Okay, you’re not a HUGE fan. That’s what was confusing me, in a prior post sometime back you said you weren’t a fan, which I took to mean you just don’t like the character. You probably just didn’t mean it to come off that way in that past post.
I just feel people letting first impressions with no comic knowledge has been proven to be harmful in the past as that’s influenced bad decisions or would have prevented great characters from appearing. It’s why the X-men were stuck in black leather for years because the filmmakers didn’t want them to “look dumb” to non-readers and now with the 2010’s movies to today we’ve seen how baseless that claim is. There were some people pre-2014 mocking Marvel for making a movie where two of the five leads are a raccoon and a tree, and, well, the rest is history.
Guy Gardener hasn’t even had any dialogue spoken. We’ve seen mere seconds of him. He’s supposed to look “ridiculous”. The dude is generally an egotistical asshole (but not outright villainous, ignoring what one or two shit writers made him consider doing in a scene or two) who most of the heroes barely tolerate. Trust me, there’s highly unlikely going to be a very emotional scene focused on him in this film or others that would be ruined by his hair. Even if there is, I think most people get used to seeing something after a while. If he shows up in a second or third film, I can’t imagine most people would still be hung up over his hair after enough time. At that point, other people are going to be looking sideways at THOSE people who are still talking about it.
I mean, many people’s favorite JLA comic run is Grant Morrison’s, and that’s in spite of that being the era where Superman had a mullet. If that’s the case, I think this movie can survive Guy Gardener’s hair being in it.