what they’re wearing”, but you can use costume as a “tool” to use to your advantage.
Several of the panellists then commented on the fact that objectively, some of the nomenclature and costumes of characters created decades ago would seem “stupid” now. Nocenti’s example was a resurrection of a minor character, Zebra Man who was “visually fantastic” but the name and concept bizarre. Slott felt that once an icon is an icon, “the fact that it’s an icon gives it weight”, preventing further critique from readers. Even Waid’s considered opinion was that “Green Lantern” is a “stupid name for a character, but after 75 years”, it has “gravitas”.
The panel then tackled the question of when and how exactly a character becomes officially iconic, and they set the bar high on awarding this status. De Matteis opined that “nothing about the character idea makes it iconic. It’s the execution”, and not every character reaches this status despite reasonably strong storytelling behind them. Dan Slottinterjected that it only takes “one writer and one artist to do it”, like Frank Miller on DAREDEVIL. The discussion often drifted into slap-stick commentary on the more absurd aspects of superhero lore like the possession of a super vehicle as an icon accoutrement. Nocenti provided the little known detail that Cat Woman’s car is known as a “Catillac”. Slott confessed to proposing in a “meeting with real adults” that Superman’s car should be known as “Superman’s Ford Taurus of Solitude” with disasterous results.
Waid observed that some characters are iconic in pop culture without necessarily being long-lived, like Woody Woodpecker, who’s highly recognizable, but not a currently active character. Waid commented that the tendency toward merchandizing may encourage the slow-down or freeze of new developments in a character since “every character becomes a beach towel” in the end. The entire panel segued into a long and fairly serious discussion of Wonder Woman as a character and why she has, or has not, lived up to her iconic status in terms of actual comic storytelling.
Most felt, like De Matteis, that Wonder Woman comics have not always been “all that good”, nevertheless the character definitely qualifies as “iconic”. Waid had a fairly idiosyncratic theory behind why this is the case. He observed that there was a strong “sexual element” to the “first 10 years of the strip” that was later removed to render the character more “plain vanilla”, and that now, lacking that “x-factor of sexuality”, stories fail to live up to the early days (an issue, he said, he frequently discusses with Grant Morrison). Slott disagreed pointedly with Waid’s assessment. He instead blames the lack of verve in Wonder Woman comics to the fact that comics are essentially a “make dominated industry” that has not explored the “many angles of the character” sufficiently. Slott still feels that if the right team is put together, the stories can rise to iconic status again, without recourse to the “weird quirky bits”. His choice of phrase caused plenty of giggling among the panellists.
This led Waid to ask his panel how they decide what elements are most essential to a character, what continues to translate, and what can be left behind. De Matteis advised to “always approach the characters psychologically and emotionally” and not worry too much about the “other stuff”, and sometimes that psychological appeal can be found in lesser known characters. Nocenti commented that her current work on KATANA based on the strange but intriguing concept of a “girl with a sword” produced “good potential” for developing “obsessional love triangle” elements between herself, her murdered husband, and his murdering brother.“The less iconic a character, the more fun you can have!”, she enthused.
Slott agreed with Nocenti on this idea, up to a point. When you’re handling an iconic character, readers lose the fear that their reckless lifestyles will do them in, whereas if a character is “unknown”, “Everyone is worried”, wondering if they will survive from issue to issue. Slott and Nocenti shared an interesting moment of commiseration, albeit brief, about their mutual killing off of Spider-based characters, and the emotional reaction of fans. “Screw letters from emotional fans”, Slott concluded, laughing, but Waid intervened by informing the audience that he’s sure Slott “weeps himself to sleep at night with 6 year olds’ fan mail” over the death of Spider-Man .
The panellists didn’t always find their subject matter easy to decipher, nor did they feel that there’s always an easy answer for why some characters “click” as icons and some don’t. Batman, particularly, has a mysteriously successful dynamic, they said. But some things do change. Waid observed that he “couldn’t have imagined a world where I walked down the street and everyone knew who Tony Stark was” until after the Iron Man films had been made. Waid suggested that iconic status for characters might be measured in the number of imitators who have sprung up. De Matteis returned to his general position that archetypal patterns determine iconic status, however. Slott provided examples, stating that Superman is like Hercules, Batman a being on a vengeance-quest, and Tony Stark is, too, iconic in formula, as a combination of “Man and Machine”, an icon that the world is ripe for right now.
The panellists’ parting thoughts during the Q and A period focused on an interesting point made from the audience about the superhero/villain ratio. With so many more supervillains than superheroes in comics, “recycling” them is the norm, but at what point do they become “stale” and need to be retired, at least for awhile? De Matteis was firm about the roles of the artist and writers, insisting that there are “no stale characters but stale interpretations of characters” and that good work will prevent this problem. “Every character is great if you did into them in the right way”, he said. Waid’s closing example to support De Matteis’ point was that “20-25 years ago, no one would have thought that GREEN ARROW would become 2 times the best selling DC book, and then get his own TV show”. His bottom line: “If you dig deep enough you can find something that resonates”, and that’s the key to creating an icon, something that may not happen overnight.
Photo Credits: All photos in this article were taken by semi-professional photographer and pop culture scholar Michele Brittany. She’s an avid photographer of pop culture events. You can learn more about her photography and pop culture scholarship here.
Hannah Means-Shannon writes and blogs about comics for TRIP CITY and Sequart.org and is currently working on books about Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore for Sequart. She is @hannahmenzies on Twitter and hannahmenziesblog on WordPress.
15 Comments on On the Scene: WonderCon 2013, ‘What Makes an Icon?” with Nocenti, De Matteis, Mahnke, Slott, Waid, last added: 3/31/2013
Now THAT was a thorough story. Wonderful coverage of the panel.
And thank you for giving photo credits to the photographer. I did con photography for years and, more often than not, the idea of a photo credit gets forgotten. Why, even in the last year, I’ve had three of my con photos swiped by Bleeding Cool for their articles. (Something you’ll never see in THEIR Swipe File column). It seems, for some, it is easier to treat Googled images as “free” clipart rather than asking for permission let alone paying.
Well done, Beat! Always the gold standard!
george said, on 3/30/2013 1:16:00 PM
Glad to see Nocenti and De Matteis are still active (and enviably young looking). They wrote some of my favorite comics of the ’80s — and Nocenti’s Daredevil run (1986-1991) is a treasure that many fans still need to discover.
george said, on 3/30/2013 1:29:00 PM
“Screw letters from emotional fans”, Slott concluded, laughing …
Seriously, I wish more creators would say that. This New Yorker article describes how obsessed fans have not made life pleasant for George R.R. Martin and Neil Gaiman. As the author writes: “The same blogging culture that allows a fantasy writer like Neil Gaiman to foster a sense of intimacy with his readers can also expose an author to relentless scrutiny when they become discontented.”
Maybe they should focus on trying to design and make their own characters from scratch that are just as worthwhile instead of lamenting that the classic ones just aren’t as recyclable as they would prefer. Or staying with what classically works. Throw-away versions of cheap characters to comment on Superman or Batman is not the same thing. Its hard to make a Wolverine or a Superman. Or make a batch of great ones like Kirby, Lee and Ditko did. Even in the modern age.
To me, that’s what’s pretty stale about the comic industry. Milking and rebooting the past too much under “new visions” and high price tags. Works for movies with the recent state of special effects and interest but at the 50 year point of expensive print comics with tons of competition for entertainment time, I’m not so sure,
Glenn Simpson said, on 3/31/2013 10:13:00 AM
@johnrobiethecat:
These are writers and artists. If they create new characters, they have to convince some (presumably small) publisher to publish them where they won’t make any money. Writing and drawing existing characters is where the money is (unless you’re a really big name).
jacob lyon goddard said, on 3/31/2013 1:03:00 PM
This makes it seem like one a character reaches iconic status it’s better to leave it alone.
After that people are just stuck cranking out same old same old and hoping they don’t piss anyone off or bore them.
I’m trying to think of a way to say this without sounding harsh to the panelists (not my intention), but it feels like they’re all saying “we’re all hacks, and sometimes that sucks”.
jacob lyon goddard said, on 3/31/2013 1:08:00 PM
…still came out way more harsh than I wanted…
But how does one justify being the 236th out of 307 writers to re-tread a 40 year old concept?
