Warner Bros. President Jeff Robinov Talks GREEN LANTERN 2; Misunderstands Why GREEN LANTERN Failed

     August 2, 2011


Now that all big four superhero movies have come out this summer, Green Lantern is clearly the biggest disappointment of the bunch.  Rather than charge into production on a sequel, Warner Bros. was forced to take a tepid wait-and-see approach to the international box office and home entertainment sales.  But Green Lantern 2 is certainly still in the studio’s mind and President Jeff Robinov believes that the problem wasn’t the concept but the execution.  However, the flaws he sees in the execution weren’t the ones that sunk the movie.

Hit the jump for what Robinov said the sequel needs to do in order to “improve” on the original.

Robinov tells Hero Complex:

“We had a decent opening* so we learned there is an audience. To go forward we need to make it a little edgier and darker with more emphasis on action… And we have to find a way to balance the time the movie spends in space versus on Earth.”

None of that was why Green Lantern sucked.  I didn’t sit through Green Lantern thinking, “If only this movie where edgier, darker, and better balanced between the time spent in space and the time spent on Earth.”  I sat through Green Lantern thinking, “How many remedial screenwriting 101 students did it take to scribble this on to a cocktail napkin?”  The movie is a paint-by-numbers screenplay and yet it’s still an absolute mess.  I won’t squeeze in my own review of Green Lantern but you should really check out Topless Robot’s “re-write” if you want a inspired breakdown of why the movie is awful.

As we previously reported Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, and Marc Guggenheim had written a treatment for the sequel and that screenwriter Michael Goldenberg would return to write the script.  However, unnamed sources tell Hero Complex that “Warner will likely make significant changes to the outline, if not start over from scratch, in developing a sequel.”  That would be a step in the right direction.

Hero Complex reiterates that it’s unlikely that Martin Campbell would return to direct.  Warner Bros. were reportedly “not thrilled” with his work, which seems like an unfair criticism.  Campbell is a journeyman director who was saddled with an atrocious screenplay.  It’s the same reason I don’t hold any of the cast responsible.  Nothing in the movie is great but nothing is as bad as the script.  And if WB execs really think the problem was the tone or the balance of time between Earth and Oa, then I don’t have much hope for the sequel.

*Any opening will be decent if there’s enough marketing muscle behind a movie.  Warner Bros. didn’t dump millions upon millions selling and marketing Green Lantern to learn that there was an audience.  It was a disappointment by any metric.

  • Pingback: Warner Bros. President Jeff Robinov Talks GREEN LANTERN 2; Doesn’t Understand Why GREEN LANTERN Failed | Celebrity Gossip()

  • Tarek

    Exactly what I said: Too much green on the screen. ^^

    • toby

      this type of movie they should only off had a budget of 50 mill, it says on wiki they spend 200 mill but with all there ads it was over 300 mill, very poor judgment by the money department on this movie, for the last 2 harry potter movies they only spent 250 mill and between the both of them they made over 2 billion, they knew better then to make this movie but they figure on all the comic book nerds but this was a less then known comic and they knew it

      • Bill Graham

        Toby, get your head out of the clouds. They weren’t aiming this solely at nerds. That’s what the animated films are for. This was going to be setup as a huge space opera with the intention of selling this to a huge audience. If you think they can make a film like this for $50 million, I have some marbles you need to collect.

        This was a big-budget blockbuster that failed to live up to the comics and the budget. However, the product required a lot of special effects. Potter doesn’t need nearly as much, especially considering how much the first film was shot in the woods or just the three of them traveling.

        And you comparing the box office of the final two Potter films, which I guess I need to remind you is the highest-grossing series in existence, to an origin story of sorts for a hard-to-digest comic book character… that’s out there, man.

  • Edward Lee

    I think it’s pretty easy to understand why a property like GREEN LANTERN failed; the comic was born with relatively ‘childish’ powers. And I say this as a longtime Green Lantern comic book reader; I can remember telling all of my fellow DC fans that I couldn’t possibly imagine how this property was going to translate to the screen, and I had no interest in seeing it live. I’ll catch it on DVD because the reviews were so bad. My suspicion is that the endless rewrites to tailor the project to Ryan Reynolds didn’t do the script any favors.

  • WGA observer

    Before the movie went into production one WB exec said that Green Lantern was the best script he had ever read. So either it didn’t translate well or the exec was wrong about the script. Overall I agree, it was too much “paint by numbers” but all the dopey aliens didn’t help either.

  • nawnt

    Why the film failed? Because it wasn’t great as Thor, X-Men: First Class and Captain America.

    The cast was good.

    The story didn’t had edge of the seat moments, the humour was over the top and I wondering if this film was spoofy or not and also I can’t believe this film was given the most anticaptied movie of the summer Scream Awards.

    The movie isn’t the worst comic book movie of the year but maybe the worst one in years.

    Good on Marvel.

    Shame on DC.

    I hope The Dark Knight Rises turns out to be great.

  • lame duck

    I can tell you exactly why the Green Lantern failed…it sucked. While I give them a E for effort by casting great actors, the story line, character development and the cartoonesque CGI threw me off completly. To be fair, Green Lantern seems like one of those comic book heros thats hard to pull off on film kinda like Thor…IMO.

  • Rockslide

    Can we just go ahead and collectively outlaw the use of the term “edgier and darker?” It kills me how that phrase has lost all meaning and has become the duct tape of Hollywood. It has become code for “I have no clue what the H I’m talking about and I don’t even remember what interview I’m in right now.”

