Green Lantern A Year Later: Was it good, bad, or ugly?

Green Lantern A Year Later: Was it good, bad, or ugly?

Green Lantern got mixed reviews at the time of its initial release, but how does it hold up in Summer Movie Season 2012?

Imagine for a second that it is 2011, yet again and the recipient of Spike's Scream Awards Most Anticipated Movie of the Year Award, Green Lantern, is about to be released. You're a DC fan, you loved Geoff Johns's take on the character, and you might even want to see Mark Strong's take on the iconic Sinestro.

AND THEN YOU SAW IT!! Granted, it wasn't the WORST CBM to invade innocent movie theaters, but it was a wreck, especially after its horrible marketing campaign, the success of another DC Superhero film, The Dark Knight, three years prior, and two other Superhero films released earlier that same Summer Movie Season, Thor (cheesy, not horrible), and X-Men: First Class (very good). The question on everyone's mind was simple: Where did it all go wrong? Where did the idea of a Green Lantern movie from the director of Goldeneye, The Mask of Zorro, and Casino Royale turn into DC's Fantastic Four?

Worry not, for Good Ole Uncle Geektality is here to set things as straight as Tom Selleck's epic facial hair. I will painstakingly dig deep into why, or how, the Green Lantern movie bombed. I will try my best to stay as objective as possible, keeping my opinions out of it and focusing instead on why it failed to attract mainstream critics or score big with audiences.

To kickstart this Superheroic mystery, we must first teleport ourselves to the November of 2010 when the first teaser trailer for Green Lantern hit theaters and video-sharing sites. I would hesitate to call it bad on a trailer standpoint, more of just disappointing. This was attached to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One, one of the most anticipated films of 2010. Hundreds of millions of people were bound to see it. Hundreds of millions more would watch it on YouTube and various other sites. For months prior, reporters, including a good number here at CBM, were on their hands and knees for anything remotely connected to the film's production. It isn't a bad trailer, just not up to par with the movie's huge hype.

This trend of "meh" trailers and TV Spots would continue up until the film's theatrical release, and return for its Home Video release. Again, the worst parts would only be highlighted in the final product. Granted, people should NOT have anticipated this film to meet The Dark Knight's legendary reception.

Fast forward to spring, 2011. News breaks that Warner Bros. increases the budget of The Green Lantern by $9 MILLION to complete the 2,000+ Visual Effects shots in the movie to meet the hard release date of June 17. Normally, with such a large summer Blockbuster, this is not an issue. The movie will be finished. However, just in case, Warner attaches a small annotation to some marketing-related releases stating "release date subject to change," effectively proving that Warner is biting its nails as to whether or not the movie would be finished in time for a World Premiere of June 15, 2011.

Finally, the release. Green Lantern was a HUGE deal when it was released. Toys, a video game, TV appearances, etc. Warner was clearly spending big bucks on this flick, most likely over $100 Million, set in their ways about GL becoming the biggest blockbuster of the year. Heck, even if the movie barely breaks even, Harry Potter's finale would make enough money for them to compensate. However, while Deathly Hallows Part 2 DOES gross over ONE BILLION DOLLARS, Green Lantern tracks lackluster numbers and receives phenomenally mixed reviews by top critics such as Roger Ebert, Peter Travers, Richard Roeper, and Leonard Maltin and scoring a 27% on Internet review tracking site Rotten Tomatoes.

Why (or how) did Green Lantern fail? Well, as mentioned above, Warner was so confident they had a hit, they not only increased its $200+ Million by $9 Million, it also spent an astounding amount of dough marketing the blockbuster, an estimated $100 Million. When it became clear to them that the effects for the movie would not be done in time for release, they just decided to keep the (sorta) finished effects be, while taking a hatchet to the scenes that had unfinished (or flat out MISSING) visual effects, including a large portion of a sub-plot regarding Hal Jordan's nephew, whom it is abundantly clear has a strong bond with his uncle in one early scene, and is never seen for the rest of the movie.

When audiences first saw the early footage of the movie, which sported some terrible CGI and hammy acting, they naturally were deterred by it, opting instead to skip it to see Super 8, released the prior weekend. When they heard that the movie was receiving negative reviews, they skipped the movie entirely.

Green Lantern went on to make over $290 Million against a total budget (production and marketing budget included) of over $300 Million. With both the studio and audiences writing Green Lantern off as a box office bomb, plans for a sequel, teased during the film's end credits and rumored months prior, were scrapped.

Then came the Home Video Release. The Extended Edition Blu-Ray promised to include previously unfinished footage, footage that was omitted by Warner Bros. However, the sad, honest truth was that it included a total of nine extra minutes and sported several deleted scenes. Deleted scenes that would have dramatically helped the narrative of the movie.

Audiences didn't want to buy an unfinished product, which was what Green Lantern was, sporing an Unpolished narrative, Unfinished effects, and unclear direction. The movie could have been so good, and failed so hard. The failure of Green Lantern would lead Warner Bros. to abandon a planned Flash movie, written by Green Lantern co-writer.

