Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MarvelsGrantMan136 OP t1_itushix wrote

The series is shifting to focus on John Stewart instead of Guy Gardner and Alan Scott

Budget seemed to be the main cause, and its expected to be "significantly less" going foward

Details:

>As part of the creative overhaul, writer and showrunner Seth Grahame-Smith has departed the series after completing scripts for a full season of eight episodes. Sources say Grahame-Smith, who signed on as writer and showrunner a year after Green Lantern was announced, chose to leave the project after weathering a number of regime changes at HBO Max, its parent company, producers Warner Bros. Television and now DC Comics.

>The decision to refocus Green Lantern arrives at a pivotal time for DC. Sources say the character of John Stewart was off the table to producers who envisioned the show as focusing on the first Green Lantern, the openly gay Alan Scott, and Guy Gardner as well as a “multitude of other Lanterns — from comic book favorites to never-before-seen heroes.” With DC Comics topper Walter Hamada’s recent exit, a decision was made to start over and build the show around John Stewart, the character who first appeared in the early 1970s and was modeled after Sidney Poitier.

>The show’s budget going forward is expected to be significantly less as HBO Max, under David Zaslav’s combined Warner Bros. Discovery, is focusing on right-sizing its various assets.

97

TheTaffyMan t1_itv3a2q wrote

A GL show with a drastically reduced budget?

The superhero who flies around the galaxy as a space cop and powers are creating literally anything they can imagine?

Yeah I dont see any red flags here

213

BillyCloneasaurus t1_itvc76h wrote

Imagining James Gunn's face on his first day at work when he opens up his DC mail inbox and sees "fyi james, we're now doing the GL show with a drastically reduced budget"

76

Ozlin t1_itwwsnb wrote

"Green Lantern now mostly bikes places and fights only in darkly lit warehouses. His costume is a green shirt and sweat pants. Only he sees the green constructs of his ring. The audience does not see his POV."

32

BxTart t1_itxypcn wrote

It’s a really sweet vintage Schwinn Stingray though(renting it from one of the producers eats up a lot of the budget).

6

TheWholeOfTheAss t1_iu102mh wrote

“My ring is not working” is a line GL will use often in the series.

3

Toidal t1_itvg3n4 wrote

It'll be like Dr. Who, a time and space traveling alien who for some reason spends a lot of time in what looks to be current day Britain

64

jim-p t1_itxdilq wrote

Or Stargate SG-1, who visited many planets all over multiple galaxies that all looked a lot like places in and around Vancouver.

12

Radulno t1_itzmycf wrote

If that show is even half as good as Dr Who or Stargate SG-1, it'll be a win though. Budget doesn't make the quality of a show.

3

CapnSmite t1_itywhyx wrote

At least SG-1 had the decency to have a line in an early episode to somewhat explain it away. Something about how any planet that could sustain human life would end up looking similar.

1

el-art-seam t1_itvx4s7 wrote

Green Lantern S1 E1 - The Ring

Sinestro takes the ring away from Green Lantern, thus he loses all his powers and has to fight crime without them in Los Angeles.

Problem solved- no more $$$$ intergalactic, superpower CG effects needed.

29

matthieuC t1_itx186i wrote

Using his space cop experience, Green lantern becomes an advisor to the LAPD.

21

zero5reveille t1_itzse6p wrote

“My god, this is one gifted writer.” - some CBS executive

6

silvermember t1_iu00agb wrote

"Crime solving lantern, it makes sense, don't over think it."

- Lucifer

3

_night_cat t1_itw3snb wrote

Lots of Terry Gilliam style animations instead of CG

6

Regula96 t1_itybb8g wrote

A television series always sounded strange to be considering Green Lantern has to be one of, if not the most CGI demanding live action project possible.

4

SmashedPumpkin30 t1_itye32o wrote

Yeah but it is a Berlanti production so Green Lantern will only have 2 minutes or so to use their powers after dealing with whatever crazy love triangle he is tied up in for no reason.

That should save some $.

4

jessie_monster t1_itybk7f wrote

He is going to get to use his powers once a season, Legends of Tomorrow-style.

