Green Lantern Might Drop Deadpool
Rob Liefeld reveals Ryan Reynolds, everybody’s favorite cinematic Deadpool, might abandon the role now that next year’s Green Lantern movie is to be the first of a trilogy.
Unless, of course, GL tanks. Then it’s every man for himself.
According to Rob, who created Deadpool for Marvel Comics, Warner Bros is determined to make Reynolds’ superhero persona exclusively restricted to the Emerald Emasculator. He points out that Harrison Ford managed to handle both Han Solo and Indiana Jones; since I’m older, I’ll note Buster Crabbe handled both Flash Gordon AND Buck Rogers… as well as Tarzan, Billy the Kid, Captain Gallant, and Red Berry. And we might not have the bandwidth to list all of Timothy Dalton’s appearances as comics and heroic fantasy characters.
The directing chores on Deadpool have been offered to Robert Rodriguez with a start date sometime after production wraps on Spy Kids 4, should he take the gig. The Zombieland screenwriters have written the script. In case you missed it, Reynolds played Deadpool in the Wolverine origin movie.
Green Lantern is set to hit the theaters on June 17, 2011. It’s directed by two-time James Bond director Martin Campbell.
Nothing against Ryan Reynolds, but one person shouldn’t be too many iconic heroes, anyway. And besides, I didn’t care for him as Deadpool in the Wolverine movie.
Did you like the Wolverine movie otherwise? I thought Reynolds was pretty good, but the character needed a lot more room.
No, I didn’t care for it. I wanted to like it, but it seemed like the plot consisted of trotting out a parade of characters with familiar names and then giving Wolverine excuses to hack people up.
Well, yeah. This is largely because the writers/director/studio didn’t know enough about Wolvie to do it right.
This is a standard problem with the film biz. The notion that a movie has to be dumbed down in order to play Peoria or wherever, trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator, is as old as film. Sometimes a good writer can work around it. Sometimes a good director can sneak past the moneymen. Sometimes the studio doesn’t care, they just wanna stay outta the way. If Warner had paid attention to what Mel Brooks was doing with “Blazing Saddles”, it wouldn’t have screened anywhere, ever. And it’s one that will never be remade, because it was way raunchy back then, and sure as hell not PC now.
But a big franchise flick, expected to make piles of money? Oh, no, you can bet it’s gonna be watched closely. Focus groups and preview showings will be used. Recuts and reshooting will happen. Multiple writers will turn in scripts that will be hatcheted apart and the good bits stitched together, resulting in an incomprehensble mess.
Wolverine wasn’t bad. It had its moments. But moments don’t make a movie. Never have.
Nothing against Ryan Reynolds, but one person shouldn’t be too many iconic heroes, anyway. And besides, I didn’t care for him as Deadpool in the Wolverine movie.
Nothing against Ryan Reynolds, but one person shouldn't be too many iconic heroes, anyway. And besides, I didn't care for him as Deadpool in the Wolverine movie.
Did you like the Wolverine movie otherwise? I thought Reynolds was pretty good, but the character needed a lot more room.
No, I didn't care for it. I wanted to like it, but it seemed like the plot consisted of trotting out a parade of characters with familiar names and then giving Wolverine excuses to hack people up.
Well, yeah. This is largely because the writers/director/studio didn't know enough about Wolvie to do it right. This is a standard problem with the film biz. The notion that a movie has to be dumbed down in order to play Peoria or wherever, trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator, is as old as film. Sometimes a good writer can work around it. Sometimes a good director can sneak past the moneymen. Sometimes the studio doesn't care, they just wanna stay outta the way. If Warner had paid attention to what Mel Brooks was doing with "Blazing Saddles", it wouldn't have screened anywhere, ever. And it's one that will never be remade, because it was way raunchy back then, and sure as hell not PC now. But a big franchise flick, expected to make piles of money? Oh, no, you can bet it's gonna be watched closely. Focus groups and preview showings will be used. Recuts and reshooting will happen. Multiple writers will turn in scripts that will be hatcheted apart and the good bits stitched together, resulting in an incomprehensble mess. Wolverine wasn't bad. It had its moments. But moments don't make a movie. Never have.
