It ain't easy being green

Unless you've been living under a rock, or just don't bother looking at all the various "interesting" things that happen to be up on yahoo or other various homepages, then you may or may not have seen the first trailer for next summer's superhero movie Green Lantern.

I won't sit here and go into all the back story about Lantern right now, other than he is played by the newly crowned sexist man alive, Ryan Reynolds. More importantly, he is a breath of fresh air that we all need in this day and time.

Why do I say that? Well, think about all the superhero movies that have come out in the last...shall we say, 5 yrs? With the exception of the Fantastic Four movies and you can make the case for the Iron Man films, as well. Most have been dark.

The most notorious of these is Batman, especially in what most people have called the best comic book movie, ever, The Dark Knight. I am one of the few people that didn't gush over it, though. I liked it, but it was mostly because I'm a Batman fan, not because of the tone.

The point I'm trying to make here is that while Batman is dark and psychotic (been that way since the late 80s), whereas Green Lantern is a throwback to those swashbuckler heroes of the 40s and 50s.

Yahoo put this up yesterday, and said basically what I'm trying to say

Ever since the first "X-Men" in 2000, the trend in comic book movie adaptations has been to try to give a sense of realism to costumed superheroes. "Spider-Man," "Iron Man" and especially Christopher Nolan's two "Batman" movies have all tried to tone down the fantastical elements from the source material and bring the characters down to Earth.

It looks like that trend may end next summer with the release of "Green Lantern." Based on the much-loved DC Comics series, this latest superhero movie has aliens, spaceships, and a ring that creates objects out of light. But unlike some more terrestrial heroes, the cosmic explorations of the Green Lantern have always been a major part of the character's appeal.

Take a look at the first trailer for "Green Lantern" starring the newly crowned "Sexiest Man Alive," Ryan Reynolds.

Reynolds plays Hal Jordan, who was actually the second Green Lantern in the comic books starting in 1959. He is a test pilot at Ferris Aircraft alongside Carol Ferris (played by Blake Lively). Jordan discovers where a spacecraft crashes on Earth, and its alien passenger, Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), passes on his power ring to Jordan before he dies. So Jordan is inducted into the Green Lantern Corps, sort of an interplanetary police force whose rings have the power to create anything they can imagine.

It's still an early trailer, so we only get a few glimpses of the Green Lantern's power, specifically one shot where he punches out three guys with one giant glowing fist. You see the villain Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) both before and after his head mutates to an enormous size. There is also a brief look at Sinestro (Mark Strong), the purple-skinned Lantern Corps member who starts off as Jordan's ally (but, as comic book readers know, doesn't stay that way).

It's a far cry from the gritty realism of a movie like "The Dark Knight," but that's by design. It also has a lighter tone that gives Reynolds the chance to show off his trademark charm, putting his romantic comedy experience to use in his bantering with Lively. And unlike the brooding, tortured heroes like Christian Bale's Batman or Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, Reynolds seems to be having fun with his superpowers.

Another difference is Green Lantern's costume. Rather than the spandex bodysuits or leathery armor of most movie superheroes, Reynolds was filmed wearing a motion capture suit (much like the actors in "Avatar"), and his costume is entirely created with digital effects. It gives him a sleek, glowing look that could not be acheived by traditional means.

"Green Lantern" arrives in theaters on June 17, 2011

The trailer isn't without its problems, but I am looking forward to this movie. It's fun, action packed, and above all...NOT DARK!!!!

What do you think?

What works for one does not necessarily mean it'll work for others

Yesterday, news broke that Christopher Nolan will be "mentoring" the reboot of the Superman franchise. Spider-Man is getting an unnecessary reboot. Captain America is going to be some sort of musical. Who knows what other madness is going on out there in the comic book movie land.

Let's start with Captain America. Yes, you read right, its going to be some sort of musical. Calm down, its not going to be a full out song and dance musical, but rather they're going to change the story to where he is a performing member of the USO in order to justify the costume. WTF?!? Does no one believe in suspension of disbelief anymore? Do they really need to mutate his origin just to explain the costume? Granted, this is just early news, and could be changed between now, filming, and the release of The First Avenger: Captain America, but it still doesn't sit right with me. As bad as that 1990 movie was, this just seems to make that look like a cinematic masterpiece.

Spider-Man is getting a reboot. As much as I despise and detest reboots, this one is the most unnecessary I've ever heard of. All the pieces were in place for Spider-Man 4, then the day before filming was set to start, they up and notify everyone they wanted to go in a new direction. My guess is they thought Spider-Man 3 was too disappointing. Fact is, as bad as some think it was, it really wasn't, just needed better execution, and more of a balance between Venom and Sandman, instead of just bringing Venom in of the last 15 minutes. Anyway, my point is, when you reboot something, its usually 10-15-20 yrs after the last film. It's barely been 5, and they're rebooting? To make matters worse, they're going to make him a teenager. The fanboys are none to happy about this, and neither are us casual fans. Of course, they're doing this just to appeal to the teen crowd obviously, and probably will cast someone like Taylor Lautner or someone that has no acting talent, but will appeal to the screaming girls. What a waste, but I will keep an open mind until I see the finished project. Of course, if it flops, they'll be sorry they didn't just continue with the original plans. Its not like they haven't made them a butt load of money, or anything.

Superman has had his issues since Superman II was taken over by a different director halfway through it and just bombed. Then there was Superman Returns which just didn't seem to be anything more than a glorified Superman drama, rather than action flick. Since then, they've been trying to get Superman on the big screen, especially with the rights to the character returning to the estate of his creator at the end of next year (don't quote me on that). In what they believe is going to make it a surefire hit, they've brought in Christopher Nolan to "mentor" things. Nolan is a good director and all, but this is one of those moves that seems to be done just because The Dark Knight was such a big hit. Newsflash, people, Superman is not Batman! What works for one is not going to work for the other. Superman is not a dark, gritty character like the Dark Knight. All of Nolan's films have been dark and gritty, and depending on how much input he has on the forthcoming Superman film (which has yet to be written), will probably follow suit. *SIGH*

At least Green Lantern won't be going down that dark road. Of course, I'm not exactly sure what New Orleans has to do with him, but that's where they're filming it.

Anyway, this is a copycat world. As soon as folks see that one thing works, they change their plans accordingly. For instance, before Avatar, the only 3D movies were the animated ones, now it seems like everything is in 3D. I'm surprised they haven't announced Valentine's Day in 3D!!!!