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

Why Percy Jackson which barely broke even is getting a sequel is beyond me.

Fox is hoping the popularity of the books will still bring in fans to see it (that determine the franchise's future). A big plus is that they have a new director and new writers adapting the material, even if they're keeping the same cast members.

Reynolds is over.

He won't be playing Green Lantern again. He was horribly miscast and part of the reason that the general audience couldn't take the film seriously.

No, just... no. Reynolds and the majority of the cast were fine, but the script did them no favors. At all.

If WB ever makes a sequel, keeps the cast but hire fresh blood to write and direct-- that would make a HUGE difference.
 
Reynolds was completely goofy in the role. The silly CGI costume didn't help him much.

Audiences couldn't take him seriously. It was Van Wilder in space. He brought baggage to the role, as general audiences identify him as the same goofy character in every film. GL did nothing to change that. There was this amusing MTV interview piece with film viewers asking them if they'd buy Ryan Reynolds as a serious action star and the results were amusing.


Someone like John Hamm would have brought more credibility and would have been a more solid fit for Hal.

The script was horrible indeed though. They pretty much got everything wrong with this film, and now the additional DC superhero films are dead.


Are you kidding?

Not at all.

The GL script was fanwank trash.

Comics are a completely different medium than films. Talented screenwriters are required.
 
Last edited:
Reynolds was completely goofy in the role. The silly CGI costume didn't help him much.

Audiences couldn't take him seriously. It was Van Wilder in space. He brought baggage to the role, as general audiences identify him as the same goofy character in every film. GL did nothing to change that. There was this amusing MTV interview piece with film viewers asking them if they'd buy Ryan Reynolds as a serious action star and the results were amusing.


Someone like John Hamm would have brought more credibility and would have been a more solid fit for Hal.

The script was horrible indeed though. They pretty much got everything wrong with this film, and now the additional DC superhero films are dead.




Not at all.

The GL script was fanwank trash.

Comics are a completely different medium than films. Talented screenwriters are required.

Exactly on all points. They might as well have gone with Stifler from American Pie.
 
Reynolds was completely goofy in the role. The silly CGI costume didn't help him much.

Audiences couldn't take him seriously. It was Van Wilder in space. He brought baggage to the role, as general audiences identify him as the same goofy character in every film. GL did nothing to change that. There was this amusing MTV interview piece with film viewers asking them if they'd buy Ryan Reynolds as a serious action star and the results were amusing.


Someone like John Hamm would have brought more credibility and would have been a more solid fit for Hal.

The script was horrible indeed though. They pretty much got everything wrong with this film, and now the additional DC superhero films are dead.




Not at all.

The GL script was fanwank trash.

Comics are a completely different medium than films. Talented screenwriters are required.

Reynolds played the Bruce Wayne/Peter Parker moopyness: "My dad died, I suck at being a hero, why me?" Someother villain could have been brought in. Black Hand, the Manhunters, not Parallax right off the bat and making him look like a knock off version of the FF Galactus.

He should've done a better research on fighter pilots and the role that he was about to play, he's no RDJ nor Bale.

The script had to be written by someone who had zero experience with sci-fi genre. The background was done right, space, the GL Corps, and OA. The Earth settings were just all over the place, the simulators were right, the jets were done right but the first Iron Man was done a hell of a lot better than GL.
 
I really really really wanted this film to succeeed.

My biggest hope though is for a Flash movie. He is my favorite superhero. However, in hindsight, I dont mind too much that GL itself failed. Guggenheim (this is GL's screenwriter right??) had some ideas for a Flash movie that don't see working for a good Flash movie. It seemed like he was more interested in mashing genres (GL = Star Wars + superheroes, while Flash = CSI + Sports movies ?? + superheroes) than in writing an interesting well-constructed story.
 
Cut the budget: WB's is still finding it's way with the DC film properties. The company hasn't had a hit superhero film outside of Batman since the mid-80s.

