20/20 Hindsight: Green Lantern

20/20 Hindsight: Green Lantern

Welcome to 20/20 Hindsight, a new column which investigates comic book movies of varying success. What worked, what didn't, and why. We'll take a look at some real stinkers, some fan favorites that didn't get much public support, as well as some great movies that I perhaps didn't particularly like. Discussion will flow like water.

Editorial Opinion
By humbleme - Sep 14, 2011 11:09 AM EST
Filed Under: Green Lantern

20/20 Hindsight Green Lantern



Photobucket


The Potential

A child of the 70s, given new life under the hand of Geoff Johns, Hal Jordan, The Green Lantern has risen from a second tier hero to one of the most vibrant properties in DC's stable. It only made sense that Green Lantern continue his rise into the public eye and super stardom alongside other previously second-tier heroes like Iron Man.

Photobucket


"Superman meets Star Wars" was an oft-repeated Hollywood-style mini pitch for the idea of a Green Lantern Movie. How incredible to see all the wonderful constructs of a Green Lantern power ring in live action! How radical to see an impetuous test pilot spin an ancient organization on its ear! How inspiring to see a broken man rise to an unprecedented occasion! All the spectacle of the original Star Wars movies, with all the heart and daring do of a superhero movie. The fantastical sci-fi aspects would set it apart from the other comic book movies and a star would be born!

What Went Right

Photobucket


Well, Mark Strong's Sinestro. Overall, it was a serviceable superhero movie. While by technical standards a weak film overall, it entertained many people that went to see it.

What Went Wrong

...but it didn't deliver Superman or Star Wars to the general audience. "Lifeless Actors", "Bad CGI" and "uninteresting story" came up. One website even lampooned the idea that we should care about Green Lantern in the first place, since the general public didn't recognize the name, and the marketing seemed to ride on name recognition. There's plenty blame to go around, but the prevailing fault lies with the studios and the writers.

We all have heard of 'director's cuts.' They happen because the director doesn't always have full control of their movie in the end. If they're a powerful director, like Spielberg or Nolan, sure, but if they're a mid-level guy like Martin Campbell, they can come to a meeting with their cut of a movie, and the studio can say 'nah, lets move this scene here, get rid of this scene, oh, and do some reshoots, we want some stuff like this.' And the director's contract says they have to do so. Sometimes it works out for the best (Star Wars), but often it makes for a much worse movie (Daredevil) as studios try to cobble a different movie out of a movie that's already been shot. This happened with Green Lantern. The sequence with him as a youngster seeing his dad die, for instance, was a whole sequence, but now it's gone, and you just have a random, almost laughable moment with his dad dying out of context.

Movie studios also want 'name stars' and 'hot babes' in their films. This means if they see a strong cast that won't draw people, their thought is 'why make a good movie that no one will go see?' and so they want people like, say Blake Lively who has a following and is younger and hotter than a realistic Carol Ferris would be, imho. There was no chemistry there, and in interviews, you can even see animosity between them. Not good for a romantic arc, eh? Filling the supporting cast up with incredible talent like Tim Robbins, Angela Basset, Peter Sarsgaard and Mark Strong is okay with them though.

Photobucket


Then you have Geoff Johns, great writer, but not used to writing movies. So we have a lot of exposition as Geoff tries to squeeze a GL status quo 40 years in the making into the first half of an already dense movie. His ability to reinvent villain is staggering, but with Hector Hammond, in his first appearance to the public, did he really need more development than Hal Jordan had? Are we supposed to buy these guys as personal friends, when they just kinda knew the same people as kids, and honestly... is the lesson of this movie, the ring chose me because I'm better? Because that's how Hector was defeated.