    I didn’t find Green Lantern as offensive as most people, but then my expectations were pretty low. I would have preferred seeing him spend a lot more time in training. Also not single-handedly beating a huge villain like Parallax. It would have been far better to see him instead able to rally up a bunch of Lanterns to join together and face the baddie.

    • Bill Graham

      Exactly on point. He gets his ass kicked for most of the film, and while countless other Lanterns with years of experience and better skills manage to fail against Parallax, suddenly Hal Jordan can take him down single-handedly… wtf?

      Half the fun of the film should have been him honing his skills with the ring and leading up to an encounter. Instead, he constantly runs from his duties and ends up beating Parallax anyways.

      Oh, and Hector Hammond was a fucking puppet. Not one of Jordan’s greatest nemesi.

      It’s hard to adapt a property if you provide a shit script.

      • shawn

        You dont understand why Hal had to fight alone. Duh, you didnt list to half of the movie did you. He had to overcome his fear, alone…. And to show that Earth (humans) were superior in their faith and hope and will to change for the better good. I think that there is a lot of greenlantern in all of us, if we just think about it.

    • Brandon

      Right. Because “edgier and darker” worked for Christopher Nolan, people seem to think that that is the direction they need to take their comic book adaptations. The one I really love is, “it’s going to be more grounded in reality” than the previous films.

  • JLC

    What these guys for some reason don’t realize is that “darker and edgier” doesn’t work with most comic book heroes. It works with Batman. It doesn’t work with Superman, Spider-Man, Thor, X-Men, etc. It won’t work with GL. Don’t keep trying to force those square pegs in the round holes.

    I think the first GL should have focused on him staying on Earth and learning how to use his powers. Bringing in the whole Corps right out of the box was probably too much, too soon. Hindsight is 20/20 vision.

    • Bill Graham

      I think the Corps part was fun and worked for the most part. I think the real failure was introducing Parallax so early in the film without allowing people to ease into the franchise. “Oh, here is one of the hardest characters to explain that will leave many behind, and we will introduce him in the first five minutes…”

  • Shawn

    Really, Green Lantern failed because of men like Jeff Robinov got involved with the property and ruined the origin story. Movie producers effed that story to the core in order to save portions of the story for sequels. They should have taken a hint from the Animated Movie, which effin’ rocked.

    Parallax was a dumb choice and they should have fought Mark Strong (Sinestro) as he schemed to take down the Guardians and become the first yellow lantern.

    Movie producers killed Green Lantern! Always deal with what is right in front of you. Looking to the sequel ruins the first outing of every premiere film. Put it all on the table and the rest will figure itself out.

    DC’s business model for bringing comics to film gives the studio too much control.

    Marvel’s plan let’s those that know the material best to bring the comic to film and the studio just coughs up the dough.

    • Hiro the Eighth Samurai (and 14th Assassin)

      One would think (or hope) that Hollywood studio executives would know their business, would know the audience for such a movie. But they seem to be no different than most American corporations. It seems the people in charge are so arrogant, so pompous and classist that they don’t care to listen to others. Everyone else is just an underling.

      When this is the situation, many times the businesses go under. They’re predictable and completely indifferent to change or new ideas.

      They’re quick to blame everyone else but themselves.

      The answer to everything is NOT make it “darker, edgier and grittier.” That works for Batman (he is the DARK Knight after all), but it doesn’t work for lighter, more comical characters such as Green Lantern, Spidey, the Flash or Superman.

      Blade, the Punisher, yes. Wonder Woman, Wonder Twins, no.

      • The Train!

        i disagree with you on one point. Wonder Woman could definitely be edgier. if need be, she will kill people. that separates her from even batman.

    • Andrew Sanders

      If you’d stayed until after the end credits rolled,you would’ve seen Mark Strong’s Sinestro place the yellow ring on his finger & transform into a yellow lantern.
      Odd thing is,Parallax is the(yellow)entity of fear(in the comics)& yet Hal threw him into the sun at the finale.

      Being a long-time GL fan,I quite enjoyed the movie.I thought the FX(particularly on Oa)were just as good as Thor.It was the script that kinda let it down & Lively’s performance,…or lack of!!

      I really hope they bring Mark Strong back for GL2,…even if Reynolds chooses not to come back for the sequel.

  • plainview

    but if you balance the time on earth and on space(or do it in a more fluid way like what Thor did, which spent the first hour on space, then go to earth), then wouldn’t solve the problems of the script?. isn’t that a script problem? and tone? isn’t that on the script too?.

  • J.R.

    I still haven’t watched the movie yet but, trash is what people like to pay to see this days, so if this movie is trash why this movie didnt work, we are tired (everyone who goes to the cinemas) to watch stupid movies so why not accept another one?…is it that bad? really? i thought TF3 was a real pieces of Sh^%t but i just put aside all of the nonsense and tried to enjoy the mess, and i did……. knowing of course it is another Michael Bay abortion…….. Hope to see it soon and understand more what you people think.

  • bubuh

    its pretty simple really. Ryan Reynolds was not the actor for it. look at Iron Man. it was perfect because of RDJ. yeah the script and the direction was good but RDJ carried the film. With thor, Chris also did a good job portraying the god of thunder with his charm and wit. I dont have to say anything about how good the casting is in X-men FC. so bottomline, get a new actor for greenlantern. if you wanna put edge on the film, hire Michael Jai White as John Stewart.

