Are there any competent autopsies of the Green Lantern movie?

[DA_Champion]

I'm curious as to how such a comprehensively awful 200 million dollar movie could be made. I've seen an ironclad consensus that it's an awful movie, but never a dissection.

This movie failed across the board, so it makes for an interesting case study.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I should preface this by saying that GL is an underrated movie. It's flawed to be sure, but it's not the creative flop that some people make it out to be. It did a lot of things correctly.

As for where it went wrong, you can pinpoint the movie losing direction when Hal "quit" the Corps and returned to Earth. The movie meandered for awhile, focusing on Hector's daddy issues and Hal's relationship with Carol. It eventually got it's mojo back with a strong ending, but I feel that a lot of studio execs were worried about the teen angst crowd and meddled where they shouldn't have. Had the movie stayed in space/on Oa like First Flight and focused on the Corps, it probably would have been a great movie instead of a good one.

Also, much of that budget was misspent. Much of it went to make CGI costumes that should have been very simple to make out of fabric. Both Thor movies featured numerous scenes and characters that relied heavily on CGI, but they both had smaller budgets. It doesn't surprise me that Warner Bumbles managed to drop the ball with an iconic DC character. Remember, this is the same studio that almost killed Batman as a box office draw in 1997.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Batman and Robin should've swapped scripts with Batman: Subzero and Green Lantern should've swapped scripts with Green Lantern: First Flight

The first GL script was great, idk wtf happened though.

The cgi was pretty terrible too.

Bad and ugly cgi/terrible set design/bad script/terribly acted and written villains

 

[The Endless]

1. The lead was unlikeable and you couldn't even connect to him on a basic level. The "tragedy" of his dads death was like something out of Hot Shots. And why should i care? Just because the story tells me it's his dad? That isn't good enough. They need to SHOW their relationship more. They need to show why his dads death would make Hal grow up to be an unlikeable man child *****e bag. Look at films like Batman Begins or Spider-Man. They SHOW us how much their fathers mean to this kids.

2. The GL mythology was poorly show cased. It's all done in a cliff notes opening monologue with no real explanation on how their powers form or how they work or where it all comes from. We should have learnt about the mythology as Hal does. We then not only see the lead character grow and develop, we see exactly what the Green Lanterns are about. We should have seen them go on routine patrols. We should have seen exactly what they do in the universe. First Flight, a DTV film did this. Why didn't a major Hollywood release with a 200 million dollar budget show us this stuff? This is just basic ****ing story telling here...

3. Poorly conceived and executed villain. We're told Parralax is some civilisation destroying cosmic entity that the Guardians are afraid of. We are also told that a single Lanter, Abin Sur managed to defeat it. Well, how did that happen? We're never shown this battle. How is a single guy supposed to defeat this apparently enormously powerful cosmic planet destroyer? And it looked like a giant space turd with a weird face. And the final battle. Hal goes from some unsure rookie to this bad ass who for some reason is the only one who thinks a star might destroy it for good? Makes all the other Lanterns look like incapable buffoons.

4. The lead characters relationships were poorly developed. The supporting characters were poorly developed. Why exactly does Carol Ferris like Hal Jordan? He's a prick who ****ed up her company and obviously their relationship in the past. Why should we root for Hal Jordan and not Hector Hammond? Hal is a spoilt *****e bag who had the love of his family and friends (inexplicably). Hector is a poor schlub whose own father has no respect or time for him. Who is ignored by Carol even though he genuinely seemed like a nice kid. Sinestro, really well portrayed by Mark Strong. Strong made him kinda believable. But even then, he was poorly developed. And the mid credits stinger was just total fan service garbage. The Guardians? Well, we're told this are an immortal and unquestionably wise race who created the GLC. But what we are actually shown is the complete opposite. They're a bunch of idiotic *****e bags who in every scene seem to not know what to do.