If I were in charge of these films, I'd divy up all of the characters into tiers. Tier 1 (Batman and Superman) would get legitimate Blockbuster budgets of 150 Million Dollars +. Tier 2 heroes Wonderwoman, Green Lantern, Aquaman and The Flash would get budgets no larger than 120 million dollars. Every other hero would get a budget lower than 100 Million.


Fire Geoff Johns, and find real leadership: DC comics has an incredible roster of superheroes that's embedded itself into our cultural collective consciousness. That said, Warner Bros is clueless on how to reach people with these characters. The fact that Marvel was able to make an Iron Man movie that outgrossed any Superman movie speaks volumes about how much better of a job they're doing making their material connect with the general public.

Geofff Johns is a comic book writer; not a film executive, film producer, or film director. Green Lantern proved he was out of his league trying to steer a big budget summer tent pole. Give Johns his walking papers and find someone with a general sense of film.

Chase after inspired directors instead of safe choices: Raimi, Nolan, Jackson and others who have created huge and respected franchises did so with very little blockbuster experience. Martin Campbell meanwhile had tons of experience.

Cast based on talent: There are many Ryan Reynolds apologists on this board. I think he's at best a mildly humorous actor, and at worst an annoying spaz. I would rather see them go with an unknown for the roles of Flash or Wonderwoman than a fairly known actor who most people don't respect.

I agree with most of this.
 
WB have more than one Flash script with them one is by Goyer, other by GL writers and there is another one.
correct goyer has flash script! no one said that the guys who made green lantern were going to be allowed near the flash film!
 
200 millon green lantern movie was just as bad as the 200 million superman returns! but they are making man of steel so there is hope for a green lantern reboot with smaller budget and a flash film!
 
Sometimes smaller budgets are better. People actually work harder to make up for it.
 
Reynolds was completely goofy in the role. The silly CGI costume didn't help him much.

Audiences couldn't take him seriously. It was Van Wilder in space. He brought baggage to the role, as general audiences identify him as the same goofy character in every film. GL did nothing to change that. There was this amusing MTV interview piece with film viewers asking them if they'd buy Ryan Reynolds as a serious action star and the results were amusing.


Someone like John Hamm would have brought more credibility and would have been a more solid fit for Hal.

The script was horrible indeed though. They pretty much got everything wrong with this film, and now the additional DC superhero films are dead.

Agree with you on everything but Jon Hamm, who's too old and not the right physical type for Hal Jordan, though I could definitely see him as an Alex Ross-style Superman.

Agreed. Restraint creates crativity, that has been proven time and time again.

Bryan Singer has to be the worst example of the opposite tendency. The way he blew studio money in Superman Returns is crazy. Growing your own cornfield? Spending $10 million on an opening sequence and then deleting it from the theatrical cut?
 
Agree with you on everything but Jon Hamm, who's too old and not the right physical type for Hal Jordan, though I could definitely see him as an Alex Ross-style Superman.

He wouldn't have been too old. He had the maturity necessary for Hal Jordan than Reynolds lacked, even though they're only a few years apart. I would have had the Lanterns in armored suits anyway (like in DC VS Mortal Kombat), so physicality isn't a big deal.


Ideally, I would have cast Hamm, Idris Elba, Bradley Cooper and Milo Ventimiglia as Hal, John, Guy and Kyle in the first film.

This concept would have sold better to general audiences with a team dynamic in play, IMO. Plus, the film needed more relable human characters, instead of all those obviously CGI creations.

The team dynamic would have made the film more enjoyable to the GA.
 
He wouldn't have been too old. He had the maturity necessary for Hal Jordan than Reynolds lacked, even though they're only a few years apart. I would have had the Lanterns in armored suits anyway (like in DC VS Mortal Kombat), so physicality isn't a big deal.


Ideally, I would have cast Hamm, Idris Elba, Bradley Cooper and Milo Ventimiglia as Hal, John, Guy and Kyle in the first film.

This concept would have sold better to general audiences with a team dynamic in play, IMO. Plus, the film needed more relable human characters, instead of all those obviously CGI creations.

The team dynamic would have made the film more enjoyable to the GA.

