What is the future of DC films after the failure of "Green Lantern"?

[Bruce_Begins]

Originally Posted by chiefchirpa

Generalization were made when GL, Cap, and Thor were all put in one bucket called "average". Thor and Cap should have been thrown into a bucket called "above average" or at worst "average" like any 50% or above RT scored films. GL with a sub 50% score in RT, should have succinctly been put in the "below average" bucket. Not limited budget bad like Elektra and Catwoman, just below average thanks to $200 million budget and some actors it gotten.

Rotten Tomatoes Tomato meter is not really reliable for comic book movies.

Originally Posted by chiefchirpa

I mean these critics are mostly unbiased toward any comics and they judge solely on the quality of the movies, stories and acting. Mostly they don't fudge scores because they're familiar with the comic lore and all. Thor is well liked because of the charismatic acting of lead roles. Cap is well liked because of the "not just a soldier, but a good man" theme. What's to like in GL from the view of someone uninitiated to the DC universe?

The Critics were clearly biased against Green Lantern movie for some reason, I can understand them not liking the movie and finding flaws, but many were citing ridiculous reasons (often conflicting reasons) for Not liking the movie.

[chiefchirpa]

Originally Posted by Bruce_Begins

Rotten Tomatoes Tomato meter is not really reliable for comic book movies.



The Critics were clearly biased against Green Lantern movie for some reason, I can understand them not liking the movie and finding flaws, but many were citing ridiculous reasons (often conflicting reasons) for Not liking the movie.

Forget the RT meter, but the general consensus of movie critics have indicated that GL is a subpar movie. It's not tightly edited and plot-wise is not something to be proud of.

You can say they're biased or not, but so are we. We're even more biased to our pastime than they are toward all superhero movies.

[The Guard]

Biases aside, it is pretty disappointing that Green Lantern didn't do so well. I've seen it about ten times now. There's not really any bad acting to speak of in it, though Tim Robbins comes across as a bit bewildered, and maybe a smidge over the top. Nor are the effects particularly suspect. I'm not seeing that in the least.

I'm starting to think that people were just disappointed in general that it wasn't one of the best superhero movies ever made, and not quite as good as the other superhero movies that came out this past Summer, and have started making stuff up about its elements to justify their dislike of the movie. If you don't like the movie because it fell short in some ways, such as not having a terribly interesting or relevant villain in Hammond, fine. Don't start in with this "Every aspect of the film was crap" nonsense.

It's a fairly entertaining movie. It has a nice basic message. It gets the basics of Green Lantern lore right. Could it have been better written? Sure. Is it "poorly" written? No. It's a bit safe, and a bit generic, and a bit paint by numbers, and it was always going to be, as so is the mythology its based on. Most superhero movies are, past their basic concepts, especially the origin films.

But there's a lot to like about it.

And I simply don't understand complaining about Hal Jordan being portrayed as a little selfish, reckless and socially awkward in the film.

That's. The. Freaking. Character. He CHANGES from that, into something better. That's the character arc he has.

You're not supposed to like him at first. You're supposed to recognize he has charm and talent, but that he's wasting his life a bit, despite his natural talents and ability to think outside the box. You're supposed to like him more when he decides to be a hero and put those parts of himself to work. Think he's not as deep as Batman or Iron Man, or Thor or Captain America? Guess what. Green Lantern isn't. Never has been. Interesting, yes. Cool, yes. Emotional? Sure. Relevant, sort of. Terribly deep? No. Green Lantern may be the simplest concept DC comics has, and the movie reflected that, because it was a fairly faithful adaption.

Hal does not "suddenly become a hero" just because Carol talks to him. The seeds of heroism are shown to be in him from the beginning, as he clearly has a lot of courage and the ability to think quickly. It is also shown by him going to Abin Sur's aid.

He suddenly becomes a hero to save Ferris Air from Hammond's helicopter disaster. You know, the kind of thing heroes do. He continues being a hero because he realizes that despite his apprehensions, he is capable of it with the ring. He realizes he can overcome fear because of Carol's talk. This is kind of a big deal, and somewhat relevant, because there's a giant fear monster preparing to ravage Coast City when they have this discussion, and he has just gotten a taste of this infectious fear after his battle with Hector. I just can't consider this a weakness of the script. I'm pretty sure I'd need to be given a bit of a pep talk in that kind of a scenario, too.

A hero being helped to a realization about themselves is nothing new. First, this kind of thing happens in the real world all the time. Second, the same thing happens in the Batman franchise, in the Superman movies, and the Spider-Man and X-Men ones. Personally, I like that conversation because it makes Carol that much more significant in Hal's mythology, and that much more in his corner.