Actually, with regards to Harrison Ford, he didn’t really “handle” both Han Solo and Indiana Jones. If you look back at Ford’s film credits, he appeared in “Empire Strikes Back” which was released in 1980. Then, “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was released in 1981. He then showed up in 1982’s “Blade Runner”. In 1983, “Return of the Jedi” was released (his last appearance as Han Solo) and 1984 saw the release of “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.” Ford, as noted, made no further appearances as Han Solo and the next appearance as Indy didn’t come until 1989. Between the two appearances as Indy, Ford averaged one film appearance per year in a leading or co-featured role (“Witness” in 1985, “Mosquito Coast” in 1986 and both “Frantic” and “Working Girl” in 1988). And not to begrudge your mention of Crabbe, but you’re really comparing apples and oranges. Most of the characters you list in Crabbe’s credits appeared in movie serials. The Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers “films” ran an average of 20 minutes with 12-15 episodes per story. His Billy the Kid and Billy Carson films average a mere hour each and he only made a combined total of 36 films as those characters in a 6 year period which is hardly the equivalent of later TV actors: Bob “Gilligan” Denver put in roughly 36 hours over 98 episodes of “Gilligan’s Island” and Lorne “Ben Cartwright” Greene appeared in 66 hour-long episodes of “Bonanza” during the first two, out of 14, seasons of the series (Bonanza, incidentally, ran more than 400 episodes–low averaging 45 minutes for the hour-long program, you’re still looking at more than 18000 minutes or more than 300 hours). If you compare Crabbe’s career with that of, say, Humphrey Bogart, Crabbe’s number of films would put Bogey’s to shame but, then again, Bogey starred in more full-length feature films and I seriously doubt anyone’s really going to hold that any of Crabbe’s work as Billy the Kid or Billy Morgan is really comparable to Bogey’s work in “Casablanca,” “The Maltese Falcon,” “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,” or “High Sierra,” and while the characters of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers may be fairly iconic, Bogey’s work from the mid-to-late 1930s is far more compelling (then again, there was the fact that Crabbe’s work was done on the quick and cheap compared to Bogey’s).
I’m glad you’re enjoying your premium IMDB account.
Actually, with regards to Harrison Ford, he didn’t really “handle” both Han Solo and Indiana Jones. If you look back at Ford’s film credits, he appeared in “Empire Strikes Back” which was released in 1980. Then, “Raiders of the Lost Ark” was released in 1981. He then showed up in 1982’s “Blade Runner”. In 1983, “Return of the Jedi” was released (his last appearance as Han Solo) and 1984 saw the release of “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.” Ford, as noted, made no further appearances as Han Solo and the next appearance as Indy didn’t come until 1989. Between the two appearances as Indy, Ford averaged one film appearance per year in a leading or co-featured role (“Witness” in 1985, “Mosquito Coast” in 1986 and both “Frantic” and “Working Girl” in 1988).
And not to begrudge your mention of Crabbe, but you’re really comparing apples and oranges. Most of the characters you list in Crabbe’s credits appeared in movie serials. The Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers “films” ran an average of 20 minutes with 12-15 episodes per story. His Billy the Kid and Billy Carson films average a mere hour each and he only made a combined total of 36 films as those characters in a 6 year period which is hardly the equivalent of later TV actors: Bob “Gilligan” Denver put in roughly 36 hours over 98 episodes of “Gilligan’s Island” and Lorne “Ben Cartwright” Greene appeared in 66 hour-long episodes of “Bonanza” during the first two, out of 14, seasons of the series (Bonanza, incidentally, ran more than 400 episodes–low averaging 45 minutes for the hour-long program, you’re still looking at more than 18000 minutes or more than 300 hours). If you compare Crabbe’s career with that of, say, Humphrey Bogart, Crabbe’s number of films would put Bogey’s to shame but, then again, Bogey starred in more full-length feature films and I seriously doubt anyone’s really going to hold that any of Crabbe’s work as Billy the Kid or Billy Morgan is really comparable to Bogey’s work in “Casablanca,” “The Maltese Falcon,” “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,” or “High Sierra,” and while the characters of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers may be fairly iconic, Bogey’s work from the mid-to-late 1930s is far more compelling (then again, there was the fact that Crabbe’s work was done on the quick and cheap compared to Bogey’s).
I’m glad you’re enjoying your premium IMDB account.