Photobucket


Keep in mind, the audience doesn't know a 'bad story' when they see one, they just stop caring about the characters. It's all subconcious. Few people ask "Wait, why is Parallax turning around towards Earth?" or "Wait, what is it that Hammond failed at exactly?" or even "

Where we got Ryan Reynolds trying to act against type from, I'm not sure, but we know who Ryan is, and what kinds of characters he plays. They aren't serious James Bond supersoldier types, like Hal. They're a bit boisterous, even when he's playing an unsure doormat, like in The Proposal, he's still bristling with one-liners, sarcasm, and a bit of pompous pride.

On the CGI, there was an insanely large amount. More than anyone but LucasArts' main team could handle. With that many shots, is it any wonder that they couldn't polish all of it? Having the costume itself in CGI only made things that much more dense, difficult and time consuming.

How We Could've Fixed It

1) The CGI Problem

Well, it is a CGI spectacle, but we need to keep it manageable. Instead of trying to render real human anatomy at every turn, perhaps, I dunno, do a practical suit and let the much more affordable costuming department come up with an alien fabric. Now, it's possible that a green suit will conflict with the green screen, but even at worst, a "blue Lantern" suit can be turned Green in post. Or you could just use blue screen if that's technically feasible. Mo-capping actors for the alien lanterns is a bit easier than integrating mo-cap animation and a real actor's head realistically.

Photobucket


Spend the extra money making Oa look like something spectacular, instead of a barren planet. Compare Oa with Coruscant, heck compare it with Asgard. It needed a lot more set design to be epic. To give the CGI weight, so it doesn't feel like Who Framed Roger Rabbit with cartoon interacting with real people, give us some practical effects, let the constructs seem solid, and then make them so as needed. Feels real, feels more powerful and concrete that way too.

2) The Cast Problem

I like Blake Lively, but she isn't very mature, and that makes it hard for Reynolds to pretend to be in love with her, and it shows. Recast someone like Olivia Wilde. Her skinniness doesn't unfit her for Ferris' part, like it would for a superhero role, and she looks believable giving orders and back talking on House MD all the time. Plus, she's at least as hot as Lively, and still 'young' in body, just not in the head.

Photobucket


For Reynolds, if he has to be cast, slant the part more towards his style. Instead of being a moody pseudo-Spider-Man, let him be this sort of bragadocious test pilot who beds ladies all the time, but is scared to death and won't show it. Let him freeze up more often. Let him hide. Let him have nightmare flashbacks. That way when he faces his fear, it's a lot more epic than if he's just been doing nothing out of fear.


3) The Story Problem

Well, if you write the story to Ryan Reynolds' strengths, and let Hal be more classic Hal than Kyle or Rebirth Hal, you'll be on the right track. You've got Parallax, a cloud villain, and you need to build him up, because he's your climax. That means giving him a bit of mystery, and treating him more like a horror movie monster on a cosmic scale than a comic book character. If he's fear incarnate, he should easily be able to conjure up Hal's dead father, dead squad members as illusions and bring the character's past home. We need to see him eradicated a planet if we're supposed to be scared he'll eradicate ours. The movie tried to use him as the constant threat villain (ala Scarecrow or Joker), but he's not a constant threat to Hal, so he was just kinda out there being ominous, and taking out ten or twelve guys. Imagine, instead, if Hal had overcome fear and become untouchable to Parallax in the end. That would have been awesome.

Photobucket


With Hector Hammond, it's hard to want to downplay him, because he had such a great actor, but for the good of the movie, his needs to be simplified to the constant threat, since he's both present to be a constant threat, and he's terrestrial enough to be a suitable preamble for the monstrous Parallax. Instead of having him be recruited into the government. He could be a government scientist in charge of Abin Sur's body. He could be telekinetically and telepathically ransacking things a mere 20 minutes into the movie. With his control over GL's loved ones, well, the fun writes itself.

After this, taking a more show-don't-tell approach with the Green Lantern Corps allows us to be in on their discovery. Less exposition, more action from the Corps. Let us feel like they're about business, instead of waiting around for Hal Jordan to show up for a meeting. Other Lanterns in training. Other Lanterns leaving the Guardians' tower. Make us believe they're protecting the universe. Make us feel small, in a way, because it makes the universe seem bigger, and it makes Sinestro seem cooler.