I really find Hal and Thor's conflicts and their resolutions similar. They both spend about as much time "lost" on Earth before they come back around. And I don't really think Steve Rogers HAS much character conflict after he changes. Just some minor missteps with women.

Finally, I'm incredibly tired of hearing that Green Lantern should have been DC's Star Wars. Just like STAR WARS, it should BUILD to that point. But not neccessarily in the first film. It has to get there first. The origin of Hal Jordan is how it has almost always started. We were given a taste of the scale of the Corps. Just because its full potential wasn't seen, I can't consider that a failure. It was clearly referenced and acknowledged.

[The Morningstar]

He didn't have a character arc. He went from A-C instead of A-B-C.

And obviously the character didn't appeal to the people that matter, the non comic readers.

[The Guard]

Sure he did. Since you insist on ABC, I'll break it down.

A. In the beginning of the film, Hal is kind of a loser. He's selfish, arrogant, but with a lot of talent and potential that isn't being used and reached. He takes huge risks, because he wants to win due to his selfishness and thoughtlessness, and because he's trying to buck authority and maintain his individuality and choice of lifestyle. But he still gives in to fear in the end, almost dying because of it. He is doubtful about his ability to maintain a relationship with Carol, and seems to have loose attachments with women. He voices these concerns with Carol in their first bar scene together, where he apparently rediscovers his feelings for Carol, but admits he is afraid of screwing up with her. He won't talk about his insecurities or his weaknesses though, and chooses to run rather than to open up to her.

B. Hal finds Abin Sur and gets the ring and the lantern. Hal realizes he has powers. He is initially somewhat baffled, and maybe a little afraid, but he manages to overcome that trepidation (fear), and as he is introduced to the wider universe, he considers becoming part of the Green Lanterns, where he would lose some of his individuality and have to submit to a a larger authority (The Guardians). He's growing a little less selfish, because now he realizes there are bigger things than him out there. He seems to like the idea of being a hero, relishes it, but with some arrogance. Because of this, Hal gets smacked down by first Kilowog and then Sinestro, and his main conflicts, fear and his arrogance, and his subsequent hidden insecurities, rear their ugly head. He stumbles here. This is pretty normal in character development. It's the first major test. At this point, Hal is afraid to use his ring or join the Lanterns, and his great insecurities, which have only been hinted at thus far, are fully revealed. However, he takes a step toward overcoming his fear and becoming less selfish when he uses his powers to save the party from Hector. He's relatively unnopposed, but he still saves the day. He begins to relish what he can do, and shares it with Tom. He also reaches out to Carol and opens up a bit, which he was unable to do before. He also seems to have stopped sleeping with nameless blonde women, and to be almost ready to commit to a relationship with Carol. Hal takes a further step toward being responsible with his power when he tries to rescue Senator Hammond and the others from Hector. He stumbles again as he faces the fear that Parallax can cause through Hector, but manages to overcome it in the end. A setback, but he's learning, though shaken by the experience. Afterward, Hal becomes even more open with Carol, and now admits he is afraid. He can talk about his weaknesses and insecurities now.

C. Realizing the stakes, Hal decides to do the responsible, mature thing, and submits to authority. Hal asks The Guardians if they will save Earth. Hal, instead of just doing his own thing, has found a balance between recklessness and responsibility, and individual action VS obedience to authority. He tries to get them to agree to get involved. When The Guardians refuse, he demonstrates the willingness to sacrifice himself to protect The Earth. On Earth, Hal says goodbye to Carol, knowing he may not come back. He reveals his feelings for her. He is no longer the selfish, arrogant man who hides his feelings and insecurities, but rather admits them and faces them head on. But he has one more conflict to resolve: Fear. And so, Hal, facing the embodiment of fear, faces down Parallax, gets tested there too, and overcomes great fear by defeating Parallax.

So he went from being a selfish, reckless, insecure *******, to being selfless and willing to sacrifice for others and face his insecurities instead of run from them, and having consideration for other people's feelings. Relatively gradually. I feel like that's a pretty decent character arc.

And that's all the arc Hal has ever really had. He is who he is, he gets a magic ring, and he becomes a better person with that potential and the help of his friends, but is still who he was, just a little better morally speaking. I can't tell you why it didn't appeal to people. Ryan Reynolds is popular, and magic rings are cool.

[DrCosmic]

Green Lantern really had one glaring flaw, it didn't bring the average viewer along for the ride. Many people lost their emotional attachment from the opening exposition, and still more with the pseudo-combat flight (no real stakes) and sudden (and thus jarring) flashback, and still more with the complex extended family relationships shoved into literally ten seconds followed by him having a father-son chat with his nephew, who is never seen again. By the time he gets his powers, most people didn't care about Hal, and even fewer feel like he's 'earned' them. Most people also don't understand that aspect of their own perception, and so to explain and justify why they didn't like the movie, they find all the flaws and double underline them.

