devilshalo

Goldenberg lights 'Lantern 2'
Warner signs scribe to pen comic hero sequel
By DAVE MCNARY

Warner Bros. is moving ahead on a second "Green Lantern," hiring Michael Goldenberg ("Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix") to write the screenplay for the sequel. With the first pic's June 17 release date just under a year away, the move to hire a writer for number two shows a serious commitment to the franchise.

Move comes a few months after the studio tapped the three "Green Lantern" screenwriters -- Greg Berlanti, Michael Green and Marc Guggenheim -- to write a treatment for "Green Lantern 2."

Goldenberg performed a rewrite on the script for "Green Lantern," which just wrapped shooting in Louisiana with Donald De Line producing and Martin Campbell directing. Ryan Reynolds stars as DC Comics superhero who's part of the Green Lantern Corps.

"Green Lantern 2" is one of the first DC Comics properties -- which include Batman, Superman and the Flash -- to move forward at Warner since the studio took control of DC Comics a year ago and rebranded it DC Entertainment, tapping Warner Bros. vet Diane Nelson as president. It brought in a new management team in February.

Warner Bros. announced in late April that "Batman 3" would open on July 20, 2012. David Goyer is working with Christopher Nolan's brother, Jonathan Nolan, on a script for the next Batman installment, based on an idea from Christopher Nolan.

Goldenberg previously adapted "Where the Wild Things Are" and also wrote "Peter Pan" and "Contact."

stingermck

Goldberg74

Add Guy Gardner to #2 and John Stewart to #3 and I'll be happy.

Hokeyboy

Back-to-back sequels always fail. Back to the Future, Matrix, Pirates of the Carribean, etc. all had great first movies whose sequels are comparatively miserable and full of doody.

Just do one good movie. If it works, do ANOTHER good movie. Adult movies

mrhan

Me, too.

dx23

I actually would prefer if they added John Stewart and Guy Gardner to #2 and Kyle Rayner to # 3

MrSmearkase

So... I guess Green Lantern won't die at the end of the first one?

Supermallet

I can see The Matrix and Pirates arguments, but Back To The Future? Really? I love those sequels.

Eric D.

Didn't they do the something similar with Star Trek? If I recall correctly, they were just waiting to see the fan response before they set that one in stone.

Paul_SD

I'm surprised they don't do this more often with franchise properties like this.
And while the ones you list were weak (and yes, that includes BTTF, imo) There is really no reason why this can be done. Dark Knight is a perfect example of a movie that should have been told in two parts. Just about anyone, no matter how they felt about the finished product, could easily see how and where the story could have logically split.

I've long felt these should be approached and produced more like TV shows with an eye toward putting more hours on the screen more often and more efficiently. After all, these spring from serialized subject matter. And it's not like shows like LOST and BSG lacked for production gloss due to the grind of a weakly schedule. If BSG could do twenty hours of an effects heavy show in a year, and at the quality level they generally maintained, these theatrical features look foolish and wasteful in comparison.

Hokeyboy

I guess I'm not anyone. The movie was perfectly realized from beginning to end. Not to say it's a perfect movie (although it almost is), but thematically it ended exactly where it needed to be.

Jon2

Crap, no!

I sincerely hope that GL 2 isn't going to be turned into a "to be continued" cliffhanger, like the next-to-last Harry Potter and Twilight movies.

I just despise cliffhangers and "to-be-continued" non-endings. One of the main reasons I stopped reading comics was because of them.

It's bad enough that nearly every TV series I enjoy employs the despicable cliff hanger ending at the end of each season. What contempt the producers of all these show must have for their audiences that feel the need to use these sort of hooks to get people to come back next season.

Hey, I got some new for these guys! If I like your show I'll be back for the next season.

Jon2

Meh!

I read those stories, but never really cared for these other Green Lanterns.

Except the alien ones.

Tomar rules!

Sessa17

Given the atrocious casting of every single character so far in the first film, if this sequel is a go, then please please please get something right and cast Jeremy Renner as Guy Gardner.

Dragon Tattoo

He's already Hawkeye, though.

The Antipodean

For a moment I read that as Jeremy Piven and I thought that would be the most awesome thing in the history of awesomeness.