Photobucket


With this spectacle in place, backed up by good design and cgi, you deliver on the Star Wars promise, and with Reynolds in a role that fits him that still has an arc, you deliver on the superhero experience, and everyone leaves home happy, even those who liked the movie as it was.

4) The Marketing Problem.

I never actually heard "Superman meets Star Wars" in the advertising, nor got a quick version of who GL is. The premise... imagine you had a ring that could do anything could have been in the trailers. Introduce us to a low Hal Jordan, drinking, screwing up, but still mega talented. Then throw in spectacle that leads to action. Always focus on the character and the ring, some spots could highlight the corps, some the villains. Not so much centering on the narrative itself, as far as Abin Sur and such. Let it seem very simple before you go in the theatre.

Photobucket


Conclusion

Green Lantern is a great concept, that rode too much on its recent comic success that doesn't transfer into success with the General Audience. A few tweaks in the story slanted more towards the silver age and some basic jerk-turned-hero story arcs that Ryan Reynolds is good at could have made the film much better for everyone involved.

But those are just my thoughts. What do you think? Am I way off base? Did I miss something that irked you about the film? Should Ryan Reynolds have been ditched altogether. Any facts that need to be corrected? I loves me some thought out comments.

Photobucket
MAD MEN Star Jon Hamm Reflects On Pitching Role To Marvel And Confirms He Turned Down GREEN LANTERN
Related:

MAD MEN Star Jon Hamm Reflects On Pitching Role To Marvel And Confirms He Turned Down GREEN LANTERN

SUPERMAN: Nathan Fillion On Why He's Perfectly Suited To Play GREEN LANTERN Guy Gardner
Recommended For You:

SUPERMAN: Nathan Fillion On Why He's Perfectly Suited To Play GREEN LANTERN Guy Gardner

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.

BooYah
BooYah - 9/14/2011, 11:23 AM
In the sequel, why not have John Stewart take over the ring? That way you replace Ryan Reynolds but keep Mark Strong. Then just find a new director.
BarnaclePete
BarnaclePete - 9/14/2011, 1:26 PM
Why do people think that Geoff Johns wrote this movie?
MRSV
MRSV - 9/14/2011, 1:27 PM
Mark Strong was the only good thing about this whole mess, and the only way I'd even think about viewing a sequel was if he returns as Sinestro. That said, I'll most likely be viewing said sequel at home, on DVD.

You nailed everything else that was wrong with the movie, though, humbleme--gave voice to exactly my problems with this fiasco.
superbatspiderman
superbatspiderman - 9/14/2011, 1:27 PM
I don't know why everyone is ragging on Ryan Reynolds because I thought he did a pretty good job he starts out as a cocky pilot and then is humbled later on. I like Reynold's humor and every movie needs a little bit of humor in it. I want a sequel with better writing and not so dodgy CGI and Mark Strong needs to stay because eh was absolutely awesome.
Berger45
Berger45 - 9/14/2011, 2:38 PM
I agree with so much of what you said! I thought Reynolds was a great cast to Hal Jordan. The script however was terrible! Green Lantern was the most anticipated comicbookmovie this summer, at least for me and it disappointed the most. The writers needs to get fired and burned at the stake. No redemption in sight for Guggenheim, Green and Berlanti. Green Lantern is a great concept and a great character. Martin Campbell was wrong for this movie from the beginning. JJ Abrams is made for this movie!

Anyway, Mark Strong was great but wtf of a role he had! He needed more, everbody needed more. Parallax was a terrible first choice. They should've gone 100% for Emerald Dawn or Secret Origin, or a mix! Parallax was too big. Reynolds deserves a second chance, so does Strong. And WHAT THE [frick] WAS UP WITH THE CGI???? Whatever FX house Marvel used at Thor should be used for Green Lantern 2!