Critqueing an honest criticism doesn't seem productive. You can't make people like the GL movie. Yes it's true that it was made sport of, and critiqued excessively harshly. Kinda like fanboys talk about Disney. That doesn't mean that it was a good film, or that people, in general, liked it.

[Thundercrack85]

I'm not sure if I saw the same movie as other people. The cringe worthy scenes with Hal and Ferris? The terrible dialogue... The comically cliche way Hal saw his dad die... That's just the first things that come to mind.

This was not a good movie. True, Green Lantern isn't the easiest franchise to turn into a live action movie, but they can certainly do better than this.

[hopefuldreamer]

I think that in principal, the character arc was there... It just wasn't written well.

For me, that was THE big problem with the film.

I think the cast would have been fine, I think the overall plot would have worked, and it looked great in places.

But it was sooooo badly written. It was full of cliches and felt much more like a kids film than any Superhero film so far. Not to mention stinkers like the infamous 'I know, right?'. I mean, is it a wonder no one took the film seriously?

I mean, I liked the film. But as a piece of kids entertainment - not as something of any quality.

[Thundercrack85]

Yes, but even kids can appreciate good writing.

The real issue is that they could have done a lot more with the characters given. Like take Abin Sur, instead of having him drop dead, have Hal try to save him, give them a few scenes together. Show the tragedy and Hal's sense of responsibility. We don't care about Abin Sur because we barely got to know him. Things like that.

Everything felt rushed, when they (the writers) had all the time in the world.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Yes, but even kids can appreciate good writing.

The real issue is that they could have done a lot more with the characters given. Like take Abin Sur, instead of having him drop dead, have Hal try to save him, give them a few scenes together. Show the tragedy and Hal's sense of responsibility. We don't care about Abin Sur because we barely got to know him. Things like that.

Everything felt rushed, when they (the writers) had all the time in the world.

Yeah agreed.

They wasted a lot of the time too.

For example, personally I could have done without the whole plane demonstration scene and everything to do with it.

There are much better ways they could have dealt with his issues about his dad's death IMO.

And I think they spent a bit too much time on Hector as well.

[bonoferox]

I was really hoping the movie would have been a great introduction to GL for my girlfriend, but she fell asleep after the first few minutes. I can't say I blame her. I was hoping for the brilliance Martin Campbell gave us with 'Mask of Zorro' but walked out feeling like I saw his 'Legend of Zorro'.

[cronosred]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Yes, but even kids can appreciate good writing.

The success of the Transformers and Alvin and the Chipmunks movies show people don't need great or even good writing to give studios their money.

[cronosred]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

But it was sooooo badly written. It was full of cliches and felt much more like a kids film than any Superhero film so far. Not to mention stinkers like the infamous 'I know, right?'. I mean, is it a wonder no one took the film seriously?

As opposed to the "good people of Gotham" or "you always fear what you don't understand" gems from Batman Begins?

[UltimateDCFan]

I'm just going to stick at it and say they really should make a Flash movie. If they were to make a new Superman movie I would love to see a new villain. I wouldn't want to see a Flash movie do as bad as the Green Lantern movie though. Flash deserves better!

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by cronosred

The success of the Transformers and Alvin and the Chipmunks movies show people don't need great or even good writing to give studios their money.

Yes, but will anyone remember those movies?

[cronosred]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Yes, but will anyone remember those movies?

Considering they keep bringing in alot of money which ensures sequel after sequel I'd say it's a safe bet people will remember them for a while. Heck, there's loads of bad movies people remember from years and years ago.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by superion

I don't see much hope for Green Lantern and any comparison to Cars is a stretch. Cars was still a hit in theaters ($461 million worldwide gross to $120 million budget) and Cars was a billion dollar licensing franchise.

While Cars was a financial success for Disney it was still one of Pixar's weakest film financially and critically. Cars 2 was made due to Cars being a billion dollar licensing franchise and for that reason only.

Has DC really made much money from licensing GL.

I think Green Lantern is one of DC's more profitable brands, even with the failure of the Green Lantern movie. The Green Lantern: The Animated Series pilot had good ratings. The Green Lantern comics are some of the best selling comics in the industry. The Green Lantern logo sells very well on t-shirts and whatnot.

[DrCosmic]

Originally Posted by UltimateDCFan

I'm just going to stick at it and say they really should make a Flash movie. If they were to make a new Superman movie I would love to see a new villain. I wouldn't want to see a Flash movie do as bad as the Green Lantern movie though. Flash deserves better!