Every once in a while someone will come around who’s really really good at it, like Miller or Moore in their earlier years, but it still seems disposable and fruitless to me.
Synsidar said, on 3/31/2013 1:45:00 PM
I’d have liked to attend that panel–but the perspectives the writers have on the characters might be biased. The psychology of a reader–his identification with the character, his desire to experience a type of fantasy, his need for an attachment–is more important in leading him to buy a series than the composition of the character is. The makeup of a particular character might create more story possibilities than others will, but over years, any character will burn out. A reader who’s attached to a character won’t care about the burnout.
Wonder Woman, for example, has been a problem for writers because she’s much more a symbol than she is a literary character. Readers attach themselves to her because of her power as a symbol, then are disappointed when she fails as a character in a story.
Creating new series characters is difficult mainly because the creator isn’t being asked to design a new literary character. He’s being asked to design something that appeals to fantasies that a few types of readers engage in regularly, without blatantly copying what already exists. That would be difficult for anyone.
SRS
george said, on 3/31/2013 2:12:00 PM
“But how does one justify being the 236th out of 307 writers to re-tread a 40 year old concept?”
These characters have to keep going, for reasons of merchandising and movie, TV and video game deals. I don’t find it very interesting, either — I’d rather see new characters and concepts — but that’s the reality of the business.
johnrobiethecat said, on 3/31/2013 2:52:00 PM
I see the points…Its looks like the general plan is lets match different teams on different books and lets see if we can find one that has magic to be a breakout success.. Not sure that a Frank Miller/Janson Daredevil or Claremont-Byrne-Smith X-men type magic is going to happen anytime soon. Everybody is using the same bag of tricks and its getting really old.. I know a lot of these creators are serious, dedicated craftsmen and a comic team is much like a movie team but something like the “Age of Ultron” or “Avengers vs X-Men” is never going to be anything special,. Its just blowing out the fireworks to get sales and more trades via the cheapest tricks available. Maybe they do make money but if i were a professional, I would like to do something more meaningful than a Jean Claude Van Damme type comic with better effects and rich production values.
I saw the trailer for Wolverine. The story doesn’t look like it’ll match the comic series (understandable, its a long story) but there’s enough there to even reference into something interesting. That was a 4 issue mini series (Wolverine’s first btw) by Miller & Claremont than then folded into an awesome 2 issue finish in Claremont/Paul Smith’s X-Men that might have been just as good. That was the sole X-Men book at the time. These things happen(like 30 yrs ago) but there are real long periods in between and the market is so convoluted and byzantine, its better to just stick with the movies for hero entertainment. Who knows where to start in comics…
johnrobiethecat said, on 3/31/2013 2:58:00 PM
Adding to that, James Bond movies are doing just fine without James Bond books coming out every couple of years, I can see the same thing happening in comics. The public is satisfied with just the movie output alone.
george said, on 3/31/2013 5:27:00 PM
I’m afraid that for a lot of people these days, superheroes are movie and TV characters — not comic book characters.
Or, if you want the basis for most American storytelling:
“A community in a harmonious paradise is threatened by evil; normal institutions fail to contend with this threat; a selfless superhero emerges to renounce temptations and carry out the redemptive task; aided by fate, his decisive victory restores the community to its paradisiacal condition; the superhero then recedes into obscurity.”
(Yes, superheroes are outsiders, each with secrets.)
Iconic? It resonates. Sometimes it reflects and focuses a particular Zeitgeist in society, like “Death Wish”. Or it gives power to a power fantasy, like “The Turner Diaries”. Or it presents an idealistic hero or society, like the militaristic socialism of “Star Trek”. Perhaps each hero is just a literary facade we can wear over our own faces, masking us from society and reality.
Recently it was announced that the landmark Geoff Johns 100+ issue Green Lantern era was over, and a whole new creative team wold be brought aboard the line. Well, the news is out, a new team of fearless creators has been announced—in brightest convention appearance, in blackest message board meltdown, no storyline will escape rewrites. In addition to the four existing books, a new one starring popular bad good guy Larfleeze has been added to the New 52 line-up. here's the roll-call:
7 Comments on New Green Lantern creative teams and new title announced, last added: 2/22/2013
I’ve enjoyed what I’ve read from Robert Venditti on X-O Manowar and will check out his work on Green Lantern.
Green Lantern’s Indie Writers Movement said, on 2/20/2013 1:06:00 PM
[...] As reported earlier, DC Comics has announced their new lineup for the Green Lantern family of titles and they’re going for new blood. Geoff Johns was the engine powering that franchise and three out of four writers aren’t just new to the Lanterns, they’re still relatively new to DC. Here’s the line-up: [...]
Kard said, on 2/20/2013 2:24:00 PM
Loving Threshold at the moment – so it’s cool to see Larfleeze get his own book (have you read it? It’s SO funny). Wonder if that means Threshold will get a new back-up or become a one-story book…
James said, on 2/20/2013 11:29:00 PM
Those are some average artists in the line up. No superstars like Mahnke. And that attached shot by Tan looks hidious. Its like DC wants it to fail.
Glenn Simpson said, on 2/21/2013 7:26:00 AM
Has anybody confirmed with DC that what they refer to as “Larfleeze” in the announcement is a new book, and not just a reference to the continuing Threshold feature?
v wiley said, on 2/21/2013 7:57:00 PM
Well, this was the non story of the day….have to also agree with poster James that Doug Manhke’s replacement Tan is definitely a jumping off point to those art wanks like myself…
Recently it was announced that the landmark Geoff Johns 100+ issue Green Lantern era was over, and a whole new creative team wold be brought aboard the line. Well, the news is out, a new team of fearless creators has been announced—in brightest convention appearance, in blackest message board meltdown, no storyline will escape rewrites. In addition to the four existing books, a new one starring popular bad good guy Larfleeze has been added to the New 52 line-up. here's the roll-call:
0 Comments on New Green Lantern creative teams and new title announced as of 2/20/2013 2:33:00 PM
After a mini PR meltdown over DC editorial’s leaked plans to kill John Stewart, the long running Green Lantern character who is considered DC’s best known African American character, it is being confirmed on Twitter that he’s going to be okay after all! DC’s Executive Director of Publicity Alex Segura and Green Lantern writer Robert Venditti released the joyous news:
Seeing a lot of unverified reports on this. To clarify: John Stewart is not going anywhere.
Many of the DC offices are in serious flux. While it’s clear they want to have “synergy” between their all mediums, this is a clear example of why they don’t have that. It can be believed that the reason WB green lit a GL film was due in large part to Geoff Johns rebooting of Hal Jordan, that success still paled in comparison to amount of fans who knew and liked John Stewart through the Justice League cartoons.
Instead of using the more visible GL with a public awareness in the millions, DC/ WB went with the GL whose fans number in the hundred thousands. Just on numbers alone, that’s not smart business sense. Couple this with Ryan Reynolds recent comments that more than hint at the lack of direction that plagued the film and it’s easy to see why it didn’t work.
DC has a wealth of good characters and great worlds. Despite that, it seems they people in charge, most of whom are “Hollywood types”, don’t know how to exploit that. And there is a certain amount of irony about “Hollywood types” not being able to exploit comic book properties.
Evan said, on 3/22/2013 4:24:00 PM
I’d love to see DC state “We did have plans of this nature but due to amazing fan support, we changed them”.
But we know that would never happen because the companies can’t ever look like they listen to us. Then we’ll supposedly have leverage.
Mikael said, on 3/22/2013 5:34:00 PM
What “leaked plans”? Nobody leaked a script. Nobody leaked any art. It was rumor. Anyone can say “I heard it from on high”. You wan’t it to be fact? Name your sources. Otherwise, no one knows anything.
KET said, on 3/22/2013 5:50:00 PM
” You want it to be fact? Name your sources. Otherwise, no one knows anything.”
Nonsense. Executives and writers spinning this hard pretty much gives the PR game away. Unless, of course, some readers are just that gullible to believe anything from these guys. You want it to be fiction? Then let DC prove it with some quality comics, for a change.
MattComix said, on 3/22/2013 8:44:00 PM
Is that Kyle’s mask at Johns feet? Bet one way or another they’re killing somebody off. DC doesn’t know anything else.
..not that Marvel does either.