COME ON WARNER BROTHERS! GREEN LANTERN IS A [frick]ING ICON AND YOU GUYS SCREWS IT UP!
Berger45
Berger45 - 9/14/2011, 2:41 PM
And the after-credit DID NOT MAKE ANY SENSE! Fire the writers, get some real dedicated and bold writers for the sequel, if it happens. Green Lantern needs to be 100% Green Lantern. They must not try to make things too acceptable. Make it amazing and unbelievable. Dont be too afraid to shock the mainstream crowd. To be true to the material is always essensial and Green Lantern was NOT! If I ever see anyone of those "writers" walking down the street in Boston I will through my bicycle at them! I kid you not!
golden123
golden123 - 9/14/2011, 3:44 PM
Geoff Johns did not write the story or the screen play. He was just a creative consultant. Also, The CGI and Marketing where fine and are just victims of blame by fans. Now that I have that out of my system.

The Good:
1)The acting. More specifically Ryan Reynolds, Peter Sarsgaard, and Mark Strong.
2)The romantic relationship. It was beleivable, and much better written than the other parts of the film. The romance was better than Thor's. Do not give me that age difference excuse. Remember Reynolds was married to ScarJo. That excuse just makes me think you were looking for more reasons than you had as to why the was lame.
3)The Climax. I think Marvel Studios (with the exception of TIH) can learn a lesson from this 3-round climatic fight. Besides, I liked how the film made a nod to the comics on how Hal defeated Parallax.

The Bad:
1) Hector Hammond. Not even Peter could save this character from horrible writing. They should have either cut back on HH's screen time and made him some random scientist working for Cadmus, allowed more screen time for the character so we could expierence his backstory and reasoning, or just cut the character entirely and go the Emerald Dawn route on why Parallax (who was also based on Legion) came to Earth.
2)The emotional feel of the film. The jet crash, the nephew, and the Hammonds (again). This is a mark on the writers, by the way, not the actors.
3)Parallax's origin. Completely unnecessary and a non-shocking detail.

@Berger5: The GL film was a mixture of Emerald Dawn and Secret Orign. Read the books just before you watch the movie, and you might (no you will) pick up the similarities in story.
BigK1337
BigK1337 - 9/14/2011, 6:40 PM
Well this is only an orgin movie; the real Green Lantern movie will come once the sequel is made, with Sinestro as the villain and the Weaponers of Qward.
JackDexx
JackDexx - 9/14/2011, 7:33 PM
LOL he's scared of yellow, but no this had no chance from the start. it was obvious it was going to be a cheap shit tricks when they said CGI suits.
Coloso
Coloso - 9/15/2011, 3:27 AM
@golden123, ha! Thor's was short and sweet while GL kept dragging it on. Portman and Hemsworth had onscreen chemistry in spades which you could feel. Reynold's and Lively felt forced and unnatural. You could tell WB/DC tried to attract the female movie audience by how much the story concentrated on those two. Looks like it worked on you ;P
Berger45
Berger45 - 9/15/2011, 3:58 AM
@Golden - It was a mixture but terrible anyway. Parallax being Legion and the Hal from the Geoff John's run. What I meant was that the movie should've stayed completely TRUE to both stories. More involvement from Sinestro from SO and Legion arc from ED. Not some retarded Parallax infested crap. Green Lantern was not terrible but it should've been the best!

Fire the writers. And I still think Green Lantern was better than Thor.
batLanternarrow
batLanternarrow - 9/15/2011, 6:50 AM
Your right Get new writers and GL was better than thor
RunDTC
RunDTC - 9/15/2011, 2:18 PM
great editorial, agreed with a lot.

the good:
Sinestro

the bad:
everything else.