Hokeyboy

Jeremy Piven as Guy Gardner... my GOD man! You've discovered Plutonium!!

fumanstan

Didn't seem to matter with Reynolds

Hokeyboy

Reynolds was never Hawkeye!

Mike86

This is cool that DC seems to be committed to trying another franchise with a character that isn't Batman or Superman. I'm pretty excited to see the Green Lantern movie. Hopefully if it does well enough they try for other heroes as well such as maybe The Flash or Wonder Woman.

Honestly maybe I'm missing it, but I don't really see what you're talking about. The movie worked just fine as it was I feel.

resinrats

Really, this guy for Green Lantern?

Paul_SD

I keep forgetting how near perfect The Dark Knight is. And Nolan is such a genius that no one in his right mind can see how it could or should have been improved structurally.

There were two stories being told with contradictory themes and I don't think Nolan either understood that, or if he did was able to comment coherently.

The Joker/Batman film is one story. The seeds of Two-face are planted in this story's conflict.

The Two-face seeking retribution within a very limited lifespan, and Batman trying to stop him is worthy of another film entirely.

I guess people think that Batman wanting to be seen as a murderer in the eyes of the city is the thematic payoff to the conflict with the Joker, but this resolution plays out in a very truncated fashion.

In my eyes it would have been better to see and abosrb the implication of the Joker story- and then later on get a film that builds on that where Batman makes that decision (although I still think its problematical).

Bottom line is, if Dent was a strong character with a good motivation- he deserved to be the major player in his own story.- not the fourth act in someone else's story.

Besides, one of the benefits of moving all that material over to it's own film would have been the time available to see set pieces fully play out and resolve rather than just being abruptly and sloppily ignored.

But you guys are right. Who wants to enjoy more than one good Batman film- especially one that is a completely logical and sensible follow-up?

Hokeyboy

Seriously? Don't be "That Guy".

Mike86

Oh get over yourself man . I never said The Dark Knight was a perfect film I simply said that I thought it worked fine as it was. Was I a little disappointed in some aspects of it? Yes, but overall what Nolan did worked pretty well for my dollar. Two Face could have played a bigger role I will agree and maybe had his own film, but Harvey Dent played a big enough role in this movie. The story was really not supposed to be about Two Face but Dent's downfall and how The Joker wanted to prove that even the best of men can be brought to his level. I guess for me that worked and although he COULD have played a bigger role what was done with him was enough.

Paul_SD

Yes. That's fine. But here's why I think this is really sloppy- Batman functioned in that capacity for that theme.
He wasn't brought down to that level ultimately so the antagonist is defeated in that sense.
But the film doesn't end there. It goes on to show that another good man is brought down- but now we have Batman profiting from Dents fall by taking credit for his actions.
He gets to remain above it all and not get his hands dirty, but still gets to benefit from the fruits of a fallen man's evil labors.
(i.e. his street cred is off the charts now because other villains will think he is a cop/authority figure killer).


But that's getting back into debating the merits/flaws in TDK which was not my intention with these posts.

The context of this discussion was the idea of having two sequels produced concurrently, which many of you seem to object to.
And again, assuming you loved TDK (and I'm not making a value judgment here if you did ) why are you guys arguing that you wouldn't have loved just as much, if not more, 4 hours devoted to exploring this material, over two films, rather 2.5 hrs in one film?
Especially since you would have gotten that second Batman adventure, with a completely separate and distinct plot from the main chunk of TDK, and gotten it within a year. Same story you guys say you were very happy with now- Dent would have still gone on his mission of vengence and Batman would have still confronted himm at the end- but everything would just be fleshed out more fully. More room to explore Dents conflicted/fractured mind, more anticipation and suspense as he stalks his targets, dodges police, and is tracked by Batman.
The upshot to filming several sequels concurrently is that you get a greater consistency of production across all the films- performances are more consistent, characters aren't re-cast from one film to the next, etc etc.

I think you guys are more turned off by the way I present this, rather than whats actually being presented here-I guess I just have to remember to walk lightly on my tippy toes when I'm in the presence of sacred cows

Honestly, no offense meant to anyone- my social skills need some WD-40 most of the time. But it does seem to me like you guys are arguing against your own self interest here.