3

garlicroastedpotato t1_itxqgjw wrote

I don't think it necessarily has to be bad. The Flash was a good enough show and for what was produced, had a very low budget. Word is it cost $50M to make a season of the show.

TV shows should be episodic and not just a movie split into 8 little parts. Refocusing TV shows like this allow you to reduce your casting costs because you can sit with a smaller central cast of characters. Flash was rather unique because the villain was mostly an "unknown entity thing" that rarely ever required an actual actor.

John Stewart can have some fairly cheap CGI animations compared to the others. Stewart was most known for using a green fist or green hammer. That could save a lot of money compared to Alan Scott or Hal Jordan who used a lot of.... creative constructs.

They can also save money by restricting a lot of the conflicts to Earth. Paralax comes to Earth and starts infecting super villains that Green Lantern has to stop? And then the final episode can involve his wife getting infected and having to choose between killing his wife or letting Paralax live? Sure, great show.

2

Radulno t1_itzmu0s wrote

To be fair, since we didn't know the initial budget, it may not be bad news, if it was like 20M$ an episode (House of the Dragon budget), it's not worth that much (and really doesn't need that much, space stuff isn't that expensive, reminder that Star Trek, Stargate, Farscape and such managed it on pretty small budgets decades ago). It's also way too risky for a company so in debt to spend on a completely unproven property (only movie it got being a huge failure)

0

WordsAreSomething t1_ituui8i wrote

The budget getting reduced is a huge red flag. Green Lantern will flop of they try to make it a CW show.

120

subjecttomyopinion t1_itv2zpl wrote

That's a shame. This is the one DC hero I can kind of grasp onto and would love to see something developed.

Was the Reynolds movie any good? I need to sit down and watch it just haven't.

18

DoIrllyneeda_usrname t1_itv6bbs wrote

You're better off just picking up the Geoff Johns run. The movie is just really boring.

35

subjecttomyopinion t1_itv6kra wrote

I read one book from.the library. I cannot remember which and after enjoying it found it was book 3 or something. Want to get more, unfortunately I'm inundated with media the library finally bought for me specifically that I should be grateful and get through.

4

WordsAreSomething t1_itv433j wrote

I remember enjoying it despite it not being very good.

12

subjecttomyopinion t1_itv4fho wrote

So riddle me this batman. What's a good DC hero that's worth looking into?

Don't like the bat. Superman out. Honestly what else is there? Wonder woman might be ok although I'm not sure I care too much.

To me and obviously an opinion marvel just has better story development and I love a lot of their characters

2

bengringo2 t1_itv7t3n wrote

Doom Patrol but honestly, If the light heartedness and humor of Marvel is a selling point to you then DC isn't for you.

7

RobDaGinger t1_itv8d0y wrote

Theres supposed to be a Blue Beetle movie in 2023 that im cautiously excited for. Hes probably my favorite DC hero.

7

Team7UBard t1_itx1pzt wrote

The new CEO who isn’t James Gunn is one of the producers so it seems at the very least it’s unlikely to be canned?

1

[deleted] t1_itvmjip wrote

[deleted]

4

subjecttomyopinion t1_itvmwnv wrote

I like bat villains. Not Bruce. He's got the best villains imo

1

roox911 t1_itvtq9u wrote

Did you try the new "the batman" though? Quite different than any other barman movie/show. Closer to a detective thriller.

Wonder woman was OK, '84 sucks though.

1

subjecttomyopinion t1_itvvx81 wrote

Dark knight was good. Bc of two face and joker.

I just don't get the bat.

1

berserkuh t1_itw3fql wrote

>I just don't get the bat.

His mom and dad died to a mugging in front of him when he was very little.

Unresolved trauma + extreme anger + extremely smart and also rich man = "i'll just beat up criminals so much they'll be too scared to do crime"

If the bat itself is the issue, IDK it just stuck, blame Bill Finger.

2

subjecttomyopinion t1_itw968k wrote

That I get. Just not why he's cool. In this situation I'd prefer iron man or moon knight. Or both.

Edit. Will also say it took me forever to warm up to iron man. But think he's pretty interesting now. One of my top picks.