5. The film is just unimaginative and lazy. The way the story is structured is cliche and generic. The characters are pretty much all flat archetypes (well so is comic book Hal Jordan to be fair). And the whole production design just doesn't inspire anything. There just doesn't seem to be any real passion or artistry in the film. Oa looks drab and boring. There is barely any real constructed sets or props or anything. It's all just cold computer calculations.

6. This lack of passion and artistry comes from the director. Martin Campbell clearly didn't give a **** about this movie. He had no passion for it. He had no knowledge of the mythos. He had no experience in making a film like this. The person who thought it'd be a good idea to get Campbell to do this film based on his two great Bond films is a ****ing idiot and shouldn't work in Hollywood ever again.

I'd rather watch Batman and Robin for 24 hours straight than watch Green Lantern. And that is the key here. I and i'm sure plenty of people can forgive a films flaws as long as they are entertained in some way.

Green Lantern can't even do this. On a technical film making level, it's terrible. But also in terms of pure visceral entertainment? It's boring as ****. It's just so, so, sooooo boring.

Films like Batman and Robin are also badly made on a technical film making level. But for me, i can sit there and at least admire the creativity in the production design and laugh my ass off at Arnold's ridiculous one liners.

 

[DA_Champion]

1. The lead was unlikeable and you couldn't even connect to him on a basic level. The "tragedy" of his dads death was like something out of Hot Shots. And why should i care? Just because the story tells me it's his dad? That isn't good enough. They need to SHOW their relationship more. They need to show why his dads death would make Hal grow up to be an unlikeable man child *****e bag. Look at films like Batman Begins or Spider-Man. They SHOW us how much their fathers mean to this kids.

2. The GL mythology was poorly show cased. It's all done in a cliff notes opening monologue with no real explanation on how their powers form or how they work or where it all comes from. We should have learnt about the mythology as Hal does. We then not only see the lead character grow and develop, we see exactly what the Green Lanterns are about. We should have seen them go on routine patrols. We should have seen exactly what they do in the universe. First Flight, a DTV film did this. Why didn't a major Hollywood release with a 200 million dollar budget show us this stuff? This is just basic ****ing story telling here...

3. Poorly conceived and executed villain. We're told Parralax is some civilisation destroying cosmic entity that the Guardians are afraid of. We are also told that a single Lanter, Abin Sur managed to defeat it. Well, how did that happen? We're never shown this battle. How is a single guy supposed to defeat this apparently enormously powerful cosmic planet destroyer? And it looked like a giant space turd with a weird face. And the final battle. Hal goes from some unsure rookie to this bad ass who for some reason is the only one who thinks a star might destroy it for good? Makes all the other Lanterns look like incapable buffoons.

4. The lead characters relationships were poorly developed. The supporting characters were poorly developed. Why exactly does Carol Ferris like Hal Jordan? He's a prick who ****ed up her company and obviously their relationship in the past. Why should we root for Hal Jordan and not Hector Hammond? Hal is a spoilt *****e bag who had the love of his family and friends (inexplicably). Hector is a poor schlub whose own father has no respect or time for him. Who is ignored by Carol even though he genuinely seemed like a nice kid. Sinestro, really well portrayed by Mark Strong. Strong made him kinda believable. But even then, he was poorly developed. And the mid credits stinger was just total fan service garbage. The Guardians? Well, we're told this are an immortal and unquestionably wise race who created the GLC. But what we are actually shown is the complete opposite. They're a bunch of idiotic *****e bags who in every scene seem to not know what to do.

5. The film is just unimaginative and lazy. The way the story is structured is cliche and generic. The characters are pretty much all flat archetypes (well so is comic book Hal Jordan to be fair). And the whole production design just doesn't inspire anything. There just doesn't seem to be any real passion or artistry in the film. Oa looks drab and boring. There is barely any real constructed sets or props or anything. It's all just cold computer calculations.

6. This lack of passion and artistry comes from the director. Martin Campbell clearly didn't give a **** about this movie. He had no passion for it. He had no knowledge of the mythos. He had no experience in making a film like this. The person who thought it'd be a good idea to get Campbell to do this film based on his two great Bond films is a ****ing idiot and shouldn't work in Hollywood ever again.