Richard Watson said, on 3/23/2013 6:36:00 AM
Talk about weasel words. Of course you’ve no plans to kill him off, that’s what DC wanted Fialkov to do. Then changed their minds (again) when they saw what way the wind was blowing.
Gary Armstrong said, on 3/23/2013 6:43:00 AM
regarding killing john stewart then changing their minds (if thats the case?)
who cares?
the plan for lost was to kill jack in the pilot, and the plan for homeland was to kill brody in season 1, then in season 2….they didn’t…plans change (for better or for worse is open to debate, but the creative process is what it is)
too much of the hivemind buzz detracts from the actual act of reading the published comics themselves…that’s all that ultimately matters…not the woulda coulda shoulda
the question no one is answering is should john stewart (originally called black lantern btw) immune from death strictly because of the fact that he’s black?….
or does simple nostalgia trump creative opportunities?
Richard Caldwell said, on 3/23/2013 8:02:00 AM
@Evan-
Perfect summation.
Richard Caldwell said, on 3/23/2013 8:03:00 AM
@Evan-
Perfect summation.
Esteban Pedreros said, on 3/24/2013 6:00:00 PM
@Gary I think the difference is where the idea comes from. You could ask why the death of Damian Wayne didn’t raise as many pitchforks as the eventual death of John Stewart and I think the reason is that Damian’s death makes sense within the story that Morrison is telling. The order to kill John Stewart came as a last minute modification on an already discussed and approved storyline, it’s maketing at its absolute worst.
Dave said, on 3/25/2013 1:14:00 AM
@Gary
Was always under the impression that “Black Lantern” was just a name John Stewart jokingly referred to himself as in this panel:
Killing off a character has got to be the laziest “creative opportunity” around. And anyway I don’t see what the big deal is (or was) about killing John Stewart because every single person here knows that they’d kill him and just bring him back six months later.
Robert A. George said, on 3/25/2013 9:49:00 AM
I spoke/interviewed Neal Adams at NY Comic Con two years ago and he had a very clear memory of the creation of John Stewart and it was NEVER considered that he would be called “Black Lantern.” He and Denny O’Neil both thought it was absurd that the only “back-up” GL on Earth — Guy Gardner — happened to be another white guy. Adams said they told DC’s editors at the time, “You mean to tell me that an alien ring just happens to ONLY find white guys-with-integrity-and-fearlessness. They then went on to create Stewart. Now, it is true that when they introduced him — keep in mind that this was early ’70s that they gave him something of a black-man-with-chip-on-his-shoulder. But, hey, no one’s perfect.
Either way, he was NEVER going to be CALLED “Black Lantern.”
Justin Sweet works as a concept artist and illustrator developing the look of CGI-heavy films with his digital paintings. His recently updated website includes his latest work.
Justin also works in traditional media like oils, watercolor and pencils that create entirely different moods, perhaps because they also appear to be personal work and sketchbook material.
The three pieces above from Justin’s work on the recent Green Lantern and Snow White and the Huntsman films have the distinct, terrifying essence of the late Polish artist Zdzisław Beksiński’s work.
0 Comments on Artist of the Day: Justin Sweet as of 3/26/2013 4:53:00 PM
There are a lot of Green Lantern merch tie-ins out there, and here’s a cool one, a Hex sport watch band suitable for ipod Nano. It isn’t actually a Green Lantern licensed product…but it’s the right color. You can win this or a pair of tickets to see Green Lantern by going to the ShopHex Facebook page and answering some questions. Today’s quiz: “IF YOUR HEX WATCH COULD GIVE YOU ANY SUPERPOWER, WHAT WOULD IT BE?”
0 Comments on Win Green Lantern tickets and a Green Lantern Hex watch band as of 1/1/1900
The film may be this summer’s biggest evidence for Superhero Fatigue, but Green Lantern isn’t going away, oh no. He’ll star, as planned, in GREEN LANTERN: THE ANIMATED SERIES on the Cartoon Network this fall. A new trailer was just released and you can download some wallpaper. The show is produced by Bruce Timm in a 3D animated style much influenced by THE INCREDIBLES, and features Hal (Josh Keaton), Killowog (Michael Clarke Duncan) and others going up against Red Lanterns.
Just as a follow-up to yesterday’s look at DC Entertainment, while live-action has been hit or (very) miss for WB, DC characters continue to do well in animated form, both on cable and direct-to-dvd movies. These are still valuable franchises.
18 Comments on Green Lantern returns in cartoon form, last added: 6/21/2011
The standard of the animation looks poor – like the sort of thing they were churning out about five-ten years ago – was this done on the cheap?
Rafael K said, on 6/21/2011 5:48:00 AM
This animated trailer is already better than the live action film.
Mikael said, on 6/21/2011 6:03:00 AM
There is no superhero fatigue. The average audience member just don’t wanna go see a bad movie featuring a character they don’t know. The final Batman movie will prove this.
Basque said, on 6/21/2011 6:37:00 AM
I’m sure my nephew will be all over that series. Looks great for the kids, which is the intended audience.
Although I’m really surprised the Red Lanterns are going to be part of this? Are they going to vomit blood like in the comics? I don’t understand why they would pick some of the most violent and disgusting characters in the DCU to include in a kids show.
RY33 said, on 6/21/2011 7:27:00 AM
I hope Cartoon Network treats this better than they did the Justice League cartoon. They kept ordering seasons of that and then running it so sporadically you never knew it was on.
Justin H. said, on 6/21/2011 8:07:00 AM
heck, they’re still doing that with the Brave and the Bold, which is a real shame.
Spike said, on 6/21/2011 8:44:00 AM
They should have released the cartoon first and maybe then the movie could have made more sense to people. Still be a bad movie…but might make it a little easier to swallow
KET said, on 6/21/2011 9:38:00 AM
I wouldn’t be too surprised if CN runs this show inconsistently during inconvenient time slots. This seems to be their usual M.O. for DC animated fare for several years now.
Cat Eldridge said, on 6/21/2011 10:01:00 AM
However you can buy, for a quite reasonable price, entire seasons of DCU shows, on iTunes. I’ve got season passes to Brave & Bold and Young Jusitce right now, and also the new season of Doctor Who.
No commercials, superb definition, and downloaded by iTunes when they’re available. Bliss!
rich said, on 6/21/2011 10:25:00 AM
Green Lantern: The Animated Series … Why can’t they just call it “Green Lantern”?
“The average audience member just don’t wanna go see a bad movie featuring a character they don’t know.”
This doesn’t make any sense, and never did. If people don’t want to see a movie featuring characters they never heard of, how did STAR WARS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK become mega-hits? Obviously, someone saw the trailers and thought they looked good.
Does anyone really need to KNOW Green Lantern prior to seeing a movie? If the trailer looks interesting, people will see it. If it doesn’t, they won’t.
KET said, on 6/21/2011 10:46:00 AM
“how did STAR WARS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK become mega-hits? Obviously, someone saw the trailers and thought they looked good.”
Actually, this is untrue. STAR WARS became a cultural touchstone over the course of an entire year or so from audience word-of-mouth. RAIDERS became an overnight hit because people were already aware of the already earned pedigrees of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, who seemed to be promising an homage to old fashioned movie serials. I never saw the trailer for RAIDERS, and yet I was first in line at my local cinema on opening day.
Jeff P. said, on 6/21/2011 10:47:00 AM
This trailer looks like it’s for a bad video game.
Keyser said, on 6/21/2011 2:21:00 PM
There is something about this CGI animation that turns me away. If it’s not Pixar, it just looks cold and lifeless with no soul to it like that terrible MTV Spider-Man cartoon. Kids may like it but clunky animation like this looks like the newer CGI Strawberry Shortcake and Mickey Mouse Clubhouse stuff and is stiff. I’d rather this be 2D instead.
Kate Fitzsimons said, on 6/21/2011 2:25:00 PM
Rich, the key word is bad movie. I haven’t seen it yet, and I do intend to, but the word of mouth is bad and the trailers didn’t do it for a lot of people. You can have a well-marketed and well-made movie without a big name and people will go (Iron Man) or a well-marketed and mediocrely made movie with a big name and people will go, but mediocrely made without a big name? This is not a recipe for success.
Indiana Jones and the original Star Wars had the singular advantage of being mind-numbingly awesome.