1

berserkuh t1_itwh6pj wrote

He's basically a super smart Terminator ninja.

Strikes from the darkness, solves murders, has tons of cool gadgets and never gives up until his job is done.

Some of his popular stories are him solving some really horrific shit, or him being extremely old and executing a plan 20 years in the making after he retires, or him being shot with Omega beams, and then travelling back through time while being an amnesiac and also a reality bomb, all the while fighting cavemen, witch-hunters, pirates, cowboy bandits, some mobsters, the Justice League and finally programming a race of time-computer aliens to merge with him in order to come back to the present so the Justice League can kill the time-travelling beast that's been hunting him, then medically die and be revived (to defuse the reality bomb) so he can immediately return to Gotham to resume his role as Batman (immediately as in like an hour later he's there and ready to fight a villain who shoots Dick Grayson in the skull).

1

afineedge t1_itwicsp wrote

The John Rogers run of Blue Beetle. Barely needs any introductory information.

1

DMPunk t1_itv6j26 wrote

Parts of it are great, parts are merely okay, other parts are terrible. It's a mess, unfortunately. But the villains are good. Hector Hammond is a better character in the film than he is in the comics. And Mark Strong as Sinestro is the best casting of a DC villain ever. Sinestro is my favourite DC villain, and Strong just completely embodied the character. I would forgive all the failings of the film if it meant we got a sequel where his Sinestro was a bigger focus. He was perfect.

7

inkista t1_itwf1ne wrote

>That's a shame. This is the one DC hero I can kind of grasp onto and would love to see something developed.

Just me, but the best GL series I've seen is already up on HBO Max: Green Lantern: The Animated Series. While it isn't technically a DCAU/Timmverse show, Timm was involved in the development, and it's the best translation of his design aesthetic to CGI I've seen. It was showrun by Giancarlo Volpe (Avatar: The Last Airbender, The Dragon Prince) and Jim Krieg (who among a gazillion animation writing credits was the ringer Supernatural hired to write the "Scoobynatural" episode).

>Was the Reynolds movie any good? I need to sit down and watch it just haven't.

It was meh. To me, GL:TAS was everything I wanted from the Green Lantern movie and never got. :)

-edited to fix link

5

tfresca t1_ity0rs9 wrote

I liked Jon Stewart in Justice League cartoon.

1

alpacasarebadsingers t1_itv46zn wrote

It wasn’t bad, until the bad guy showed up. The last third of that movie was trash and ruined the first part completely.

3

NockerJoe t1_itw8vqn wrote

Deadpool makes several jokes about Green Lantern being an awful movie and the suit sucking. The post credit scene for Deadpool 2 is literally deadpool going back in time to shoot Ryan Reynolds before he can accept tbe role.

Green Lantern has kind of become the ur example of a comic book movie that just didn't work, surpassing Daredevil or the Punisher movie in this regard.

3

TheNerdGuyVGC t1_itv9kta wrote

I don’t think the movie deserves the hate it gets, but it definitely wasn’t great. If you like Green Lantern, I’m sure you’ll still enjoy the movie though.

2

Xp717 t1_iu0g2n5 wrote

It was terrible. The villain looks like literal diarrhea

1

RealJohnGillman t1_itv9by7 wrote

Maybe literally? The various The CW series have been teasing the John Diggle (Stewart) character being John Stewart over the past few years, down to having a ring box emanating green light — I could see them using him.

3

Damocles1710 t1_itv74rz wrote

Agree. But the show would probably work better if they strip down the power ring to its basic abilities: flight, energy beams, force fields, space travel, tractor beams, scanning. When they use rings to create cartoony constructs, it starts to get goofy.

Granted, those constructs are the signature move for Green Lanterns. But they don’t work as well in live action, even with CGI.

2

RecommendsMalazan t1_itvaq3j wrote

Not gonna try and say it isn't a red flag, but for a CW show... I'm really loving Star Girl, and have since it came out. And it does the Green Lantern effects really well, IMO.