I'd rather watch Batman and Robin for 24 hours straight than watch Green Lantern. And that is the key here. I and i'm sure plenty of people can forgive a films flaws as long as they are entertained in some way.

Green Lantern can't even do this. On a technical film making level, it's terrible. But also in terms of pure visceral entertainment? It's boring as ****. It's just so, so, sooooo boring.

Films like Batman and Robin are also badly made on a technical film making level. But for me, i can sit there and at least admire the creativity in the production design and laugh my ass off at Arnold's ridiculous one liners.

You've explained how it failed, but I'm interested in why it failed.

There were professionals behind this movie, but from the casting to the CGI to the script, it was a fail all around. What happened? Was there a neurological virus that infected creative? Did a plant for Disney work at WB as a double agent and try to sabotage the movie?

 

[The Endless]

lol hmmm that is a bit trickier.

I think a big reason is they were kind of assuming GL would automatically be a success, for some reason. They basically wanted to get the origin out of the way so they could kick on with creating a trilogy and expanding a DC cinematic universe.

Basically, i think they saw the first GL simply as an obstacle that needed to be hurdled, rather than treating it as a one off film.

I also think the WB/DC execs were sitting in a room and pull Martin Campbell's name out of a hat. Instead of thinking "who has shown suitable sensibilities for this kind of film".

I mean Marvel is not perfect, no where near it. But at least with the Shakespearian Thor Kenneth Branagh makes sense. The pulpy WWII adventure in The First Adventure just screams Joe Johnston (well Spielberg, but Johnston is the cheaper version of him lol). Joss Whedon made sense for Avengers in the way it juggled multiple characters and was basically about a dysfunctional family.

WB/DC seemed to have learned though. As much as i find MoS flawed, i think Zack Snyder was a good choice for director. Hopefully with a better screenplay to work with Dawn of Justice is superior.

 

[Lantern Venom]

You've explained how it failed, but I'm interested in why it failed.

There were professionals behind this movie, but from the casting to the CGI to the script, it was a fail all around. What happened? Was there a neurological virus that infected creative? Did a plant for Disney work at WB as a double agent and try to sabotage the movie?

If you are just looking for the heart of the issue, Warner Bumbles didn't trust the comic book mythos they way they should have.

 

[DrCosmic]

What part of the mythos didn't they trust? They put 200M into what was, as far as surface details go, exactly like the comics, minus the veiny costume.The Endless summed it up pretty well, I think it goes like this:

When a movie exists purely by Executive Meddling to counter Iron Man/start a Universe/etc, then that movie's soul/core is the product of that executive. For Iron Man and the MCU, that person was Kevin Feige, who was mentored under Avi Arad and was in the room to learn first hand about every bad superhero film decision ever, so he knew from experience what to avoid. He's also an actual fan of the comics, so Iron Man had a compelling identity to Feige, and so the movie had a compelling identity when put before people like Favreau, and that identity grew, and then exploded when RDJ was cast and so by the time they do their final draft and start filming, everyone involved has a shared vision for the film. This is what happens with all good films, it's just usually the director bringing the vision to the studio and not vice versa.

Well, for Green Lantern, the vision was: check off all these boxes for a superhero movie, so we can make Marvel money. That's hard to rally around. Geoff Johns and the writers are actually the ideal people for that, but doing well in that doesn't really get you much of a movie, and not anything for other people to rally around. Geoff Johns does the ideal GL for silver age GL fans, but for people who don't already like Hal Jordan... meh.

Martin Campbell couldn't grow that, or get passionate about that. He was just checking the numbers off, which is, more or less, what he as hired to do.

Ryan Reynolds was, in a word, lost. The supporting cast did well because they're frikking award winners. They are all capable of carrying an indie movie all by themselves, if they haven't already. Mark Strong included. They actually could grow the concept of a check-the-boxes superhero movie, and they did, they elevated it. Without that supporting cast, this thing would have been closer to the 10% fresh mark and not so close to 30% fresh.