Dan Rodriguez @ Blue Pepper Comics said, on 6/21/2011 4:08:00 PM
“Actually, this is untrue. STAR WARS became a cultural touchstone over the course of an entire year or so from audience word-of-mouth.”
Sorry to go off topic, but this is false. Star Wars is pretty well known for being an instant hit. According to wikipedia:
“It immediately broke box-office records, effectively becoming one of the first blockbuster films, and Fox accelerated plans to broaden its release. Lucas spent most of the day in a sound studio in Los Angeles. When he went out for lunch with his then-wife Marcia, they encountered a long queue of people along the sidewalks leading to Mann’s Chinese Theatre, waiting to see Star Wars. Even technical crew members, such as model makers, were asked for autographs, and cast members became instant household names.”
I can’t speak for Green Lantern as I haven’t seen it, but I don’t think audiences have a problem with new characters. It’s just a higher risk for the studio.
The Beat said, on 6/21/2011 4:21:00 PM
As someone who saw Star Wars in the movie theater as a kid….yes it was absolutely a SENSATION right from the git go. My family was talking about seeing it weeks ahead of time and were counting the minutes until we could go. And the toys and phenomenon launched IMEDIATELY.
Same thing with RAIDERS. My grandfather couldn’t wait to see it.
Bear in mind, at this time there was little cable of home video, so people had fewer choices. If something new and interesting opened at the theater and got good reviews, they would go see it. It isn’t like now where “pre-awareness” is what you need to cut through the chatter.
Cary Coatney said, on 6/21/2011 8:14:00 PM
Heck when I was thirteen- I hitchhiked 10 miles on Rt 287 from my house to a theater in Morristown to see Star Wars on opening weekend- all because my stepdad refused to drive me there unless I got a haircut.
I sure showed him who was boss.
~
Coat
Cary Coatney said, on 6/21/2011 8:17:00 PM
Smells like Star Wars: The Clone Wars teen spirit to me.
You know both shows are just begging to be paired up back to back.
Comics-savvy (aren’t they all?) movie beat reporter Borys Kit has a succinct wrap-up, of lessons to be learned from the Green Lantern experience — one that seems to have been a harsh one for DC execs. Barely a word about the movie has been tweeted or blogged since the opening — an exception being Jim Lee who tweeted a contest to win this sweet Kilowog sketch — And they are many; a sequel–already in the writing stages — was supposed to have been greenlit if the film did over $60 million, but the $53 opening and bad word of mouth may have stopped that.
Kit suggests that comic book movies based on a singular vision tend to do better — something GL did not have:
In contrast, critics pounced on the generic, paint-by-numbers feel of the Lantern movie, which played like dozens of people were in control. And they were. In addition to director Martin Campbell, producer Donald De Line and DC executive Johns, four separate screenwriters were credited, and insiders say that even Warners execs Jeff Robinov, Greg Silverman and Lynn Harris were heavily involved, especially in the editing stage.
Another problem for the movie was the decision to put in more special effects:
Plus, Warners underestimated the scope of the special effects, whose costs began to skyrocket when it was decided that the Green Lantern suit would be created digitally. The complex effects work, combined with the decision to convert the film to 3D, added months to the production schedule, preventing early marketing and test screenings, which could have helped to hone the film.
There’s also the entire Warners culture as it related to DC movies:
At Warners, it’s the studio division that says yes or no to DC projects, and it can change them up however it sees fit. Last summer’s Jonah Hex was a box-office disaster, and even Warners’ quasi-DC movies Watchmen and V for Vendetta failed to lure more than hard-core fanboys. You don’t have to be a geek to make these movies, but you need to know what geeks like and, more importantly, how to translate that into accessible themes.
While the Christopher Nolan Batman movies remain one of Warner’s biggest triumphs, they’re still casting around for a way to expand that franchise. Luckily, the Bruce Timm empire in animation has been quietly keeping these characters alive on the small screen for decades. What that still going strong, there’s hope for the DC heroes yet.
17 Comments on More finger pointing emerges in Green Lantern fail, last added: 6/24/2011
I’m not sure what the big deal is about Green Lantern. It was a kind of middle ground movie. Yes, it did feel like a movie by committee. Yes, it was pretty mediocre. But I don’t know where all the hate for the movie is coming from. People saying it was ruined and is the worst movie ever made. It just seems like this decent enough movie became the victim of some infinite feedback loop where all the film critics’ clever little built upon each other as they tried to be more clever than the last guy.
All very silly to me.
Todd said, on 6/24/2011 11:50:00 AM
It is my understanding that Nolan has a deal that exempts him from getting studio notes. If it’s true, it explains everything in one sentence.
Stuart T said, on 6/24/2011 11:56:00 AM
XMFC credited 4-5 screenwriters as well. Maybe Vaughn simply benefited from the short production time limiting studio interference.
Shawn Kane said, on 6/24/2011 12:02:00 PM
I saw the movie Monday night and enjoyed it. At the end of the day, isn’t that what a movie is supposed to do?
Alexa said, on 6/24/2011 12:08:00 PM
@Stuart T, yes, but one of those screenwriters was the director, and another was his usual writing partner, so there was more cohesion of vision.
Michael boyce said, on 6/24/2011 12:11:00 PM
I liked it better than Thor by a mile.
Joseph said, on 6/24/2011 12:11:00 PM
XMFC had 4-5 credited screenwriters, but Vaughn/Goldman have said they basically reworked the entire screenplay from scratch when they came on. Nolan obviously has his own WB fiefdom, I can’t imagine any execs are sticking their hands in his films.
I agree GL was a perfectly serviceable superhero film, nowhere near as good as the first X-Men but, like that film, had enough promise to indicate a sequel could be significantly better and more successful. I haven’t seen anyone calling it “the worst movie ever made”, or anything close to that. I do believe the filmmakers and DC people have made a mistake by apparently disowning the film so quickly, giving the impression it’s a Catwoman-level disaster when it clearly isn’t.
The Beat said, on 6/24/2011 12:23:00 PM
Re XMFC: Vaughn and Goldman were clearly engaged with the source material and Vaughn’s many intelligent comments on the film show that it was a movie he wanted to make.
OTOH, Martin Campbell’s comments are almost laughably vague: Yes i made a movie! Ryan Reynolds played Green Lantern!
He’s a fine craftsman but this was not his boyhood vision.
ALSO, I’ll tell you where it went off the rails. When the first trailer with Reynolds playing the hot guy with his shirt off, the fanboys cried foul and oh no this is not our Hal!
Warners reacted and started slanting all their materials to the fanboy audience, not realizing that the ONE audience that would go opening weekend was the hardcore, thus shutting out the outliers who might have edged it over the $60 million mark.
None of this is Hollywood rocket science. It’s all a known outlier. Aim for the broad target and the hardcore will follow.
Warners execs continue to confound me. Perhaps they need to hire away someone from Marvel Studios!
Wesley Smith said, on 6/24/2011 12:40:00 PM
@Shawn Kane:
“At the end of the day, isn’t that what a movie is supposed to do?”
Nope. At the end of the day, movies are there to make money for it’s producers. No matter how popular or even how good a movie is, if it doesn’t record a profit after marketing, it’s still considered a flop.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I can’t comment on it’s quality, but I will say that I decided that this probably wouldn’t be my cup of tea the first time I saw Ryan Reynolds in the CGI golf ball suit. And that’s too bad, because I’ve been a fan of Reynolds since his TV days.
Movies created by committe–especially licensed movies like this–are almost uniformly bad. Even if a movie is a big budget paint-by-numbers set like Avatar or a mess like the Star Wars prequels, at least Cameron and Lucas were following their visions for those movies and they had character.
The result is that these DC-based movies often end up being neither fish nor fowl, not following the formula that made these characters succeed to begin with, and not having a single strong hand to guide them. They smack of a bunch of suits in a conference room dictating what the audience will want.
It almost never works. In fact, it usually fails quite spectacularly.
Now that I think about it, this is the same sort of misgiving I have of DCnU (ugh, I hate that nickname). Some of the lines have been virtually untouched, while the changes to most all of the others feel like they were tacked together with canvas and baling wire by Didio, Johns and Lee in a secluded cabin in the Appalachian Mountains.