    • Bill Graham

      Your reasoning is completely oblivious of the script. STAR WARS managed to make Natalie Portman look like a shit actress. Know why? The SCRIPT. Girl just won a deserved Oscar this year…

      Ryan wasn’t a perfect match, but he is a capable actor that could have made a capable script work. He was never given a heroic arc worth a darn in the film, and he can only do so much with what he is given. Yes, RDJ nailed the role, but the script and the direction lent an enormous hand to making EVERYTHING about the first film work.

      If a single actor can carry a film, why did IRON MAN 2 suck so much? RDJ was still in it. It’s because the script failed the film. Marvel’s hands were reportedly mucking in the film far too much and it turned out to be pretty poor.

      We have gotten one THOR film so far, and yes, Hemsworth was great, but he has given Branagh an enormous amount of credit. If you know anything about Branagh, you should know his hands are all over that film.

      A film is largely in three parts. Direction, writing, and acting. LANTERN failed in two of those aspects. If you blame Reynolds for the film, I don’t think you watched it.

    • Cypher

      I totally agree.

      I didn’t find the movie horrible, the FX and CG was good too. I thought it was weak acting on Ryan Reynolds’ part that sunk that battleship. It was obvious a Ryan Reynolds vehicle and not about Hal Jordan. I think a better class of actor could have pulled things together to much better effect.

      • Scared for Movies

        I didn’t walk out of Green Lantern because any of the cast. The script was absolutely horrid. And while I don’t blame Reynold’s entirely for how bad Green Lantern sucked it seems that every super hero movie that dude touches is cursed. Blade 3, Wolverine:Origins, & Green Lantern. I really have lowered my expectations for Deadpool because of his involvement. I’m still unsure of why all the fanboys have all this love for him. Best script an exec ever read? If execs knew anything about bad writing half the writers in Hollywood would get canned. Was this the moron who said this was going to be the next Star Wars? And I love Batman but I’m so sick of hearing how producers are going to make things dark and edgy because Batman was a success. It seems to me there are a lot of talentless hacks running around with huge ego’s. This guys ego is so huge he refuses to see the truth about why this movie sucked in so many ways. I hated Iron Man 2 and Green Lantern made it look like a masterpiece.

  • Bill Graham

    There were so many more errors than the off-kilter balance of OA and Earth. As for the tone, who the hell knows. Let’s be honest. None of us (outside of the production) knows what kind of balance there was in the script with any of this.

    The film was ballooning in budget and rushed in post-production to meet the release date. They brought on outside companies to get the film finished. I think there are a lot of moments on the cutting room floor. Additionally, he highlights some specific instances where there wasn’t a lot of problems involved. This film doesn’t really need to be dark and gritty. But it should have one, solid tone throughout.

    This film went from having Hal Jordan use a HotWheels track to save people and then went into Hammond mercilessly killing his dad, being WAY too evil for as goofy as the film is, and also Parallax sucking the souls out of people in a graphic manner. That’s definitely a tonal problem.

    As many have mentioned above, GREEN LANTERN is a silly property by most accounts. It has lived for years using that as a guiding light. Be goofy. Be fun. Going dark and gritty won’t do much to help the film. In fact, I can see it only hurting the property.

    • J.R.

      Understand what your saying with your “spolerish” ;) comments, still i dont understand why here on Collider they say “unfair criticism” to Martin Campbell for not been responsible for the mess, we all know that the script is bad, but didn’t Martin read the scipt before agreeing to sign and direct the mess? isn’t he with his status as a very good director have the balls to criticize and order the studio to rewrite the mess?….. i dont get it?

      • Bill Graham

        If we are going to open the film up for discussion of what went wrong, expect spoilers. That goes with the program. Hell, we are talking about what needs to be improved for the sequel. I honestly don’t know why you are even a part of this discussion if you haven’t seen the film. BUT, that’s your prerogative.

        As for Campbell, I am with you. He should have seen the script and realized how bad it was (if this was in fact a direct translation of the script). But using his own clout? I don’t think he has much clout over a property like this. He may have signed on the dotted line, but I don’t think WB and DC would have second guessed firing him if they weren’t getting what they wanted from him. So before hand, I don’t think he had much clout.

        Once the film was in progress, they may have seen the dailies and been displeased. At that point, a little too expensive of a film to delay production to find a new director. So they were both stuck.

        Here’s the bottom line. Scripts often change during filming. They often change in pre-production once actors are hired for the roles. They are a work in progress. But the end product is still the same. We had Geoff Johns overlooking this film, and available to tweak and get the tone right. They talked about him often being on set.

        Yet, the film is still a mess. You can blame a lot of things on a lot of people. But someone wrote those silly lines Hal Jordan mutters. Someone wrote the actions he takes. Someone wrote that the HotWheels track would appear in a rescue scene. And someone completely screwed up Jordan’s heroic arc.

        WHOEVER that was, deserves a large portion of the blame because you cannot recover from those flaws. Oversight was lost, but that script didn’t appear out of thin air. Someone thought, “This will work!”

        Getting back to your point, yes, Campbell is to blame. Just as he is to blame for putting his name on films like Zorro 2 and other atrocities. You cannot get the glory without the blame in his case. However, we don’t know what happened in production and post-production. So how MUCh he is to blame is unknown. I still say the script was the bigger error.