Actually, with regards to Harrison Ford, he didn't really "handle" both Han Solo and Indiana Jones. If you look back at Ford's film credits, he appeared in "Empire Strikes Back" which was released in 1980. Then, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was released in 1981. He then showed up in 1982's "Blade Runner". In 1983, "Return of the Jedi" was released (his last appearance as Han Solo) and 1984 saw the release of "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." Ford, as noted, made no further appearances as Han Solo and the next appearance as Indy didn't come until 1989. Between the two appearances as Indy, Ford averaged one film appearance per year in a leading or co-featured role ("Witness" in 1985, "Mosquito Coast" in 1986 and both "Frantic" and "Working Girl" in 1988). And not to begrudge your mention of Crabbe, but you're really comparing apples and oranges. Most of the characters you list in Crabbe's credits appeared in movie serials. The Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers "films" ran an average of 20 minutes with 12-15 episodes per story. His Billy the Kid and Billy Carson films average a mere hour each and he only made a combined total of 36 films as those characters in a 6 year period which is hardly the equivalent of later TV actors: Bob "Gilligan" Denver put in roughly 36 hours over 98 episodes of "Gilligan's Island" and Lorne "Ben Cartwright" Greene appeared in 66 hour-long episodes of "Bonanza" during the first two, out of 14, seasons of the series (Bonanza, incidentally, ran more than 400 episodes–low averaging 45 minutes for the hour-long program, you're still looking at more than 18000 minutes or more than 300 hours). If you compare Crabbe's career with that of, say, Humphrey Bogart, Crabbe's number of films would put Bogey's to shame but, then again, Bogey starred in more full-length feature films and I seriously doubt anyone's really going to hold that any of Crabbe's work as Billy the Kid or Billy Morgan is really comparable to Bogey's work in "Casablanca," "The Maltese Falcon," "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," or "High Sierra," and while the characters of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers may be fairly iconic, Bogey's work from the mid-to-late 1930s is far more compelling (then again, there was the fact that Crabbe's work was done on the quick and cheap compared to Bogey's).
I'm glad you're enjoying your premium IMDB account.
Is it now considered “cool” to be snide when someone displays their knowledge? Does it really matter where someone got that knowledge from? If it was IMDB, is there something wrong with that?
When someone goes out of their way to post a long, and really pointless, diatribe specifically to show off their useless knowledge, yes.
The entire point of Joseph’s post was to try and prove he knew more than Mike about subjects that weren’t even the topic of discussion.
The entire situation apparently zoomed over your head.
No. I just saw no need to be obnoxious about it.
That makes one of us.
Is it now considered “cool” to be snide when someone displays their knowledge? Does it really matter where someone got that knowledge from? If it was IMDB, is there something wrong with that?
Is it now considered "cool" to be snide when someone displays their knowledge? Does it really matter where someone got that knowledge from? If it was IMDB, is there something wrong with that?
When someone goes out of their way to post a long, and really pointless, diatribe specifically to show off their useless knowledge, yes.The entire point of Joseph's post was to try and prove he knew more than Mike about subjects that weren't even the topic of discussion.The entire situation apparently zoomed over your head.
No. I just saw no need to be obnoxious about it.That makes one of us.
I’m just glad Joe’s got access to all that info. It’s good to know.
Crabbe’s stuff was damn good when you consider the buck and a half effects budget some producers had, and on occasion they pulled out something that blew my mind; one Flash serial had a hard-light bridge, which was the cooest thing I’d seen in any sf serial at that point. The only other place I’d seen something like it was an episode of Crusade, the B5 spinoff; it was cool there, too.
Joe’s right, it really is apples and oranges, but the point is, Reynolds could easily handle both GL and Deadpool. It ain’t rocket science, just acting. And Deadpool isn’t Hamlet. It’s not even Petruchio. He could manage both without breaking a sweat. Whether or not he tries isn’t his call, it’s the studio’s.
I'm just glad Joe's got access to all that info. It's good to know. Crabbe's stuff was damn good when you consider the buck and a half effects budget some producers had, and on occasion they pulled out something that blew my mind; one Flash serial had a hard-light bridge, which was the cooest thing I'd seen in any sf serial at that point. The only other place I'd seen something like it was an episode of Crusade, the B5 spinoff; it was cool there, too. Joe's right, it really is apples and oranges, but the point is, Reynolds could easily handle both GL and Deadpool. It ain't rocket science, just acting. And Deadpool isn't Hamlet. It's not even Petruchio. He could manage both without breaking a sweat. Whether or not he tries isn't his call, it's the studio's.