(Sorry if I veered off topic there at the end. It just occurred to me.)
alistair said, on 6/24/2011 12:46:00 PM
I think the fact that Marvel have a deal of control over their movies, after many false starts ( Corman’s FF, The original Captain America and the ill conceived Spider-Man TV series anyone?), even those that are still in the hands of other studios like Fox and Sony, has a great deal to do with it. What happened with the DC characters was that Warners suddenly realised-too late perhaps- that they had this nerdy little company that was generating a decent profit with its comic-books and animation, and then jumped in with their collective corporate feet together. Lack of singular vision is the key here, as Kit so ably pointed out.
Carl Watkins said, on 6/24/2011 12:54:00 PM
@Joseph
Actually, Mark Millar said, and I quote, “I hereby declare Green Lantern the worst superhero movie ever made. And yes I count The Phantom and The Shadow as superhero movies.”
He then went on to say he would see it again because it was only 8 quid…
Deaf65 said, on 6/24/2011 12:56:00 PM
I watched the movie and I enjoyed it. Gave it a 7.5 out of 10 but felt that it was a little shallow and could have focused on more character depth of Hal Jordan and more training scenes between Hal and Kilwog. Hopefully, that would be expanded in the 2nd movie if they decide to make one.
Ron Thibodeau said, on 6/24/2011 1:07:00 PM
The Beat says:
‘ALSO, I’ll tell you where it went off the rails. When the first trailer with Reynolds playing the hot guy with his shirt off, the fanboys cried foul and oh no this is not our Hal! ”
I thought the ’shirtless’ Thor was a great selling point in the trailer. You already have the comic geek audience, so show a little skin to get the girls and the gays.
Thor turned me on. Green Lantern, not so much.
GameCouch said, on 6/24/2011 1:14:00 PM
If they wanted Green Lantern to make money, they should have made it five years ago with Will Smith as the lead.
Wesley Smith said, on 6/24/2011 1:26:00 PM
I don’t think that a shirtless Ryan Reynolds was bad, necessarily. Hal is the kind of guy who would go around with his shirt off more often if he could. I just couldn’t (and can’t) see Reynolds as Hal. I could see him as Flash (Wally, specifically) a lot more easily.
I wish they could have found a way to bring Guy and John in. Cuba Gooding Jr. as John and Justin Timberlake as Guy… that I would have paid money for.
Dave said, on 6/24/2011 2:11:00 PM
So Millar thinks Green Lantern is the worst superhero movie ever made? Guess he doesn’t consider Kick-Ass or Wanted to be superhero movies.
Joseph said, on 6/24/2011 2:19:00 PM
Yeah, with Millar everything is either the “best” (anything he does) or “worst” (everything else) so I was discounting his opinion. No one else has suggested GL is the worst movie (superhero or otherwise) ever.
It seems that the underwhelming reception for the Green Lantern movie hasn’t dissuaded Warner Bros. from taking another shot at it,Ben Fritz reports.
“We had a decent opening so we learned there is an audience,” said Warner Bros. film group President Jeff Robinov, pointing to the film’s box office debut of $53 million. “To go forward we need to make it a little edgier and darker with more emphasis on action…. And we have to find a way to balance the time the movie spends in space versus on Earth.”
[snip] Warner Bros. already has an outline for a sequel on hand written by Greg Berlanti, Michael Green and Marc Guggenheim, who all worked on the script for the original. However, several people familiar with the thinking of executives there who were not authorized to speak on the record say Warner will likely make significant changes to the outline, if not start over from scratch, in developing a sequel.
Darker and edgier! Like that time Green Lantern’s spine got ripped out. It seems that director Martin Campbell is not favored to return — given that he seemed to want nothing to do with the movie in interviews, he’ll probably be happy to oblige — after he gets a payout. Campbell, a talented but not notable journeyman, was an odd choice to direct, anyway – we’d suggest a younger, peppier director who actually likes Green Lantern ourselves. (Zack Snyder would be good but he’s already tied up on Superman, obviously.)
While given everything that went on, having another go at Green Lantern seems like a surprising move, Warners really has no choice. They’ve made a huge investment in their superhero franchises, and with Harry Potter gone, they need another tentpole franchise. Batman gets rebooted after next year and Superman is a big question mark at this point, so throwing money and marketing partnerships at it until the Happy Meals stick seems to be the only way to go.
Robinov is still interested in a Flash movie (which has a solid script, he says) and a JLA film.
BTW, we were reading one of the the addictive sex diaries over at Daily Intel when we found out at least one person thought GL was a big turn-on.
We see Green Lantern. I’m not interested but I go because he really wants to see it. I try to xxx his xxxxx outside his xxxxx during the movie but the theatre is too crowded for any naughty business.
See? At least two people will be happy about a GL sequel.
15 Comments on Warners won’t give up on Green Lantern movie franchise, last added: 8/2/2011
>> They’ve made a huge investment in their superhero franchises, and with Harry Potter gone, they need another tentpole franchise.>>
Books of Magic!
BradyDale said, on 8/2/2011 11:10:00 AM
P.S. I’m glad they are keeping it going. It wasn’t that bad! maybe it will end up being really solid?
BradyDale said, on 8/2/2011 11:10:00 AM
Are they really rebooting Batman? I had heard they were just changing the team but continuing the story. A La James Bond. Is that wrong? I wish they’d do it that way. It would be better.
@Kurt Busiek – a Books of Magic movie could be really, really great. Man, I should really reread those books.
Kiel Phegley said, on 8/2/2011 11:14:00 AM
I never understood why people were so hot for Campbell on this. So many bloggers took the studio at their PR and cited “Casino Royale” as his only big picture, but guy also directed the first Brosnan Bond flick and both those Zorro movies. That never screamed “space fantasy epic” to me, but what do I know?
Charles Knight said, on 8/2/2011 11:34:00 AM
We got the same spin after Superman returns.
Joseph said, on 8/2/2011 11:37:00 AM
I can’t believe the theater showing GL was too crowded for that person to xxx his xxxx outside his xxxxx. Must have been the opening Friday.
If I had been given the choice between seeing GL and getting my xxx xxxxxx, I would have chosen the latter.
Charles Skaggs said, on 8/2/2011 11:41:00 AM
Would love to see a film starring the Flash, but I don’t want it to become another mess of four or more screenwriters tinkering with one another’s drafts to appease studio meddling.
The basic concept of a man who can move, react and think at super-speed is filled with storytelling possibilities and the character (Barry Allen, Wally West or Jay Garrick) deserves to be handled by people with true creative vision, ideas and talent.
KET said, on 8/2/2011 11:52:00 AM
Just more PR spin in the wake of this past weekend’s news that Captain America didn’t totally collapse in its second week.
Mark Waid said, on 8/2/2011 12:12:00 PM
“To go forward we need to make it a little edgier and darker.”
Yeah, that’ll do it.
Jesus God.
Captain America: 124 minutes of things that Warner Bros doesn’t know how to do.
NadaMucho said, on 8/2/2011 12:20:00 PM
Agree with Mr. Waid, Marvel/Disney was able to get Thor and Cap made into good-great films, while DC/Warner can only get one good Batman film made every 4 years. How is this hard?
Charles Knight said, on 8/2/2011 12:48:00 PM
“We had a decent opening so we learned there is an audience,” said Warner Bros. film group President Jeff Robinov”
Fewer people went to see this in it’s opening weekend than Daredevil and Ghost Rider, it was only propped up by 3d ticket prices.
Synsidar said, on 8/2/2011 1:24:00 PM
. . . while DC/Warner can only get one good Batman film made every 4 years. How is this hard?
Captain America also proves the point—seemingly simple but oddly difficult for Hollywood producers to retain from one movie to the next—that what makes a film sing isn’t the special effects or the casting or even necessarily the direction: It’s the script, stupid. Good writing is the sine qua non of good narrative filmmaking.
It might be that the people who work on the DC movies are too concerned about appealing to particular groups, which was a problem with the JONAH HEX film. It doesn’t help matters that the DC heroes are very simple characters. It’s much easier to fantasize about being Superman than it is to write a story about Superman which doesn’t generally repeat what was in previous stories.
SRS
KET said, on 8/2/2011 5:26:00 PM
“How is this hard?”
Too many suits over-thinking the concept. Jeff Robinov needs to learn the K.I.S.S. theory of making comic book movies.