      • Justin

        I agree with you and Bill, Campbell, no matter how much clout he has, should have noticed how bad the script was. And for that matter, Ryan Reynolds should have as well. He certainly had more clout on this project that Campbell. But neither one of them apparently has the confidence to stand up to the studio execs. The truth always wins out. No matter how much clout you have, if you can show them you have a better way of doing something, something that will make a better movie and therefore make them more money, they will listen. The execs are not stupid, they just don’t know how to make movies or tell a story. This is why people like Christopher Nolan do so well, they can talk to the execs like a normal person and explain to them the best way things should be done. It has nothing to do with clout, but integrity, passion, and wisdom… but then again, maybe those characteristics in a person is what gives them the clout in the first place.

      • Bill Graham

        Justin, I think you are hitting on a well-known truth. However, I think you are also missing out on an important fact. Nolan, along with his brother Jonathan and frequent collaborator Goyer, wrote BATMAN BEGINS and the subsequent sequels. Nolan writes his own scripts. Then he directs them. And produces them. He is an auteur in the truest sense. His staple is all over his films.

        Favreau has writing background, along with acting and producing. Same with Branagh. Yet look what has happened with Favreau. Studio interference was a large reported problem on IRON MAN 2. How did Favreau, the director of one of the greatest super hero films ever made, not have clout to say back off? How did he not have the integrity to tell them that he knew what he was doing?

        I don’t know those answers. I don’t know why they thought mucking with a sequel was a good idea. The same happened to Raimi on Spider-Man, who wrote, produced, and directed most of his films. He is an auteur as well, and yet the studio mucked with the final film and looked how it turned out…

        I don’t know what happens behind closed doors. I won’t pretend to. But I also won’t pretend I have the answers to why someone as successful as Raimi and Favreau still have obvious signs of studio interference. Why they remained strong throughout most of their careers, and then, poof.

        Nolan, at this point, is untouchable. He has done things his way, and that’s all there is to it. But, again, he also writes his own scripts. He likes things grounded in reality, and that’s where he has kept the Batman franchise. Favreau didn’t have any writing credits.

        However, I just found out an odd thing in that Raimi and his brother co-wrote the S3 script with Alvin Sargeant. It’s the only superhero flick the two brothers wrote, and the results somewhat speak for themselves. It’s almost as if Raimi tried to save the film himself, and possibly made it worse.

        I think Nolan is the exception to all of this. The studios and the comic companies want results, consistently. That much is obvious. How you get there isn’t quite so obvious. Great writers have turned in bad scripts. Great directors have made things they wished they hand’t made. And great actors have acted in films where both direction and script were less than exceptional.

      • Justin

        Bill, I absolutely agree, there is a noticeable difference in the level that Nolan is at, compared to the others you mentioned. Right now, he is the exception, but that doesn’t mean others aren’t able to obtain that same level. Certainly, none of us can be sure why these other guys aren’t living up to that, but I believe it comes down to passion for the project, and your confidence to convey that when challenged by the execs. I’m sure at some point Nolan’s vision was challenged, just as Favreau and the others were, but he was able to overcome those challenges in a way the other obviously could not. I guess an easier way to put it is, it’s a battle of wills. A person who can explain his idea in a confident, succinct way will usually win out(unless of course the one you have to convince has a personal vendetta.) I get the feeling Favreau just got to the point where he could no longer communicate why his way was better, causing there to be negative tensions, and just got tired of fighting them. And I understand, it can be a terrible experience to have to keep overcoming other peoples objections… but if have a clear idea of what you want, it makes it easier to overcome those objections (in this case, bad ideas from the execs.) So while at this point, it’s not a common thing in this industry for a creative type (filmmaker, storyteller(writer), or actor) to be able to stand up to the strong, alpha-male business type, it can be done. That’s the only way I see an end to the abuse of such beloved properties. Once that shift happens, the business guys will understand a little better not only what will make them more money, but why they should let the creative guys do what they are meant to do.

  • sense 11

    Its an unappealing piece of green crap, that’s why it failed, they should let this one go because no one is interested in seeing it again.

    I was disappointed and I had super low expectations

  • Mike

    i caught the midnight screening for this film and even though i wouldnt say its total crap id put it at the borderline …. and thats the problem.The movie felt rushed as if a bunch of hacks threw something together and decided hell we could settle for this. What makes it worse is that the components for a great film were there with the cast and director but the script was so cliche ridden and void of any structure that their best efforts wouldnt be able to redeem it. I had high hopes for this one and even though i still kind of enjoyed it i cant deny that it was a monumental failure. How can a sequel get greenlit?

  • space cadet

    Just get micheal bay to blow shit up that always works, the masses just run to theatre for it.

  • Justin

    And Robinov saying the sequel will focus on more action just shows he doesn’t know what he is talking about. In order to tell a story, you need to have a plot that progresses from one point to another. You cannot progress plot with action. While action is happening, the plot is standing still. So the more action, the less plot, the thinner the story being told, the less connection with the audience.

  • Joe

    Rubinov can make 50 sequels to that movie, doesn’t mean people will see it and I can say that if any of the people involved in the first have anything to do with the second one, no one will see that either.

    The people running WB/DC just don’t get it. It’s flabbergasting how these people still have jobs and outside of Batman and Harry Potter, haven’t been able to score one single hit.