Agreed.

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

Yeah agreed.

They wasted a lot of the time too.

For example, personally I could have done without the whole plane demonstration scene and everything to do with it.

There are much better ways they could have dealt with his issues about his dad's death IMO.

And I think they spent a bit too much time on Hector as well.

This is the one that killed me. Even going in with low expectations and my brain off I couldn't help but notice they were spending an awful lot of time on the secondary villain. Goodnight! But yeah, the arc could have been handled better, even if all the parts were there.

Originally Posted by cronosred

As opposed to the "good people of Gotham" or "you always fear what you don't understand" gems from Batman Begins?

I think those lines worked because of the context and delivery. I mean, Tom Wilkinson was schooling Bruce Wayne, a cliche was appropriate, you can't really scoff at that, or take that lightly. GL's lines held no such gravitas.

[cronosred]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I think those lines worked because of the context and delivery. I mean, Tom Wilkinson was schooling Bruce Wayne, a cliche was appropriate, you can't really scoff at that, or take that lightly. GL's lines held no such gravitas.

For me they didn't work, I don't care whose writing it or saying it, bad dialogue is bad dialogue. I liked Batman Begins alot but some of the dialogue made me cringe.

[superion]

Green Lantern was just freaking boring. When I watched it on Blu-Ray I was bored to death through the first 45 or so minutes. It got better later on but even the action scenes at the end were rather dull.

Plus I had already seen a lot of the ending because they had released so much footage of the movie over the internet before it premiered to counter the bad publicity it was getting.

[arman200]

Originally Posted by superion

Green Lantern was just freaking boring. When I watched it on Blu-Ray I was bored to death through the first 45 or so minutes. It got better later on but even the action scenes at the end were rather dull.

Plus I had already seen a lot of the ending because they had released so much footage of the movie over the internet before it premiered to counter the bad publicity it was getting.

It really was boring. The action scenes were not well planned out, looked bad, and were just too short. It wasn't an easy movie to get initially interested in because the main character was such a quippy, confusing, douche. That whole dogfight scene was just a deal-breaker. The company was stupid for not ensuring they just lost the dogfight, Hal was a jerk for not helping the company and causing the loss of a huge contract and jobs for the city, and the whole flashback sequence intercut made no sense in that context.

[Axl Van Sixx]

Morningstar, totally agree on your characterization of Hal Jordan in the movie, as well as on the overall "mean-spiritedness" of the film as a whole. GL was sort of the anti-Captain America in terms of the hero. Steve Rogers was a physically weak individual with a courageous heart who found himself gifted with incredible strength that brought out the hero already inside him. Hal Jordan was already a well-muscled jock type with a cool job who slept with random hot blond women, but then he got a magic ring that endowed him with incredible superpowers - and then after maybe one scene he started complaining about it, quit the Corps because of his self-doubt, etc.

Add to that the fact that the villain in GL was a balding, bespectacled, socially awkward nerd who was jealous of Hal for getting all the girls, and you have to wonder what the producers of GL were thinking. The dichotomy between the jock-ish hero and the nerdy villain almost comes off as a deliberate "**** you" to the character's fan base.

[hippie_hunter]

Hal Jordan really only works as being the anti-Captain America though. It really should be a story about a reckless irresponsible man learning how to be responsible, how to deal with other people instead of just pushing them aside, and whatnot. The problem is that the film just didn't go into enough detail to do such things.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

At the end of the day the extended version of GL should have been the version we saw in the cinema, it may not have done much better, or made much more money, but it is a better movie than the theatrical version.

It at least explains Hal's fear, and why he became a pilot after witnessing his father dying in a plane crash which a lot of people were questioning. Flying is Hal's escape from the world and his fear, up to a point at least were his fear overcomes him. It just makes the rest of the movie flow so much better, I think some of the deleted scene's should have been included as well. Namely him confronting Sinestro before he does so the guardians and him saving his nephew from Parallax.

[The Guard]

I think the film version's childhood/Martin Jordan elements, as imperfect as their insertion was, still make it pretty clear that Hal is afraid of what happened to his father, and he overcompensates with his recklessness. Why he became a pilot is pretty obvious. He loves to fly, the risk, the rush, the escape, etc.

Is there anything in the deleted scenes about him using it as an escape? Or is there just more about him as a kid?

I find it hard to believe that that little scene makes the entire rest of the film flow so much better.

Hal Jordan really only works as being the anti-Captain America though. It really should be a story about a reckless irresponsible man learning how to be responsible, how to deal with other people instead of just pushing them aside, and whatnot. The problem is that the film just didn't go into enough detail to do such things.

What kind of detail?