Angelica Brenner said, on 8/2/2011 6:58:00 PM
Man, what is it with green superheroes and less-than-successful movies? Hulk tanked, then they made a remake that . . . slightly less tanked. Green Hornet . . . slightly less than tanked. Now Green Lantern’s tanked, and they’re talking about a remake that will hopefully . . . slightly less tank.
All I’m saying is, if anyone in Hollywood’s got their hands on a Green Arrow project right now, tread carefully! x[)
Jon_in_Austin said, on 8/2/2011 7:28:00 PM
Thank you Mark Waid. My sentiments exactly. Leave the dark to Batman and instead focus on some super-heroic adventure-y fun.
Kind of makes you appreciate the first two Superman films that much more – aside from the Batman franchises and Swamp Thing, Warners hasn’t been able to deliver their vast catalog to the big screen in any meaningful way in decades.
Ever since Dan DiDio said off-handedly that a DC character would be gay upon their return to the New 52, the internet was rife with discussion about who it might be. Bulleteer? Ambush Bug? Bat-Mite? Were three people who nobody thought it might be.
But then MTV Geek suggested that the character would be original Green Lantern Alan Scott. Which, officially, DC have now confirmed to be the case. So insecure Batman fans can breathe a sigh of relief, while Wonder Woman fans will look glumly at their feet. Maybe next reboot, you guys.
In interviews published in seemingly every newspaper in Americatoday, EARTH 2 writer James Robinson discusses his decision to change the sexuality of the character upon his reintroduction to the DC Universe:
What I really want to do with this character is make the fact that he’s gay to be a part of who he is and not to be the one identifying aspect of him… have his humor and his bravery be as much or more a part of him as his sexuality.
And what you can grab from most of the interviews is that this does seem to be a storyline Robinson organically planned, which was simply hijacked by publicists to try and steal some of the limelight from Marvel’s gay marriage. Aware that de-aging Scott would mean Obsidian, Scott’s homosexual son in the previous continuity, would be magically erased from existence, Robinson simply decided that Scott would make a strong gay character instead. Here he is in the next issue of EARTH 2:
Tall, isn’t he? And finally, a last quote from Robinson.
Quite honestly, it was an offhand comment that Dan made at a panel in England that got everybody suddenly aware and excited. I’m as surprised by it as you are. This was not ever meant to be sensational. It’s meant to be about a team that’s well-rounded, that shows the diversity of the world around us.
15 Comments on DC confirms that Alan Scott is their “outed” gay character, last added: 6/1/2012
I have to agree with RAGGEDT. DC has done a poor job on this ndcu. They already had 2 major Wildstorm characters that are gay and Midnighter and Apollo seem to have taken a back seat in all this so called diversity is claiming to have.
DC introducing Alan Scott does nothing more than to alienate the old loyal fans and cheapen the introduction of a NEW Original Character. This is something that has been lacking in this reboot. We have seen sales as everyone knew would be high to now falling back to the original DCU sales. How long will you go to the well and keep going for the quick money spike and your are left with sales falling even further back.
The so called push for diversity in the ndcu is missing the mark. DC claims it wants it yet your minority titles are the first to go. Again DC plays it up big but fails to deliver. It was the same problem in the old DCU. Major heroes given lackluster stories that bored the fans and art work just thrown in.
Sales will be here to show May’s market will it be a 7% drop or 5 % drop in sales for DC. Will the speculators run out to buy the Watchmen titles and the new gay hero? Will they stay or drift off when they do not have a book that will not make them rich?
Will we see the start of the return to the old DCU if sales keep falling ?
Todd Allen said, on 6/1/2012 2:02:00 PM
@RJT — There’s a world of difference between an adequate product description and avoiding spoilers. It was and is amazingly obtuse and more than a little misleading.
Jesse said, on 6/1/2012 2:09:00 PM
@arrowshaft You clearly do not read Newsarma. Every retailer agrees that sales are WAY UP and DC revitalized the entire industry.
arrowshaft said, on 6/1/2012 2:12:00 PM
that was a not every retailer, and you can’t claim doubling 2 to 4 in some cases as a win. Look at the overall sales DC numbers have dropped every month and still has not come to a resting place. Look at the long view and not the speculator’s view.
Jesse said, on 6/1/2012 2:14:00 PM
@arrowshaft I was being sarcastic….
arrowshaft said, on 6/1/2012 2:15:00 PM
o I sorry
Jesse said, on 6/1/2012 2:20:00 PM
I was trying to say Newsarma is hyped garbage. As are these hyped stunts to sell comics kind of transparent and desperate.
Goodman said, on 6/1/2012 2:22:00 PM
>Will we see the start of the return to the old DCU if sales keep falling ?
Nope. Sales were dropping on the old DCU too. Bringing back the old DCU would just tie their writers’ hands with a lot of baggage, and make their books less enticing to new readers.
Look, it’s still Alan Scott, just like Superman was still Superman, regardless of whether he was written by Jerry Siegel, Elliot S. Maggin, John Byrne, Geoff Johns or Grant Morrison.
Allen Rubinstein said, on 6/1/2012 2:25:00 PM
The problem with gay superheroes is that it’s much more of a challenge to be fabulous. The straight superheroes are already dressed in colorful outlandish costumes. Standing out would be a bitch.
Jesse said, on 6/1/2012 2:28:00 PM
@goodman There are 52 worlds never say never. Remember things have to get f’d enough to need a crisis. A dare I say New Crisis…… I think we all know were the road leads.
Thomas Wayne said, on 6/1/2012 3:02:00 PM
RaggedT,
You have a point on the “no internet in 198o’s” idea…good or bad it kept things secret and more of a mystery. If you read about something it was usually at the exact time it was happening or a few weeks later.
There were a couple of comic mags back then…I forget their names…Comics Monthly maybe? That doesn’t sound right but I had a few of them and thats where I got my “in the know” kind of info…nothing like a breaking story on Watchme # 1 two weeks after issue # 3 hit the direct market…lol.
I guess my biggest problem with all of this is it seems so forced. It feels like DC had no plans on creating a gay character (rebooting an established character or creating a brand new one) and then they sat down one day and said…”hey…Marvel has a half black half hispanic Spiderman now…what can we do now to appear as socially diverse???” Someone in the back of the room raised a hand and said…”we can make a character who has never been a homosexual a homosexual”…
Dramatic pause in the room….then…
YESSSSSS!!! Brilliant…that should keep our name in the press and make us look like we actually care about diversity. Run with it…
It takes no creativity to do what DC has done…If you want to make your newly rebooted DCU Earth 2 Alan Scott gay…fine…but don’t tell everyone you are doing it…let it happen…let the fans react to the book and the storytelling…not the announcement.
Take your time…let the story unfold.
Wouldn’t it have been much cooler to pick up the book and see Alan Scott kiss his boyfriend without knowing it was going to happen? Reaction could go from shock…to awwwww, how sweet…to NO WAY..or whatever.
We’ve been robbed of that part of the story.
And the reason we’ve been robbed is because DC (and Marvel) care more about appearing diverse than being diverse. That’s what all of this is about.
I have but one word that proves my point on this and I’ve gone back to it time and time again….
Oracle.
Where was your diversity when that choic was made DC??
Goodman said, on 6/1/2012 3:23:00 PM
>DC numbers have dropped every month and still has not come to a resting place. Look at the long view and not the speculator’s view
The long view is that comic sales have been trending down for over 60 years. Senate Subcommittee Hearings into Juvenile Delinquency. Television. Computer games. Rising prices. Exile from the newsstand. The Internet. A reboot can only do so much, but it creates a foundation for new readers and new stories.
Goodman said, on 6/1/2012 3:41:00 PM
>I guess my biggest problem with all of this is it seems so forced. It feels like DC had no plans on creating a gay character (rebooting an established character or creating a brand new one) and then they sat down one day and said…”hey…Marvel has a half black half hispanic Spiderman now…what can we do now to appear as socially diverse???” Someone in the back of the room raised a hand and said…”we can make a character who has never been a homosexual a homosexual”…
Or maybe that’s all in your head. Maybe it “seems so forced” because you’re not a writer looking for a way to take characters that peaked 60 years ago, and make them relevant today, leading lives and struggling with issues that people struggle with today. Maybe Robinson’s version of what happened is exactly what happened: “I really believe in this idea of relaunching the Justice Society and making them younger. But I thought it was a shame that we lost Jade and Obsidian, who are Alan Scott’s children. Obsidian has been in the comics for years and was a positive gay character. And then, in the way that one idea can spring forward to the next, I thought, well, let’s make Alan Scott gay.”