    Maybe they need to give more rings to celebrities (and tell fans they can’t get one). Or maybe Green Lantern’s light up disco costume didn’t change into too many colors. Or maybe it was that butt ugly lantern they redesigned. Or that godawful script by Guggenheim, Berlanti, Green. Or the fact that they made the villain, a hero (ala DC Comics revisionist origin of Sinestro). Or maybe they should have used the Galactus cloud instead of a Paralax cloud. Or maybe Jeff Rubinov just doesn’t have a single clue…

  • Pingback: The Daily RotationGreen Lantern 2 To Be Darker()

  • Ted

    Why did the movie suck? Because the STORY, CHARACTERS, and ACTING sucked. Not to mention the CGI. Critics and the general public could care less about the comic book mythology, which is just sheer exposition when put on the big screen.

    Directors should stop wasting time and money on such superhero garbage (exceptions: Nolan, Snyder, Favreau for Iron Man, Raimi for Spider-Man 2) and move on to the projects they WANT to do, not cajoled into by studios and the allure of money.

  • J.R.

    Maybe they should get Nolan to produce all of the remaining Superheroes movies, still lets wait for The Man Of Steel, to see how much Nolan as producer can influence Zack point of view…… crossing fingers here!

    • Justin

      Emma Thomas, Nolan’s wife (co producer), has already publicly stated that they no longer have anything to do with Superman. They completely handed it off to Snyder. Nolan just had an idea and took it to the studio. He is focused on his own movies and I don’t see him splitting his focus to make sure other movies are made well… and honestly, he should have to.

      • Justin

        That should be “he shouldn’t have to”

        Stupid fingers.

      • J.R.

        Dont take it so hard man is just an opinion, and if you didn’t know is good to have producers with a sense of quality in them so even if Nolan’s wife said that they gave all the control to Snyder it docent mean he wont participate in the majority of the decisions, remember hes producing you know “MONEY”, WB is pissed that GL didn’t do so good @ the boxoffice good so there is an eye on everyone else involved in future Superheroes projects @ WB……..thats just my opinion Cheers!

  • Michael

    I enjoyed Green Lantern over all, but hated the villain Parallax. He was too over the top and Hal Jordan beating him by himself, as others have said, was too much to be believed. The Core should have beat him together. I would have preferred Hal in training, on Oa, learning more about the Core and seeing the development of Yellow Lantern Sinestro…the clip during the end credits was too little, too late. I would have also like to see the beginnings of Star Sapphire…there was no clue that Carol Ferries will eventually become her. Weird. The cast was great, but Reynolds would have made a better Flash than Green Lantern.

    • Steve Rudzinski

      Reynolds would have made a better Wally West (the third Flash) than Hal, but Barry would be the first Flash we see in the movies.

      I think he was a fantastic young Hal Jordan though.

  • Kris

    I’m often amazed and downright befuddled when I read people’s reviews of movies. Its amazing to see such a wide diverse of likes and dislikes. Green Lantern is no exception! Yes, I have witnessed many reviewers that trash the movie, and I have also seen reviews of people that loved the movie. What’s painfully obvious to me is, many people who review GL have no frikkin idea about the lore or character(s) in the comics. Secondly, people have preconceived notions about a movie. Why is that? Art is subjective, so why not go into any movie with a fresh and new impartial attitude. Why the hell do people go to movies if they already place judgements toward it? Makes no sense! Third, when you see a trailer for a movie, you can kind of get a general idea what genre or type of movie to expect. GL is a very sci-fi, highly creative concept that to people that like more down to earth films will not enjoy. However, people have expectations that absolutely in no way would relate to the movie even after seeing a trailer. I am a huge comic book fan, and I do know the origins of most if not all characters (major and minor). Personally, I thought GL was highly entertaining with some problems. Firstly, Hammond was totally irrelevant to the movie and just seemed like an afterthought of one of the writers of the movie. Secondly, the movie should have spent more time developing Parallax to those that know nothing about him. Third, the movie was entirely too short and and felt a little rushed with the development of the characters, mainly Hal. Sinestro and the corps should have had more screen time as well. Now if anyone watched the GL animated movie, they would know that gravity of planets is how they managed to take out a huge entity similar to parallax. If viewers were paying attention, there was foreshadowing of how Hal can beat Parallax when he was training. It also showed Hal as a quick thinking GL that differs in thought from every other GL Corp member. Hal in fact in the comics is know for cooky creations like the Hot Wheels on a track scene to get out of problems. When my friend and I saw that we immediately nodded to one another because that is the kind of cooky imaginings of Hal. But once again, if you don’t know the character you wouldn’t get that. In any case, I could write a huge novel as to the strengths and weaknesses of the movie, but if anyone is in there right mind, GL is not a piece of garbage. It does have some problems though. If you want piece of garbage movies, one need look no further than Vampirella or Captain America 80′s movie version or Batman and Robin or Blair Witch Project (good concept but boring and unrealistic). Those are horrible movies! GL isn’t even in the same league with those. Lastly, in any critique, one points out the good and bad points. All I see are asinine comments like it sucked. Nolan should make GL….blah blah blah. What the eff does that all mean! If you are going to critique something, do it correctly and the right way. Thats just Art 101.