It sure would have been more interesting than the paint-by-numbers superhero movie formula that they used.
 
Does anyone seriously think Hamm could have saved Green Lantern with his build and charisma. The dialogue, pacing, cgi and storyline were thoroughly lackluster. On the other hand, better writers, not writing to fanboys, giving Reynolds the level of material he's been working with lately would have made a great movie, even with Reynolds' baggage. Place the blame where it's due. Miscasting was the least of the problems.

One of the big problems was Johns' new exposition-heavy GL Mythos, that he was so attached to it had to make it into the film. That's a bad idea. Trying to cram four GLs in is hard stuff, unless you're giving them all the same origin, putting them all there in front of Abin Sur - which I suspect is not the goal.
 
One of the big problems was Johns' new exposition-heavy GL Mythos, that he was so attached to it had to make it into the film. That's a bad idea. Trying to cram four GLs in is hard stuff, unless you're giving them all the same origin, putting them all there in front of Abin Sur - which I suspect is not the goal.

It was just handled poorly in the film.



This is what I would have done.

Earth is a prison! The guardians have been keeping a dangerous secret. They've been using Earth as a burial ground for the ancient beast Parallax. A rogue Green Lantern, Sinestro, discovered this truth and waged war on the core with his army of Manhunters.

OA is now a wasteland and there are few Lantern lefts. One of the final survivors, Abin Sur, makes it to Earth to warn the population of Sinestro's imminent arrival. He dies just as he passes his ring on to military pilot Hal Jordan (Hamm).

Using the rings of the dead Lanterns, Hal forms a team of human Green Lanterns to destroy Parallax before Sinestro can gain control of the beast. Architect John Stewart, ex-con Guy Gardner and artist Kyle Rayner are selected by the rings because of their unique minds. The four have to put their differences aside to combat the looming threat.

All out war breaks out as the four Lanterns engage Sinestro and the Manhunters.

The few surviving alien Lanterns (Tomar-Re, Kilowog etc) arrive at Earth by the film's end to assist their human comrades in defeating Sinestro.

United, they destroy Parallax, while Coast City is decimated. Hal is overcome with grief, as the last remaining element of Parallax infects him.


The human Lanterns would be taken to OA by the film's end and honored, as OA rebuilts. Hal becomes slowly aware that he possesses the memories of Parallax.
 
That's a TOTALLY different mythos, as I suspect you know. There's a lot of challenges with that script idea, from dropping an SFX bomb (city destruction) on top of an already SFX heavy film, two apparently unrelated villains, plenty of exposition, establishing a main character, then team dynamic (then questioning it, then correcting it) followed by implying the main character will become the villain in the next one? I don't think your core story is any more filmable than Johns'. It could be done well, but you'd have to get some pretty great writers. Hamm couldn't make that work on his own anymore than he could step in for Ryan Reynolds and make that work. I like the In Media Res thing though, though I do wonder about doing that with a film set on Earth, where there is a disconnect between the way things are after the Media Res, and how they got that way.

I would have done it a bit simpler:

Hal is a guy with immense potential who has squandered his life, can't get it right. Living off family, drinking too much, can't keep his relationship with his boss/girlfriend, but he's good at being a pilot, though he's a bit lit when he does. Gets this space cop ring and speech, warned a trainer will be coming, abuses his power and gets pwned by Hector Hammond/Legion/Whatever Harbinger of Parallax You Want. Meanwhile, Parallax builds in the background on a path to Oa which happens to go through Earth. Sinestro appears to train Hal, recover information, lets him know that Parallax is coming, a being that is raw fear incarnate. Hal goes to the Guardians to seek help, we get glimpses of how busy and cool the Green Lanterns are, the Guardians refuse to see him, he barges in, they won't help, he goes back to Earth and has to get his stuff together, from the girlfriend, to the piloting/his job, to his family, and he masters willpower. With his closest confidant (probably Carol) we get to the bottom of his fear, and why he fears being successful. He doesn't want to overrun and tarnish the memory of his old man. Of course, the Parallax arrives, wipes out some people in epic disaster movie fashion, Hal powers up, perhaps some help from Carol in a jet, or Tom with the drones or something, and basically overcomes fear completely, making himself invincible to Parallax, making the people who see the event less afraid, throwing the monster off balance, at which point Hal, in a airplane construct totally outflies, out guns and outshines Parallax, leading him away from his target until he uses some Chekov's Gun to finish it off.

