Much has been made of the frenzied casting of Hal Jordan, the former fighter pilot who gets enlisted into an interstellar peacekeeping corps and protects Earth from enemies at home and abroad as Green Lantern. For, like, half an hour, it was the hottest role in Hollywood – names like Justin Timberlake, Bradley Cooper, Jared Leto were bandied around – and Ryan Reynolds snagged it. Hot off both his role as Deadpool in Wolverine (which showed he could walk the superhero walk) and Sandra Bullock's love interest in The Proposal (proving his cache with female audiences), Reynolds made sense. Plus, I think he's a decent actor, one who's come a long way from Van Wilder.
But the apparent movement on Green Lantern has me asking another superhero movie question. It's not “How are they gonna explain to civilians the differences between Green Lantern and Seth Rogen's Green Hornet?” or “What's gonna happen to the Deadpool spin-off?” or “Why didn't they give the role to Nathan Fillion, who'd have crushed it?” No, I want to know where that Wonder Woman movie is.
Here's a character you don't have to educate the layperson about, one who has immediate name recognition, and one who still stands as a feminine icon. Plus, she's one of DC Comics' “trinity” – along with Superman and Batman, she stands as a pillar of that universe; a heavy-hitter in every comic book she appears in. Joss Whedon was tapped to bring her to life a few years back, but that went…badly. Since he left the project, it's just been lying fallow.
Money on the table, if you ask me. If you cast that movie right, get a creative team passionate about the character, and put some promotional muscle behind it, the potential is there for a Wonder Woman film to make more money than four Green Lanterns put together. And, not to be chauvinistic, but from a body-part marketing perspective, abs will always be trumped by boobs.
Which would you rather see? Green Lantern or Wonder Woman? And was Reynolds a good choice?