    • Scared for Movies

      While I respect your opinion and the time you took to right your blog you basically explained the main problems with the movie. Your 2 main villain’s Parallax and Hammond had no development whatsoever and came across as cheesy. The same could be said about Sinestro if Mark Strong hadn’t done such an amazing job. I know you defended the hot wheels part but to me whether it was in the comics or not, it is what a 10 year old kid would do to save someone’s life. It may have come off better in the comic but on the big screen it was horrible. Besides this movie has to stand on it’s own in the hope of finding a broader audience. It can’t be defended with “that’s what he did in 1 of his 10, 000 comic adventures so you don’t need to understand.” The first preview released was the real tone of the movie and I hated it. Then they released the 2nd preview and I was intrigued. I really like the concept and space opera nature of Green Lantern but they really screwed it up. Critics and audience alike feel the same way. We were promised the next “Star Wars” and were given an over inflated shiny green piece of garbage. I also dislike when people say something sucks and don’t explain but with this movie I understand. I think a lot of people feel similar so they just say what comes to mind. And Green Lantern to a lot of people just plain sucked and not much else really needs to be said. I really wanted to like this movie but in the end I walked out I just couldn’t take it anymore. Based upon your knowledge of Green Lantern I wish you would have made it. At least you respect the material in a way that these execs never will. The only thing they respect is money and it showed with their sloppy production of this movie.

  • Hiro the Eighth Samurai (and 14th Assassin)

    Part of the problem was they tried to the next Star Wars, trying to throw in all the backstory about Oa. They should have left that for the second movie. Just start out the possible franchise with a plot about Hal Jordan, here on Earth, the ring finds him in the same way, but some villains from the galaxy comes and he has to fight them. He wins, leaving him with questions about where the ring came from, and by movie’s end, he’s on his way to Oa. To be continued in sequel.

  • jim35

    “And we have to find a way to balance the time the movie spends in space versus on Earth.”.. how about 0% on earth and 100% in space, then maybe it could be interesting, also having an interesting leading man could help too…

  • Steve Rudzinski

    You know what, I enjoyed the movie. It’s the best movie of the year for me, it was fun as hell. I though the plot and characterization was solid, I enjoyed Reynolds as Hal, and the action/effects were fantastic. Parallax was a good villain, though I do think Hal could have used help in the climax from at least Kilowog and Tomar (Hal himself could have been the one to get the final blow just like in the film).

    My only issue with the movie is that the editing was shoddy and there wasn’t enough time in space (though more than I was expecting).

    At least they’re talking sequel. Get a better marketing team, make sure that GL2/Superman/Justice League are a connected universe. That will help make GL (and future DC films) money. Because let’s be honest, if Thor came out before Iron Man and before any Avengers talk, it wouldn’t have done as well.

    • Bill Graham

      I have widely differing views than you, clearly (GL best film of the year!?). However, I will say that you are pretty off base in your assumption that THOR only worked because of the AVENGERS hype and IRON MAN before it.

      THOR worked because it worked. It got great reviews, was a ton of fun, and nailed the origin of a complicated character without being way over the top and cheesy. I think THE AVENGERS film is still not part of the collective consciousness of people that see films. In the geek mind, yes. But geeks aren’t the only ones that see films. If you need an example of that, simply look at the box office numbers of SCOTT PILGRIM vs how it played at Comic-Con…

      IRON MAN didn’t help THOR out that much, to be honest. I don’t see any parallel. There was hardly any crossover there. And if you are talking about the brief scene at the end of IRON MAN 2 that showed Mjolnir… wow. That’s a huge stretch.

      • The Train!

        thor worked? i guess we’ll have to figure out what we each mean by the phrase, “worked.” for me, thor did not work. and by work, i mean, give me a sense of satisfaction when i left the theater. on the whole, it was not fun (though it started that way). few of the characters were developed. loki becomes evil in a nanosecond for no clear reason. thor, on the other hand, becomes heroic in a nanosecond, also for no clear reason. the plot was simplistic. so i was not satisfied, and did not feel that thor worked.

        super 8 worked.

      • Scared for Movies

        Super 8 worked? Super 8 was terrible! It reminded me a lot of Lost. The first section of the movie was real good & then the Alien showed up. Everything after was poorly written and arbitrary. Abrams makes it seem as if the the cubes were going to be mysterious and important to the plot and then all of sudden it’s just sucked out a window? Poor story telling. Why even have the army pack up every cube but show one clearly missing and then not pursue it? The Alien and every aspect of it’s character development was ridiculous. Lets see he’s chasing the kids and some others at the end kills the others but then turns sympathetic towards the kids…yeah right. My comparison to Lost is that it started out great and then they had no clue where to take it. Same thing here. This movie was uneven in tone and frustrating to say the least. You can’t say Thor was a fail and Super 8 wasn’t that’s just your opinion. In my opinion Super 8 sucked way worse because Abrams like’s to act like he’s making a smart movie in the vain of Close Encounters but delivers a sloppy poorly told story. Thor never tries to be anything more then it is, a comic book movie.

  • Roger Guffey

    The problem with this piece of crap is the same as most of these type of movies: the makers think cgi is the same as good writing. There was no reason for Hector Hammond to be in this movie. Using “an invincible, all powerful enemy” may work for 10 year olds, but the movie would have been much better had it cast Hal Jordan vs Sinestro. One on one conflict is always superior to the nebulous amorphous blob. THe cgi ’s were good but I never felt any empathy for anyone in the movie. The old saying A million monkeys in a room with a million typewriters… I will not add this to my DVD collection. THOR and XMen first class were much better because of the better writing and character development. The crappy Superman Returns suffered from much of this malaise. Perhaps what we are seeing is the abysmal quality of the students produced by the American education system since I am sure a lot of these writers are fairly young. Who would have thought that the endorsement of mediocrity in schools would be manifested in movies?