Basically, like the film, but with character interaction instead of heady Corps exposition and focus on Oa, but more focus on making him a superhero, and the relationships with his friends and family, and his development.
 
That's a TOTALLY different mythos, as I suspect you know. There's a lot of challenges with that script idea, from dropping an SFX bomb (city destruction) on top of an already SFX heavy film, two apparently unrelated villains, plenty of exposition, establishing a main character, then team dynamic (then questioning it, then correcting it) followed by implying the main character will become the villain in the next one? I don't think your core story is any more filmable than Johns'. It could be done well, but you'd have to get some pretty great writers. Hamm couldn't make that work on his own anymore than he could step in for Ryan Reynolds and make that work. I like the In Media Res thing though, though I do wonder about doing that with a film set on Earth, where there is a disconnect between the way things are after the Media Res, and how they got that way..

Reynolds being cast would hurt the film's credibility regardless. Green Lantern is a hard concept to sell, but with someone as goofy as Reynolds... pubically known for his comedic roles...it really doesn't help.

Campbell's script did nothing to help either, but it's clear Reynolds was cast because they were going the goofy direction with Hal. Ryan was pretty much hired to play Ryan Reynolds in space... that was a huge problem.


As far as the SFX challenges for my concept, it would take place on Earth. We wouldn't have the OA scenes with the CGI alien Lanterns that didn't work in the Campbell movie. OA would be a wasteland anyway, almost post-apocalyptic.

It would be the 4 Lanterns VS the Manhunters; machines akin to Terminator robots.

It would allow for more practical effects. The Lanterns would also wear LED armored suits, instead of CGI-ed costumes.

CGI would mainly be utilized for contructs.


The character introduction and exposition stuff isn't challenging. There's basically one main character (Hal) and five secondary characters (Carol, John, Guy, Kyle,and Sinestro).

And Sinestro wanting the Parallax power of fear is what connects those two villains. Campbell's GL film was going that route too, they just wasted Sinestro in the film, instead of establishing him as the villain early on.

There's really no use trying to play Sinestro off as a good guy. The audience isn't that stupid. The film should have had him as THE main villain from the start, just as STAS introduced him as an existing threat to the core.
 
I mean, I'm glad you've thought it through, but you have four different people all demonstrating the powerset as they learn, that's CGI on top of CGI. Manhunters aren't like Terminators, you can't put a person there and then give them a patch of metal 'underskin' from bullet damage. Even with practical suits, you're talking a lot of CGI. It's not like X-Men where your secondary characters have simple powers like 'red lasers' 'weather control' and 'telekinesis' where they can use their power once or weakly and so on. Presumably they all have the same power, so if John Guy and Kyle aren't also fly and making constructs, they look like sucky pointless GLs. It's a lot of SFX.

Introducing that kind of ensemble cast while at the same time introducing an entire mythos IS challenging, and there are few who attempt, and fewer (if any) who succeed.

You do make a good point, Sinestro is obviously a villain. But he's a villain with a lot of pathos and such, and without any of that buildup he's also wasted. There's a balance, I'm sure, but films like Training Day and Thor are great models for bad guys who are on the same side as the good guys.
 
CGI constructs aren't that complex. They're light projections, so they aren't being animated to look real like physical objects. It wouldn't be a huge challenge to animate them for four characters.

Campbell's film had a budget of 200+ million, but it spent it on all the wrong places; CGI Oa, CGI suit and mask, CGI alien Lanterns, etc

None of which looked convincing, it looked like a PS2 game.

Using that budget differently, there would have been room to pull off what I suggested.