Today, in 2012, stacking Green Lantern up against this year's four Superhero movies, it is an even bigger disappointment. Ghost Rider 2, while not a huge winner, won back its budget, though it DID receive a critical lashing from every mainstream reviewer on Earth. Avengers made over a $1 billion and entertained critics and audiences. The Amazing Spider-Man won back its budget in a little over a week, while receiving positive reviews from the Critical Powers That Be. Dc's only 2012 film, and the biggest movie of 2012, The Dark Knight Rises, is tracking to score the biggest opening weekend of all time, while also receiving standing ovations at critics screenings.

Compared to these movies, Green Lantern falls flat, failing to be captivating to audiences or critics. The films was a failed experiment, proving again comic book movies need the heart of a filmmaker to make it a success.

With The Dark Knight Rises on the horizon, this movie's failure is sure to play a microscopic role in the film's success. Truly, this film will sure be forgotten in ten years. With that in mind, I believe it's time to look over the The Dark Knight Rises to judge what constitutes CBM's success.

A.I. - Artificial Ironman: An all original WHAT IF...
Related:

A.I. - Artificial Ironman: An all original WHAT IF...

DC & Marvel Team Up In Awesome Fan-Created Infinite Crisis Video
Recommended For You:

DC & Marvel Team Up In Awesome Fan-Created "Infinite Crisis" Video

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

6of13
6of13 - 7/10/2012, 10:28 AM
There are various reasons why GL failed, but as you clearly pointed out people were turned away from the movie. And as I said in another editorial, these movies are about how much people really desire to go and see them. Unfortunately with GL, the first trailer always looked unfinished which was also true of the film. So with a meh trailer and a fairly unknown character outside of comic book readers/fans, the movie failed because it failed to make enough people desire to go and see it.
AC1
AC1 - 7/10/2012, 11:47 AM
It wasn't the worst cbm out there (although it's certainly in the top 10), but it was the most disappointing.
ThunderKat
ThunderKat - 7/10/2012, 2:30 PM
I didn't think it was bad. It was just dull. There was too much CGI. Ryan Reynolds didn't bring anything to it. It proves how important it is to have chemistry amongst your leads and a villain that has depth and is understandably motivated.
DukeAcureds
DukeAcureds - 7/10/2012, 4:09 PM
Ugly.
TheLurker
TheLurker - 7/10/2012, 4:59 PM
The first 45 minutes or so were really pretty good, but the movie just fell apart after that. Overall, ugly, especially with a fart cloud and whiny egghead for the villains
ManWhoLaughs
ManWhoLaughs - 7/10/2012, 6:07 PM
The film sucked....I thought Reynolds might pull it off but had too much against him, script/casting...just crap
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 7/10/2012, 7:21 PM
@ manwholaughs

Ryan Reynolds had too much against him...like the fact that he's not Hal Jordan in any way, shape or form.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 7/11/2012, 8:42 PM
Extremely ugly, and not in a Tuco way.

It didn't know what it wanted to be and ran through the motions before it had time to make sense or even matter.

Hal wrecking the jet and simulation for no reason. Hal asking the Guardians for permission to do his job when they aren't preventing him from doing anything. Sinestro grabbing the yellow ring with no motivation whatsoever.

It's like a crying child. You know 70% of the time, a child will use crying as a tool to get what they want, whether it is for attention, to get a sibling to stop messing with em, because they are hungry and only want a certain kind of food not commonly available, etc...

No one wants to see that, but the movie doesn't know any alternative and will fake emotions, fake reasoning, to try to pass itself off as the genuine article.

In the end, no matter what, I look at it with disappointment, because Martin Campbell directed my favorite 007 movie, and that wasn't Casino Royale.
NERO
NERO - 7/13/2012, 7:26 AM
Fugly. [frick]in' Ugly.

Green Lanter's cardinal sin was that it disapointed. Not just financially, but in nearly every way as Geek pointed out so well. Failure can be forgiven if the effort to get it right shows through, but Lantern seemed half hearted on nearly every level and that leaves a bitter taste in ones mouth; it disapoints and that is truly unforgivable.
NERO
NERO - 7/13/2012, 7:33 AM
I really think Lanter needs a highly visual director, I think Campbell would have been better suited to Man of Steel and Snyder to something like Green Lanter, but the film would have needed a far better script to prop up Snyder's flair for visuals, but handicap in handling the performances.

In the end its all just one terribly missed opertunity to have had something great. And it kills me to say it because I was one of those people that was really pulling for this film, but within 20 minutes or so I looked over at Mrs. Nero and told her we wasted our money. In the end we both felt it was one of the weakest CBMs, and weakest films for that matter, we had ever seen. Big, big disapontment.
CeltiC527
CeltiC527 - 7/13/2012, 12:13 PM
Hater Gonna Hate Green Lantern Movie
View Recorder