    • Steve Rudzinski

      Making Sinestro the villain of the first film is a horrible idea. It makes his fall and later battles against Hal have no meaning. It’s important to see Sinestro as a hero first, as someone who genuinely wants to make the Universe a better place.

      When you see that BEFORE he puts on the yellow uniform, it makes his goals more logical instead of being a Scooby Doo villain.

      This isn’t directed at you, but most of the ideas people have to “make GL better” are horrible ideas that would make it worse.

  • J.R.

    Saw the movie for the first time today………………………… GL didnt deserve this, The fault goes to the shity script, The Director for the lack of vision and no control over the project and of course to Geoff Johns letting his baby get adopted by psychopaths (everyone involved in this movie except the actors of course) 2 of 5

  • Dane

    From the biggest GL Fan I know, Hal was just 2 fuckin goofy. This is Green Lantern, not the Mask. He is so serious, man. And the writer totally dropped the ball. The villain in the first movie should have been Sinestro or the Manhunters. I think the Manhunters should have been in the 1st movie, then Sinestro, Have Hal break his neck like in GL#50 at the beginning of part 3, bring in Kyle Rayner Have John Stewart in GL2. They should’ve had Guy in the 1st one.

  • Dane

    ANd for the record WB/DC, Hal was never dark. He was just mad stern, John Stewart was dark as hell tho, cause he was black!!!! Jk Jk. But check em out in Mosasic

  • Al

    Another reason why this fails and Nolan’s Batman works, is because The Nolans, Goyer, and apparently Bale, are fans of the comics (The Dark Knight Returns in particular). The only people that cared about GL were Johns and on of the writers. Even Blake Lively said at Comic Con 2011, that she look up GL on Wikipedia, after WB forced her into the role (after The Town).

  • Al

    Another reason why this fails and Nolan’s Batman works, is because The Nolans, Goyer, and apparently Bale, are fans of the comics (The Dark Knight Returns in particular). The only people that cared about GL were Johns and one of the writers. Even Blake Lively said at Comic Con 2011, that she look up GL on Wikipedia, after WB forced her into the role (after The Town).

  • AO1JMM

    I don’t understand why it failed at all to be honest. Thought it was a pretty decent movie. But then again I never once read a single Green lantern comic or ever watched any animated cartoons with the character either.

    • Roger

      The reason the film failed is because of too much interference from the producers. Because they are funding the film they feel they have the right to mess with the film, and made Martin Campbell cut the film a certain way. I have heard that Martin Campbell wants to release a Directors Cut version of the film, that he feels is much better than what was released. They did film more of the training, and the character arc was handled much better, but then the execs came along and butchered his movie.
      It’s not the first time this has happened, Directors do get burned by execs every now and then, and the movie usually suffers as a result.

  • knight

    Wow can’t really add anything it was pretty much covered by everyone. But i will say i havnt even seen the movie yet and im nervous. I love this character and Ryan Reynolds might look like Hal Jordan but that doesnt mean he should play him. Making Tony Stark even more funny and cocky was a great choice it worked for Ironman. But Hal is not that character his personality is more serious. I allways pictured him being in the middle of Superman and Batman. Not as serious as Batman but maybe not as positive as Superman either. When i saw the trailer i was disapointed to see him cracking so many jokes. Ryan reynolds is a comedian thats it he cant play a hero unless its a funny one. The only hero he could play MAYBE is Flash (flash fans dont get upset im not saying he should play that role either im just saying its closer to his personality) And my goodness i know its the Green Lantern but people whos favorite color is green are sick of the color now. Way to much green everywhere. And the suit? Why was it CGI i dont understand No suit should be CGI except heroes like ironman and hulk for obvious reasons. I’ll see it on it DVD but ive prepared myself for disapointment

    • Dane

      Hal Jordan was gonna 2 Play Flash, but since he played Hal Jordan, Bradley Cooper is gonna play the Flash

      • Dane

        I mean Ryan Reynolds. SEE WHAT THIS MOVIE DOES 2 MY BRAIN!!!!

  • Daniel

    He just needs to be made a more interesting character. Dial up the human drama and dial down the FX.

  • hee

    welcome to:
    A discount of 55%. Goods are value. The global free shipping costs! Don’t miss it!If you will, for more details, please login the two web sites. In that, you will know more about it

  • Joe

    If it is true and the producers/WB executives butchered the film, then it deserved to fail, its just too bad those WB executives still have jobs because if anyone ever spent 300 million dollars on a bomb, they would be fired. WB executive just can’t seem to keep their dirty fingers off. Granted, it’s their money but you hire a director for a reason. There is a reason why WB executives are executives, not directors. And there is a reason why WB/DC movies keep failing and the problem isn’t the characters in the library.

  • Terry

    What the hell! The movie sucked. I guess homeboy had to say some BS for the sake of the stockholders. Pah lease!
    Cheesy SF, and a villain that looked like sh** from a septic tank.
    And when that corner office schmuck said darker and edgier he was obviously thinking about Batman. All these punk a** executives have Batman on the brain.They all want to copy Nolam’s swag. F**k them. Now the new Spiderman will be darker and edgier. OOOH!
    And why did Sucker Punch fail?
    It had an A list director, high end special effects, a dark and disturbing story line, great cinema photography and young hot chicks running around in Victoria Secret panties and bras with their a** cheeks hanging out.