So, I guess I'm going about it a long winded way of saying the studio didn't ask for a good movie. It was never their intention. They just wanted a successful one, defined by focus-group-like properties. In the end they got neither because their stunts: name lead actors, award winning supporting cast, uber high budget, hot director, didn't come together. At all. Well, Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively came together, but that's not what I'm talking about. There was nothing about Martin Campbell or the script that excited Ryan Reynolds. There was nothing about the script or the character that excited Martin Campbell. So there was nothing about the movie that excited the audience, because there was nothing about the film that excited any of the filmmakers.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

They should have made Star Wars, but tried remaking iron man instead.

 

[The Endless]

Green Lantern was a product. Not a film created with passion and creativity.

 

[DA_Champion]

If you are just looking for the heart of the issue, Warner Bumbles didn't trust the comic book mythos they way they should have.

How does that explain the awful cinematography, CGI, casting, and that all the earth based scenes are horrid.

Think of the scene where Hal's father is dying ... awful. I was in shock at how bad it was.

 

[Harry Dresden]

They probably should've picked a different director for the project all together.

 

[DA_Champion]

They probably should've picked a different director for the project all together.

And a different screenwriter(s), and a different cinematographer, and a different CGI effects firm, and a different cast ...

 

[flickchick85]

The only things they got right were Mark Strong and Geoffrey Rush, and I'm pretty sure that's only because Mark Strong and Geoffrey Rush are always correct choices.

 

[DrCosmic]

Green Lantern was a product. Not a film created with passion and creativity.

This really is it guys. If they had picked a different accomplished director, a Paul Greengrass or a Doug Liman, a different set of named leads, say Sam Worthington as Hal Jordan, and Minka Kelly as Carol Ferris... but that wouldn't give the script any direction other than service a universe. Same with new cinematographer, or special effects house or whatever. And keep in mind, every single one of these creative entities did great work on their other films before and after Green Lantern. How can we be sure that a recast/crew change would prevent the replacements from being struck with the same suckitude?

People say, oh, hire this person who would make it great, but what would attract that person to this property anyway? What would they come and do differently that would actually make the film good. They'd do the one thing that no one at WB bothered to do and focus on a great story, and not just how to set up the DCCU.

 

[Lantern Venom]

What part of the mythos didn't they trust? They put 200M into what was, as far as surface details go, exactly like the comics, minus the veiny costume..

For starters, Parallax is the fear entity that was trapped in the CPB and eventually infected Hal. Contrast that to the movie version.

White circles train for weeks or months on Oa, not one session.

Hal has never shown fear of Sinestro, and he certainly never quit the Corps out of cowardice. When a GL does quit, their ring either returns to Oa or finds another bearer (depending on the various continuities), but they don't just keep it.

A GL speaks the Oath to charge their ring each time, it doesn't just make a "bloop" sound and expel energy automatically.

When Abin is injured (from Legion or Atrocitus, not Parallax) the ring selects Hal by engulfing the flightless simulator in will energy.

Fear/Yellow energy is harnessed and made into weaponry on Qward, not Oa.



Need I go on? WB shouldn't have dumbed down these elements just because some of the GA sheeple might have been confused.

 

[Lantern Venom]

How does that explain the awful cinematography, CGI, casting, and that all the earth based scenes are horrid.

Think of the scene where Hal's father is dying ... awful. I was in shock at how bad it was.

Most of that was fine. Even with the inconsistencies, the movie was mostly positive until Hal left Oa the first time. The CGI was beautiful, the costumes were just a waste of money for Hal and Sinestro. I really liked how Martin's death was handled, and the extended scene on the Bluray was even better.

 

[Rorschach2012]

the script was the biggest problem

 

[jmc]

I think the main reason it failed was because it was made with the wrong intentions. WB wanted their version of Iron Man, when they should have been just trying to make a GL movie.

 

[DrCosmic]

For starters, Parallax is the fear entity that was trapped in the CPB and eventually infected Hal. Contrast that to the movie version.