Maybe diversity really matters to Robinson. Maybe diversity matters to a lot of writers and other creative people, for reasons you may not understand.
And maybe DC uses marketing like every other company uses marketing- to tell people that they have a product that might interest them, because otherwise people won’t know and may not buy it. How awful and cynical of them.
RJT said, on 6/1/2012 3:59:00 PM
Todd,
Having read the first issue, how would you have promoted Earth 2?
Todd Allen said, on 6/1/2012 4:28:00 PM
“What if Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman (and their sidekicks) were the only superheroes to pop up, and what happens when there’s something bigger than they can handle?” is the the first issue. It would be more accurate to describe it as the next generation rising from the ashes of the old. All that hype was about the trinity killing people.
TweetThis week saw the release of Green Lantern #16 by Geoff Johns and Doug Mahnke, as well as Green Lantern Corps #16, by Peter Tomasi and Fernando Pasarin. The Green Lantern books are some of DC’s most popular, but recently seem to have fallen out of the spotlight, off doing their own thing while the [...]
1 Comments on Review: Green Lantern and Green Lantern Corps #16, last added: 1/27/2013
Aside from the fact that this “crossover” (in header alone in all 4(!) series until these 2 issues) was all slow and no go, the WORST part is that DC advertised it contained in these issues: http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/Rise%20of%20the%20Third%20Army.jpg, but are now padding them so it ends in the annuals. Not the main GL title mind you, but the lesser, lamer titles.
Shitty move DC.
TweetAfter ten years working on the character, and reigniting one of DC’s struggling titles into one of their most popular franchises, Geoff Johns has announced that he will be leaving the world of Green Lantern with the giant-sized issue #20 in May. Johns’ posted a farewell note on DC’ Source blog today, to confirm the [...]
7 Comments on Geoff Johns to Conclude His Green Lantern Run with issue #20, last added: 2/12/2013
Fair play to him, it was never my cup of tea but it is a highly success run that should be applauded.
Mark said, on 2/11/2013 3:00:00 PM
I always wanted to like Green Lantern growing up but never did. When I first read Rebirth, I officially became a fan. I got lost a little afterwards, but when the New 52 started, I made sure to stay on board. Green Lantern, Corps, and New Guardian are all amazing books. Since Johns does not write the other 2, I still have high hopes someone good will take over. Thanks Geoff for the great years.
Jonny R said, on 2/11/2013 4:37:00 PM
Johns nine-year run is something to be celebrated, even if there was a lot that didn’t appeal to me personally. Looking forward, I wonder if DC will try to maintain some continuity with the current group of creators — and have Tomasi and Bedard switch to different books — or pull a 180 and really shake up the line by recruiting a group of new writers. Can Jeff Lemire squeeze one more monthly into his schedule?
Honestly, I’d like to see some new voices get a shot. Creators like Jim Zub, Justin Jordan, Sam Humphries, Marjorie Liu, Joe Keatinge, Brandon Graham, Kathryn Immonen, and Jamal Igle (as a writer — his Molly Danger pages are fantastic) would all be choices that would get me excited about the GL line again. New blood, you know?
Mesektet said, on 2/12/2013 1:21:00 AM
Bedard, Tomasi and Milligan are all ending their runs on their respective titles as well.
I read that Lemire would be co writing JL with Johns but i don’t know if that was confirmed.
Brad Smithee said, on 2/12/2013 8:52:00 AM
Johns did some great work but I do think it was time for him to move on. Looking forward to whoever writes Hal next
RAGGEDT said, on 2/12/2013 10:09:00 AM
With Morrison’s Batman run also ending, how about all of DC’s big writers just switch books? Snyder’s going over to Superman already, so Johns could take over Batman, Morrison Green Lantern. They could call the whole endeavor DC NOW! and then… um, never mind. Who’d ever believe such a gimmick?
zach said, on 2/12/2013 10:30:00 AM
Yeah, goddamn Marvel Now, curse them for using their quality stable of writers to put out a quality stable of books. What is their problem?
'Green Lantern' heats up Comic-Con (and the cover of a special preview edition of Entertainment Weekly. Also Tim Burton and Johnny Depp team up for a remake of vampire soap opera "Dark Shadows." Pride and Prejudice and Zombies author Author Seth... Read the rest of this post
Comic-Con predictions (New York Magazine ranks the post-preview buzz around upcoming "tent-pole" releases with 'Scott Pilgrim' named biggest winner and a lukewarm reception to the "Green Hornet" trailer spelling trouble ahead. More on what went... Read the rest of this post
Britney on 'Glee' (Creator Ryan Murphy confirms the Britney Spears themed episode will feature a cameo with Brit playing some version of herself. Plus Sue Sylvester, a.k.a. Jane Lynch, is set to host the October 9 episode of SNL) (MTV) (MovieLine)
-... Read the rest of this post
Greetings all in "The Land o Blog" it is I once again. The Library Ninja that wonders the world righting wrongs, Library Ninja Bill. It's a dirty job, but someones got to do it. Speaking of Ninjas here are some of my all time favs:
The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!!!!!!
Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow!!!
0 Comments on Bond, James Bond, Monstrumologist, and Graphic Novels as of 1/1/1900
Dr. Robin S. Rosenberg, co-editor of What is a Superhero, author of Superhero Origins: What Makes Superheroes Tick & Why We Care (forthcoming 2011). Take the SUPERHERO SURVEY!
DC Comics has reduced prices for their entire line of 32-page comic books. Each issue now retails for $2.99, marked down from $3.99.
The announcement offers this quote from co-publisher Dan DiDio: “We needed a progressive pricing strategy that supports our existing business model and, more importantly, allows this creative industry to thrive for years to come. With the exceptions of oversized comic books, like annuals and specials, we are committed to a $2.99 price point.”
As Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Batman, and Tiny Titans comics get cheaper, do you think trade publishers should also lower print prices? (via Edward Champion)
Ok, now I feel better about this. They should have held off & not released the teaser.
Rich said, on 4/22/2011 7:34:00 AM
Agree with Thomas. This looked like a dud after those first teasers full of Ryan Reynolds being Ryan Reynolds. This new trailer looks nifty.
Lee said, on 4/22/2011 8:02:00 AM
Yep, feeling much better. Good stuff.
Kat Kan said, on 4/22/2011 8:56:00 AM
Wow. I’m so going to see this now! Hal Jordan GL was my fave superhero when I was 12 years old many years ago.
Jim Kingman said, on 4/22/2011 10:33:00 AM
My wife and I saw the trailer/commercial for Green Lantern last night. She liked it, and she’s not the GL fan I am. She liked it more than the Thor ads that have been airing, and she’s been looking forward to Thor.
I’m feeling much better.
Charles Skaggs said, on 4/22/2011 11:58:00 AM
Looking good so far…
Anyone else notice that the best trailers for this movie don’t feature Blake Lively uttering a single line of dialogue?
Caged Wisdom said, on 4/22/2011 2:13:00 PM
American Idol? Really?
Torsten Adair said, on 4/22/2011 2:39:00 PM
I thought Green Lantern was black?
Or did they change that because of the “Boycott Thor” people complaining about Idris Elba?
American Idol has the biggest audience on TV, and the sort of demographics ideally suited to a summer blockbuster.
“the first alien we’ve ever encountered…”
So Superman doesn’t exist in this movie’s reality, eh?
Synsidar said, on 5/4/2011 11:08:00 AM
So Superman doesn’t exist in this movie’s reality, eh?
Well, Superman is an alien only in the most superficial sense. If an alien isn’t going to be a BEM, creating one, or a race, with different body structure, biology, etc., takes work and the result might still turn people off.
SRS
Al™ said, on 5/4/2011 11:29:00 AM
Well, I skipped the trailer above, or the “spoiler” as I call them. But I am sure I will catch it on TV or the next time I go to the theatre.
Yes, it’s my pet peeve too: movie studios who show us the abbreviated version of the entire movie, spoiling any surprise.