  • Trey

    I had high hopes for this movie. The GL animated movies from DC have been great but that success couldn’t translate to the big screen. I agree with other who say he should have spent more time training and developing as a GL. Parallax is a great villain but like Bill said before he needed to be fleshed out more since in the comics it took a few books just to get a full understanding of the character. I really hope they make a sequel just to make up for this fail but we’ll see.

  • Pingback: Green Lantern’s Basic Problem « Splat Talk()

  • Rick

    I like the Green Lantern movie, but it was a bit of a kiddy movie. If they had marketed it more towards children, I think it would have fared better in theatres. When I saw it at the theatre there were a lot of families, and those kids were enthralled. The Moms seemed to like Ryan Reynolds. Parents will have this movie baby-stitting their kids for years to come. They really messed up with the storyline, though, and Parallax just wasn’t done properly. Hal never shirked his responsibilities or doubted himself in the comics. He got the ring and got to business. Too many cooks in the kitchen on this one, and the story got lost on the messy kitchen floor. Get a singular vision, like the District 9 director, and stick to the comics and just tell a good story that isn’t so hard to grasp because of clutter.

  • Probable causes of yeast infections

    What i do not understood is if truth be told how you’re now not really much more smartly-appreciated than you might be now. You are very intelligent. You understand thus considerably in relation to this topic, made me in my opinion imagine it from so many numerous angles. Its like women and men don’t seem to be fascinated until it?s one thing to accomplish with Lady gaga! Your own stuffs outstanding. Always handle it up!

  • Pingback: 3D Movies Will Fail! « desabraisbros()

  • Rik

    So sad that you thought the movie was beneath you & poorly executed….. you lose. You missed out on alot…. Also FYI….. there really is a difference between the word WHERE & WERE…. you might want to study your grammar and also THEN & THAN…you used BOTH incorrectly………….

  • RJ

    It wasn’t to much green on the screen it was to much junk on the screen. First off John Stewart had been so successful, TRUE TO CORPORATE FORM, YOU DECIDED YOU WOULD FORCE HAL JORDAN ON PEOPLE, AND MOST DIDN’T KNOW WHO HE WAS. That isn’t on Ryan Renolds, thats on the writers and Directors. John has been the face of the hero, and you made a terrible decision to remove his face, and replace it with someone most never knew.
    John and Shayera would have rocked this move. Had you went with parrallax attacking Earth after the invasion and John on a mission to find her, and in the mist of looking for her, he found Earth under attack, or her under attack, anything, would have taken this movie.
    Going forward, you have to find a way to focus on him and her, in a mild flirting manner, and haveit grow slowly.
    As far as a movie. GL2 should be the transfer of power, it should show that John unlike the rest of the lanterns chosen by the ring. John’s is chosen by the Guardians, that is true to the story line. Hal objects, but the guardians have spoken. You show John and Hal’s struggles, of course, Hal having used the ring more will win the early battles, but Hal at some point feels the power John has with the ring and knows it is only a matter of time before John is a true power ring.
    Once Hal realizes John is MORE POWERFUL than any Green Lantern he knows, Hal gives his life to Parrallax, because he knows John is more than Capable of protecting this sector. as Hal enters Parrallax, John knows he has the power to destory the beast but he can’t bring himself to destory his mentor, even with their troubled past, he realizes Hal is a great friend, and allows the beast to leave with Hal inside. However, Hal telepathically tells John he is OK, protect the sector, for I will drive the beast away from Earth destory it and soemday I will return…
    And as the movie goes off Sinestro blast John with his beam and says you not Hal, but and Green Lantern will do. Leading into the next battle, which could be a Flash movie…

  • Randolph Johnson

    If you don’t understand why it failed, then you are out of touch. For years the Green lantern has been John Stewart, Green lantern is a kids show, you can’t just drop anyone in the suit you want and then expect it to sell. Bottom line is they should have went current, and then told the story backwards. You start with John Stewart, and then you have him encounter a difficult situation, and then bring in Hal. But to start the show with Hal was a bad move. But as with all in America, it has to be about skin tone when we are talking sells.

    Bring it back, but bring it back in the correct manner, you have Hal be over run by Parallax, to the poitn he gives his life to save the Universe, but he does this only when he knows John is ready to assume the sector by himself, and in two or three episodes, you show Hal coming back, being the spectre, being defeated by John, and the Guardians returning the ring to Hal, and allowing them both to patrol sector 2814, which makes them both JL members…

    Now John has more of his story yet to be told, like being selected to be a Guardian, the numerous rings he commands, and them being placed inside his body altering his physiology…

  • Randolph Johnson

    If you don’t understand why it failed, then you are out of touch. For years the Green lantern has been John Stewart, Green lantern is a kids show, you can’t just drop anyone in the suit you want and then expect it to sell. Bottom line is they should have went current, and then told the story backwards. You start with John Stewart, and then you have him encounter a difficult situation, and then bring in Hal. But to start the show with Hal was a bad move. But as with all in America, it has to be about skin tone when we are talking sells.

    Bring it back, but bring it back in the correct manner, you have Hal be over run by Parallax, to the poitn he gives his life to save the Universe, but he does this only when he knows John is ready to assume the sector by himself, and in two or three episodes, you show Hal coming back, being the spectre, being defeated by John, and the Guardians returning the ring to Hal, and allowing them both to patrol sector 2814, which makes them both JL members…

    Now John has more of his story yet to be told, like being selected to be a Guardian, the numerous rings he commands, and them being placed inside his body altering his physiology…

  • Pingback: Warner Bros. Might be Mandating no Jokes for DC Superhero Movies()