White circles train for weeks or months on Oa, not one session.

Hal has never shown fear of Sinestro, and he certainly never quit the Corps out of cowardice. When a GL does quit, their ring either returns to Oa or finds another bearer (depending on the various continuities), but they don't just keep it.

A GL speaks the Oath to charge their ring each time, it doesn't just make a "bloop" sound and expel energy automatically.

When Abin is injured (from Legion or Atrocitus, not Parallax) the ring selects Hal by engulfing the flightless simulator in will energy.

Fear/Yellow energy is harnessed and made into weaponry on Qward, not Oa.



Need I go on? WB shouldn't have dumbed down these elements just because some of the GA sheeple might have been confused.

Hmmm... that seems an unfair judgment. Most of those changes look like they were to save time, so how can we conclude they were there to do anything other than save time? Some of them are actually more complicated in the film version. The fact that we have to nitpick details like where the bad guy makes his weapons or where the bad guy is imprisoned, things that every superhero film changes shows that they trusted the mythos as much as anyone else ever has. If you doubt this, make a list of all the changes to the mythos of GL and I'll make a longer list for The Dark Knight, and Avengers and any other superhero movie you call favorite (unless it's Watchmen, cuz, yeah). And, as said before, even if they hadn't trusted the mythos, how does that explain the shoddy CGI, acting, direction, dialogue, set design, need I go on? How does that explain the stuff from the mythos the got right, for that matter? Why have the Oath, or a good guy named Sinestro, or even think about including Hector Hammond if you don't trust the mythos at all? Why hire Geoff Johns and have him working with your screenwriters if you don't trust the mythos?

Don't confuse the thing that may have caused you to dislike the movie as the source of everything unlikable about the movie.

I think the main reason it failed was because it was made with the wrong intentions. WB wanted their version of Iron Man, when they should have been just trying to make a GL movie.

I think it's more textured than that. If they wanted their version of an Iron Man movie, they could have very much had that. They instead chose to include all the elements from the Green Lantern property. They hired their rogueishly charming actor and them had him do everything except be rogueishly charming. What I think they wanted was their version of the Iron Man franchise. They really weren't concerned whether or not the movie itself was like Iron Man in any way shape or form.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Well, numerous scenes tried to echo the quippy irreverence of RDJ. Many scenes tried to be overly earnest like Batman Begins too. Like you said. It was a checklist of elements from acclaimed comic book movies without understanding how and why they tonally worked within them.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Hmmm... that seems an unfair judgment. Most of those changes look like they were to save time, so how can we conclude they were there to do anything other than save time? Some of them are actually more complicated in the film version. The fact that we have to nitpick details like where the bad guy makes his weapons or where the bad guy is imprisoned, things that every superhero film changes shows that they trusted the mythos as much as anyone else ever has..

Eh...no, those aren't nitpicks at all. The Guardians imprisoned Parallax in the CPB because it is an entity far too strong for a single GL to imprison. Moreover, the GotU harnessed will to create order in the universe, whereas fear energy comes from the Antimatter universe. None of this is part of the GL mythos at all.

The movie lacked the courage that First Flight had to tell the story of an ancient group of interstellar peacemakers with distinct personality and outlooks instead of "blah blah blah my girlfriend won't commit" and "blah blah blah daddy doesn't love me". The 2nd half of the movie just reeks of Warner Bumbles wanting to replicate Iron Man dynamics. The problem is that Green Lantern is a space odyssey with a much different feel than the usual "good guy decides to fight crime" story.

 

[DrCosmic]

Eh...no, those aren't nitpicks at all. The Guardians imprisoned Parallax in the CPB because it is an entity far too strong for a single GL to imprison. Moreover, the GotU harnessed will to create order in the universe, whereas fear energy comes from the Antimatter universe. None of this is part of the GL mythos at all.