As far as Sinestro goes, I would have gone the direction of having him as an established villain from the start without pathos.. like the Joker. I don't buy that general audiences can see him as anything but a villian, especially with his name and evil porn stache. I'd attempt to make him as threatening and scary as possible.
 
As Alonzo or Loki, would audiences have any need to buy them as a non-villain? Joker does have pathos because of the way he does things, and the hints of his mundane origin, and putting him as somewhat of a protagonist in the intro bank robbery. An already villain Sinestro doesn't have that, you have to explain the GLC and the Guardians before anyone cares about Sinestro as a villain, and by then it's too late. Or you could make him Sinestro in name only, a motivationless soulless creature of destruction. An example of a villain without pathos would be the Scarecrow: a villain from the start, motivation not important. Is that what you want from Sinestro, being a side-villain not worthy of the climactic moment because no one cares about him that much?

CGI constructs that are supposed to interact with the physical world are complex, even if they're not detailed (and to not look cartoony, I think the film got the level of detail right), it's not cheap, and is as much of a challenge as Campell's CGI aliens in a CGI background (though the end product would likely look better). I suppose you could indeed do it with 200M, but I don't think that's a good budget for an untested property.
 
As Alonzo or Loki, would audiences have any need to buy them as a non-villain? Joker does have pathos because of the way he does things, and the hints of his mundane origin, and putting him as somewhat of a protagonist in the intro bank robbery. An already villain Sinestro doesn't have that, you have to explain the GLC and the Guardians before anyone cares about Sinestro as a villain, and by then it's too late. Or you could make him Sinestro in name only, a motivationless soulless creature of destruction. An example of a villain without pathos would be the Scarecrow: a villain from the start, motivation not important. Is that what you want from Sinestro, being a side-villain not worthy of the climactic moment because no one cares about him that much?.

Pretty much, considering I'm setting Hal Jordan up to be the pathos-driven villain. For Sinestro to have gone through the same motions would just make the Hal/Parallax story into redux.


CGI constructs that are supposed to interact with the physical world are complex, even if they're not detailed (and to not look cartoony, I think the film got the level of detail right), it's not cheap, and is as much of a challenge as Campell's CGI aliens in a CGI background (though the end product would likely look better). I suppose you could indeed do it with 200M, but I don't think that's a good budget for an untested property

That's the nature of the business. It's difficult to keep the budget down on a property like this. The production budget was over 200M, even getting extra millions in the last few months before release because of all the CGI issues.

The budget including advertising for GL was reported to be 400 Million + ..... It was a collossal failure when taking that into account. Which is why, IMO, it has single-handedly buried all the DC superhero films that aren't Batman and Superman.
 
That's the nature of the business. It's difficult to keep the budget down on a property like this. The production budget was over 200M, even getting extra millions in the last few months before release because of all the CGI issues.

No, the extra 9 million wasn't to fix anything, it was to add in the opening scene with the 3 aliens and Parallax that got cut early on and the after-credits scene.
 
What do you guys think of this statement?

http://***********/#!/ScottMendelson/status/161507253751521282

Post_WATCHMEN/AVATAR, Fox and WB switched. WB micromanages, Fox gave us RotPotA, FIRST CLASS.
 
^^ Fox has improved a lot and WB execs have tried to influence some movies like Jonah Hex and GL but not all, WB is still making good movies where many directors have creative freedom, so comment is not an accurate observation.
 
What do you guys think of this statement?

http://***********/#!/ScottMendelson/status/161507253751521282

It doesnt surprise me, I used to hate Fox but the last few years they have brought themselves back big time. Predators, A-Team and then especially Rise and First Class. WB has been rumoured to have tampered with a few movies lately.

^^ Fox has improved a lot and WB execs have tried to influence some movies like Jonah Hex and GL but not all, WB is still making good movies where many directors have creative freedom, so comment is not an accurate observation.

They also messed with Clash Of The Titans and I believe one other, might have been Immortals. Its stupid though, its like their meddling has produced good results, Clash made a profit but it was a poor film and JH and GL were both terrible and average at best respectively, and both did poor at the BO.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"