could they have made worse choices for Hal and Carol? only if they chose Hayden Christensen and Maggie Gyllenhaal/Liv Tyler.
golden123
golden123 - 9/15/2011, 2:33 PM
@coloso: Whatever, I don't beleive it takes two days for two strangers, that think each other are odd at first, to suddenly eternally love each other forever. Exspecially, when one of them can have all the girls from his homeland and when he has met girls with very similar qualities (Sif) to the one he fell in love with. I thought the love story was one of the major weakpoints of Thor. Anyways, i would like you to name one overall good comic book superhero movie that didn't have a romance in it.
naterator
naterator - 9/15/2011, 2:58 PM
GL WAS NOT CARRIED OUT WITH THE POTENTIAL THAT IT HAD...AGREED, BUT THERES AN EASY FIX TO THIS PROBLEM 'MOVING FORWARD'. WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN 1 GL IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN GL'S. WHOS NEXT IM LINE??? RIGHT, GUY GARDNER....IN GL2 HAL JORDAN BECOMES INCAPACITATED AND THE RING THEN CHOOSES GARDNER. WE DONT NEED A REBOOT....JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH GREAT WRITERS AND DIRECTORS AND THE REST WILL WORK ITSELF OUT....IF THE SEQUELS TO GL ARE EPIC THEN THE FRANCHISE IN ITSELF IS A SUCCESS. BY THE WAY....MOST SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL FROM THE BEGINNING....LOOK AT DONALD TRUMP.
Mechagino
Mechagino - 9/15/2011, 8:47 PM
*Wikis something*

Yeah, Geoff Johns had like no involvement with the moive. :\
theperm
theperm - 9/16/2011, 2:46 PM
Green Lantern is Power Rangers, anyhow.

I didn't think it was a terrible movie, i was more interested in the father/son relationship between the scientist and the senator. I thought the CGI was good, but only if you watched it in 3D. I remeber being cynical on the trailer, but i enjoyed it when i watched the movie.

Also there is such thing as a Magenta or Fuchsia screen if your foreground object is green. The idea is having a color different enough from the foreground that you can easily drop that channel and replace it with transparency without nasty aliasing. Chroma Keying :)
theperm
theperm - 9/16/2011, 2:49 PM
also, because Green Lantern isn't the most well known character at this time, it would have driven up sales if they released the cartoon FIRST. If Spider-man hadnt had his 90s cartoon he would be somewhat obscure by the time the 2000s movies came out. Iron Man got lucky. It just looked cool as hell from the trailers and it was.
humbleme
humbleme - 9/16/2011, 4:41 PM
Great comments all, just as a note of reference, Geoff Johns talks about how much control and influence he had and used in the writing process in an article on this site.

http://comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JakeLester/news/?a=39666
golden123
golden123 - 9/16/2011, 5:40 PM
@Berger: Thor is better than Green Lantern, but Green Lantern had the superior romantic subplot and climax in my opinion. Thor was just greater in alot of other ways.

@theperm: I'm pretty sure the money that GL made was less affected by the recognizability of the character and more by the quality of the film.
golden123
golden123 - 9/16/2011, 5:46 PM
@humbleme: Apparently, you didn't read the article you posted. You can clealy tell that all he did, to affect the film, was discuss the movie with the writers.
Mechagino
Mechagino - 9/17/2011, 8:08 AM
Well thank you Golden123.

So people trolling about how Johns help wrote it, those arguments are now invalid. Not only that, but people lolling at Johns about GL's script I can say the same exact thing about Avi Arad, Kevin Fiege, or Stan Lee when one of the bad Marvel films comes out and they say they like it, Hulk and Daredevil being the example.
stevepants
stevepants - 9/17/2011, 4:53 PM
I respect this because the writer is not being a total asshole and bashing DC and anyone who liked this movie.


Thor and GL were pretty much the same quality IMO.
humbleme
humbleme - 9/17/2011, 6:27 PM
@Golden123

Keep in mind, discussing things with writers, especially in early drafts, is a large part of how producers and directors control the film. They get paid to do it, and expect their 'suggestions' to be followed, or else more cooperative writers are found. When Johns says it was a collaborative effort, take him at his word. If you do not feel these facts relevant, then we'll just agree to disagree.



Super12
Super12 - 9/25/2011, 2:46 PM
You hit the nail right on the head there...
View Recorder