Problem with GL was that it was made by committee. Instead of the director have a real vision that he wanted, the vision of the movie came from all over the place. Writers, producers, studio execs, Geoff Johns. In fact, i imagine Martin Campbell had the least amount of creative input out of all of them.
Every movie is made by committee in a sense. This is not neccessarily an explanation for its failure. Its a buzzterm people throw out when they can't come up with a solid explanation.
The Green Lantern script is quite similar to the initial draft, which was NOT made by committee. There are some changes to characters (changing Legion to Parallax), but they are relatively minor ones structurally and storywise. The designs are largely comic book based.
You're imagining that he had the least amount of creative input, but you don't know that. That seems like a rather silly assumption to make about a veteran director.
And the thing is, all those writers, producers, director, advisors obviously weren't on the same wave length.
Based on what? GREEN LANTERN has a very clear tone and approach.
Marvel, for the most part, all share the same vision, they all GET these characters. And they choose their directors very carefully so that their style and craft matches the character they are working on.
Shakespearian fantasy with intimate family drama- Kenneth Branagh
Old school style pulp adventures- Joe Johnston
Large ensemble which requires strong individuals- Joss Whedon
Epic cosmic space opera- Martin Campbell?!?! WTF?!!?
And this would make sense...except that the space/sci fi/fantasy elements tended to be most people's favorites, and a strength of the film.
I mean, how do you look at Zorro, Goldeneye and Casino Royale... then think the guy who made those would be suited to Green Lantern? It's pure idiocy
No it's not. It's a calculated risk.
You just answered your question. Why choose Campbell? Because of two Zorro films, and two of the better recent Bond movies. A director who had proven himself adept at swashbuckling adventure, decent humor, large scale, authentic action, and getting good performances out of actors. So he should have been discounted because he'd never made a superhero movie or a space opera? How many directors have? To suggest that the visuals in Green Lantern were poor, or that its space elements were a weakness, and that somehow it bears out that Martin Campbell was just the wrong choice for the job is just ridiculous.
There are so many "assumptions" and "groupthink" surrounding the production and failure of Green Lantern, and so much of it is just illogical and absurd.
Yep. But like i said before, I question the amount of actual creative control Campbell had. Especially when it came to the designs of Oa, the suit and the aliens etc.
And what was wrong with those?
Ehhh, i just thought it was an odd choice to begin with. Then after seeing the film I just thought that it was a film made by committee. The director didn't have his own vision and was just along for the ride whilst Johns and a bunch of execs piloted the thing.
"Along for the ride"?
You think Martin Campbell, the director of the film, was along for the ride, while Geoff Johns, who was a script/story/source material consultant at best, piloted the thing?
Based on what?
There are plenty of instances where directors don't handle every aspect of the filmmaking process by themselves, especially on a project as creatively complex as Green Lantern, requiring concept art, designwork, and CGI work. That doesn't mean he wasn't involved fully.
Of course WB execs were involved on some level. It was a $200 million movie about an unproven character.
I can literally imagine conversations where all these artists are presenting Campbell with concept art etc. And Campbell is just like "Oh that's cool, i guess".
Why?
This is in no way a slight against Campbell as a director. Casino Royale is one of my favourite ever movies. But I just don't think he had any vision or real passion for Green Lantern, and it shows.
It kind of is a slight against him. Because you seem to think he wouldn't care about the look of the film.
What do you feel "real vision" and "passion" entails, exactly?
I see a man that put the comic book mythology onscreen with some minor changes. He did not tell the most adult story possible, but he did treat the character with respect. If that's not some kind of passion for the character, I don't know what is.
I know what "vision" is, and there's a very clear vision to the approach taken with Green Lantern. It just isn't what most people responded to.
It's not like THOR is what it is because Kenneth Branagh had a particular vision or that CAPTAIN AMERICA is what it is because Johnston had a particular vision. These are also big movies made by committee in a sense.