2

NockerJoe t1_itw8ekz wrote

Thats why it never became a CW show. Hal Jordan basically completes DC's secondary trinity with Flash and Green Arrow and they teased several appearances for him that never materialized. Diggle getting rewritten to be John Stewart also kinda fizzled out because there was no way to make it work on that budget consistently.

1

Regula96 t1_itybq17 wrote

IMO there's no way a television adaptation can be good. It's just too CGI demanding if done properly. This should be one of their next big movie projects instead. I mean Black Adam just released. Next is Aquaman, Flash and Shazam right?

Time to start development on their movies after those. I'd guess a Superman movie is getting worked on now but what else. Seems so odd to leave Green Lantern for television.

1

Radulno t1_itzn7xv wrote

Not necessarily, budget doesn't mean quality, there is plenty of expensive shits and cheap gems on TV.

1

WordsAreSomething t1_itzno6v wrote

Budget matters depending on the genre of show. If you tried to reduce the budget of HotD it would make the show significantly worse.

The budget of a sitcom or straight drama program probably doesn't matter that much, but for a show of this nature is changes the quality dramatically.

3

Radulno t1_itzo480 wrote

Shows about space have been done on cheap budgets decades ago (so you were paying more for less, effects wise). Star Trek, Stargate, Farscape, BSG and such. If that show is even half as good as those classics, first I'll be very surprised and I'd call that a win. It'll likely still cost more (even with inflation) and be way shittier though.

We don't even from what budget they reduced it, if it was huge it can still be big even with a big reduction (like going from 20M to 10M an episode, it's a drastic reduction of 10M per episode but it's still a lot left). It also simply depends the story they want to tell and we don't know that.

1

WordsAreSomething t1_itzotgn wrote

Shows that are set in space have been done on a budget because the setting for a show in space doesn't need to be more than a set of a ship with some windows with space comped onto it.

Those shows don't have a character interacting with space regularly. And even if you took space out of it entirely like the Green Lantern movie did, the CGI required to make action scenes with the character high quality requires a budget.

1

iamdew802 t1_itv0yaj wrote

Damn and now we won’t be getting a gay green lantern even though scripts were written for the full season! Sad. The people that made the beautiful and amazing Everything Everywhere All at Once on a famously low budget need to start giving out classes

12

lightsongtheold t1_itvezdw wrote

Sounds like they cancelled a very expensive Green Lantern show and just told Berlanti to make one on a CW budget instead!

6

jak_d_ripr t1_itv3jre wrote

Just give us an animated green lantern series. I don't understand why they even considered live action to begin with.

3

IsawaAwasi t1_itv4of3 wrote

Green Lantern: the Animated Series got pretty good after a slow start for the first few episodes.

8

jak_d_ripr t1_itw1llr wrote

Oh yeah, I loved that show, I was counting down the days until the Sinestro Corp plotline.... and then that shit got cancelled. Still not over it.

3

IsawaAwasi t1_itw8s0o wrote

That damn Ryan Reynolds movie. Shelves were full of unsold GL movie merch, so no stores would pre-order new GL toys even if they were for a show unconnected to the movie. Animated shows live or die on their toy sales and GL:TAS barely had any made, let alone sold.

4

DaoFerret t1_itvv6s9 wrote

And we even got a follow up episode in the latest season of Young Justice (before YJ was cancelled … again)

1

bongo1138 t1_itv9w8a wrote

Green Lantern in theory would need to be DCs most expensive film franchise, what with basically being superhero Star Wars. This sucks but hopefully with the new DC leadership we get an actual good GL movie or show.

3

D3monFight3 t1_itvabrb wrote

So it will suck, not only because it is Green Lantern so without a huge budget you can't do it justice, but also John Stewart is not solo leading man material, I loved him in Justice League Unlimited and the comics I got, but he always had other protagonists around him, in fact he is at his best when he is with Guy, Hal and Kyle Rayner. Honestly I feel like only Hal and Kyle can be solo leads imo, Hal because he is the og space Green Lantern and has the most depth, and Kyle because of his artist angle making him pretty interesting.

−2

MrBoliNica t1_itvuwt2 wrote

Of course they reduce the budget and happen to recenter the show around a prominent black character at the same time. Of course.

−2