The movie lacked the courage that First Flight had to tell the story of an ancient group of interstellar peacemakers with distinct personality and outlooks instead of "blah blah blah my girlfriend won't commit" and "blah blah blah daddy doesn't love me". The 2nd half of the movie just reeks of Warner Bumbles wanting to replicate Iron Man dynamics. The problem is that Green Lantern is a space odyssey with a much different feel than the usual "good guy decides to fight crime" story.

FYI, you're assigning character traits like courage and fear to faceless entities and globs of people with myriad motivations, perspectives and courage levels. WB isn't a cowardly person, it's an ineffective system, nothing more, nothing less.

Ra's Al Ghul is an ancient asian former warlord, with no need for doubles, who has power because he's built it over an extensively long lifespan, not because he's f'ing Liam Neeson. Should we even go into the Joker? Was Nolan cowardly? Did he dumb down these characters for the sheeple when he simplified them? Or did he change them based on the needs of the story and time constraints of a film. Should we even start on the MCU villains and how their origins are nothing like their comics counter parts? So unless you're ready to call Feige et al cowards as well, you're selectively nitpicking.

Also, if Green Lantern is just a space odyssey, then why does he have so many earth-based villains, like Hector Hammond, Tattooed Man, King Shark, Black Hand, Dr. Polaris, Puppeteer... Legion is an alien, but I remember Hal battling him almost entirely on Earth. A space odyssey is not the only faithful interpretation of GL, and to make it just a space odyssey leaves out many of his silver age villains.

I think you're giving Green Lantern First Flight credit for knowing it's audience. It was for kids and fanboys, and not many of them at that. It was for a small audience. It wasn't meant to be taken as seriously or accepted as widely as a feature film, so going over his origin in ten minutes is totally legit, because you don't need to to convince kids or fanboy to care about the character, and anyone who needs more than two scenes to get attached to your lead and care about their journey, you don't really need them anyway, because you don't need a large audience. It would have had all the same fans First Flight did, kids and fanboys. I would have loved it, you would have loved it, it would have flopped, like Watchmen. It would have been around 50% fresh like First Flight, instead of 26% fresh like the GL we got, so... yay?

Brutally honestly, this is why the thread title says competent as opposed to emotional. There are dozens of arguments in the other GL threads here about how this unfaithfulness and that unfaithfulness and literary personification of corporations and 'why not First Flight?' but can you imagine First Flight with badly done CGI? With a dull script? With Ryan Reynolds? Would you call a weaponzed Battery instead of a parallax entity or Yellow Corps 'cowardice' instead of time saving? And you still haven't gotten to why they didn't do First Flight in the first place. So not only does your answer not explain what went wrong, your solution only fixes one problem of the many with the film. You've given an emotional answer based on what you liked least, but not an analytical answer based on what went wrong.

EDIT: By the way, your suggestion of a space Odyssey is a very competent suggestion of a great GL movie, but it doesn't really speak to what went wrong with the GL movie we had.

 

[jmc]

I think it's more textured than that. If they wanted their version of an Iron Man movie, they could have very much had that. They instead chose to include all the elements from the Green Lantern property. They hired their rogueishly charming actor and them had him do everything except be rogueishly charming. What I think they wanted was their version of the Iron Man franchise. They really weren't concerned whether or not the movie itself was like Iron Man in any way shape or form.

That's basically what I said. What they should have been done was make a GL movie. I've got no problem with IM being the catalyst for GL getting made, but they were trying to replicate the tone and style of Iron Man not make an actual GL movie. There was no passion from anyone involved with the project for GL, and it was a huge miscaulculation from the studios part.

 

[Uncle Radiation]

You've explained how it failed, but I'm interested in why it failed.

There were professionals behind this movie, but from the casting to the CGI to the script, it was a fail all around. What happened? Was there a neurological virus that infected creative? Did a plant for Disney work at WB as a double agent and try to sabotage the movie?

Director Martin Campbell is very at home with gritty, down-to-earth action, stunts and frantic fight scenes are his forte (GoldenEye, Casino Royale, Mask of Zorro).

Science fiction, CGI, endless green screen shooting - not his forte.