And TV networks that insist on those “Coming up after the break:” spoilers.
Calvin Reid said, on 5/4/2011 1:04:00 PM
sign me up! I already know the pledge.
Brian Hibbs said, on 5/4/2011 1:17:00 PM
I don’t have speakers on the store’s computers, so I can’t be sure — but the visuals made it appear that the “origin” is more like Kyle’s (He happened to be nearby), rather than Hal’s traditional one of the ring specifically seeking him out because he is without fear?
If so, may I be the first to say “Foo!”?
-B
EJ said, on 5/4/2011 2:43:00 PM
I’m pretty sure that in the other trailer Abin Sur said that the ring chose Hal, he wasn’t just given the ring like Kyle so I don’t get that at all.
KET said, on 5/4/2011 3:04:00 PM
Well, that’s still underwhelming. So the big bad looks like a giant space fungus now? Guess Galactus as a giant cloud isn’t so bad anymore.
Daniel from Toronto said, on 5/4/2011 3:39:00 PM
This movie looks great, I hope it lives up to the hype! As for superman being an Alien….as far as I know isn’t public knowledge is it?
Karl Savage said, on 5/4/2011 5:18:00 PM
TMI- Green Lantern trailer. TMI.
If you watch closely you can even see Hector Hammond’s final fate in the film. The shots are out of order, but it’s totally there.
Still really looking forward to any scenes with Mark Strong’s Sinestro tho. I like Mark Strong.
AACRO said, on 5/5/2011 2:47:00 AM
this is nothing new, i mean trailers spoiling the film, which is why avoid those to movies i rly want to see or stop @ the teaser.
BradyDale said, on 5/5/2011 6:55:00 AM
As more movies come out, I realize what a fan of the team books I was as a kid, because I often don’t really know the Rogue’s Gallery of individual characters. I am really embarrassed to admit that I don’t know who the big brain guy is in this. He looks like The Leader, to me, but, yeah… wrong company. Wrong Green-themed-character.
Love Kilowog, tho. The ‘Wog was always one of the most fun sidecharacters.
Am I correct in gleaning that Sinestro isn’t going to go bad in this movie? Saving that for the sequel, I guess? That would be cool. Tho I am sure there will be some inevitable hint to his imppending badness. It’s sorta right there in the name, after all.
Will West said, on 5/5/2011 9:19:00 AM
Don’t the comics support that Hal got the ring because he was nearby? Maybe they’ve retconned it, but that was the point of Guy Gardner. The ring sought out two potential humans – Guy was just as fearless, but Hal was closer.
EJ said, on 5/5/2011 4:02:00 PM
Actually that was the retcon, Hal’s original origin and the one still used by DC today had nothing to do with where he was or Guy.
It’s getting very green around here. SF’s Cartoon Art Museum has a gala opening for a Green Lantern exhibit on Thursday, June 9th — it’s a “green tie” event we’re told. We want in on that!
“In brightest day, in darkest night, no evil shall escape my sight! Let those who worship evil’s might beware my power—Green Lantern’s light!” Just in time for Green Lantern’s theatrical debut, the Cartoon Art Museum is presenting the first museum exhibition celebrating 70 years of DC Comics’ Emerald Knight! Over 60 pieces of original artwork will be on display, featuring highlights from some of the most celebrated artists in Green Lantern’s publishing history Iconic works by Silver Age artists Gil Kane and Neal Adams will be exhibited, along with classic stories and covers by Joe Staton, Mike Mignola, George Perez, Brian Bolland, Brent Anderson, Bill Sienkiewicz, Golden Age Greats Irwin Hasen and Green Lantern co-creator Martin Nodell. To celebrate the exhibition, the Cartoon Art Museum is hosting a once-in-a-lifetime “Green Tie” gala with original artwork and popular Green Lantern creators. This celebration takes place Thursday, June 9, 2011 starting at 7:00 pm at San Francisco’s Cartoon Art Museum at 655 Mission Street. Tickets to The Green Tie Event are only $30, or $15 for current Cartoon Art Museum members. Each purchased ticket includes an optional guest ticket. At this special event, visitors will be treated to a private viewing of the exhibition with the Cartoon Art Museum’s curatorial staff while enjoying wine and hors d’oeuvres. Best of all, you will mingle with some of the most talented Green Lantern writers from the past four decades, along with other comic book creators. Tickets for this fundraising event can be purchased through Guestlist Ticketing: http://guestlistapp.com/events/55929 Guests of Honor for the Green Tie event include:
• Steve Englehart (Green Lantern Corps, Detective Comics)
• Mike Friedrich (Green Lantern, Justice League of America)
• Gerard Jones (Green Lantern: Emerald Dawn, Justice League International)
• Judd Winick (Green Lantern, Batman)
Additional programming for this exhibition will be announced throughout the summer.
2 Comments on Green Lantern exhibit at Cartoon Art Museum, last added: 5/20/2011
Here are several new publications that were sent my way during the past month that I think Cartoon Brew readers will like, or love, or at worst you should be aware they exist:
100 Animated Feature Films by Andrew Osmond (BFI/Palgrave Macmillan) is a great read. The animated feature is just coming into its own after decades of following one vision – that of the Walt Disney studio. Now that there are several strong voices to emerge in this medium, British film journalist Osmond has rounded up one hundred notable international animated features, studio and independent, to discuss, compare and contrast. This isn’t a “best-of” list, but a representative selection of worthwhile films culled from the first ninety five years of full-length animated movies. An important book for students of animation history – and anyone wanting to read intelligent commentary on where the field has come, and where its headed.
The Art of Kung Fu Panda 2 by Tracey Miller-Zarneke (Insight Editions). Whatever your opinion of Kung Fu Panda 2, one thing is undeniable: the artwork, art direction, character designs, color keys and all things visual are simply superb. Just based on “looks” this may be the best animated film of the year. We’ll see, but in the meantime Tracey Miller-Zarneke’s book lays it all out and gives credit where credit is due. Raymond Zibach, Nicholas Marlet, and Bill Kaufman are among the dozens of artists work given the lavish “art-book” treatment here – and their work deserves it. And you deserve to own this souvenir of Dreamworks’ summer blockbuster.
Archie: A Celebration of America’s Favorite Teenagers by Craig Yoe, designed by Clizia Gussoni (IDW Publishing). Do we really need another book about Archie? The answer is YES, if Yoe and his wife Clizia are behind it. There’s been several recent compilation volumes devoted to Archie comics, from Dark Horse, IDW and Archie Publications itself, but this is THE BEST one. This is actually the only book about Archie you really need, as it covers everything about the Riverdale characters, their origins, the artists, writers, the nooks and crannies, including the coolest, rarest art, promotional pieces, photographs… the whole shebang! Yoe has a great chapter about Archie on radio, TV and animated cartoons, another highlighting oddball Archie merchandising – and in another part of the book, he offers a rare printing, off the original art, of the unpublished 1952 Andy Andrews, a serious detective story featuring Archie’s previously unknown cousin! It’s one of those books (like my Hanna Barbera Treasury) that you need to see – and when you see it, you’ll buy it. I love this book – take it from me, it’s really great. Highly Recommended!
0 Comments on New Books you should know about* (*if you don’t already) as of 1/1/1900
0 Comments on New Books you should know about* (*if you don’t already) as of 1/1/1900
Volthoom was the wizard who gave the original Earth-3 Power Ring his, um, power ring, I believe. That was right off the top off my head, no Google check!
d good call.
via wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_Syndicate_of_America
“Power Ring: the counterpart of Green Lantern. Pre-Crisis, Power Ring gained his magical ring of power from a Tibetan monk named Volthoom, and has powers similar to the Silver Age Green Lantern. Post-Crisis, the original Power Ring (who still got the ring from a Tibetan monk named Volthoom) was an American named Harrolds, but the JLA: Earth 2 hardcover established that the original Power Ring later gave the ring to a young blond man, the counterpart to Kyle Rayner. His ring was inhabited by the spirit of Volthoom who often spoke on his own, making inane observations and taking up residence in the ring wielder’s mind; all of which is considered a curse to the ring’s wielder.”
Ah, now I remember why I dropped reading the pre-52 GL family of titles, b/c of the constant crossovers or building up to the next crossover.
And with that I’m dropping these too…thanks DC!!!