The superpower was ridiculous. Great for comic books (emphasis on the word "comic") for some silly amusement.
But as a movie to tell stories it's really bad. He's basically super overpowered. And his weakness is the color yellow. I mean, basically Green Lantern is a character specifically made for small kids.
It is a challenge, I will give you that :)... but they could down play the ”create your imagination” thing to a ring of power... So it makes you, strong, can fly, shoot lasers etc. If you noticed the animated version have he mostly use shields, and just energy blasts... but not, well not a wrench or wherever.
shareYAWN at this thread. Superman's weakness is a green colored rock. Superpowers are ridiculous beyond a certain point.
shareNo, I think that in the hands of a good director, good writers, a good cast, and a good post-production team, it'd be possible to make a thoroughly enjoyable Green Lantern movie. And don't tell me that you can't make good movies out of such ridiculous powers, they made two fun movies about Ant Man!
But the fact is that the Green Lantern movie was an all-around failure, the writers came up with a dull and generic script, the direction likewise, the leading actor was annoying* and the leading lady lifeless, the editing has been bashed elsewhere on this board, and the CGI was on the level of a Sharknado movie. It was an all-around failure, so badly realized that you just can't blame the source material.
* At least Ryan Reynolds managed to find a role where his annoying personality worked. He's a terrific Deadpool, but a Green Lantern actually needs to be likeable.
I disagree with the OP that Green Lantern's powers are too ridiculous to make into a great superhero flick. After all, didn't Supes turn the world back in time by flying around it in his super-successful debut movie? I can't think of a more ridiculous scene. Modern cinema with its CGI seems to be the perfect visual medium to display GL's unique powers.
I was surprised by how compelling and entertaining the first half is, which is just as entertaining as any superhero origin movie out there. Unfortunately, the second half failed to capitalize on the solid set-up. It's hard to pinpoint what exactly went wrong, but the weak secondary villain, Hector, doesn't help; nor does the nigh-amorphous main villain, Parallax. Sinestro (Strong) would've made for a better villain, but the writers were obviously saving him for the sequel.
I gave "Green Lantern" 6/10, but the first half is easily 7/10 or 8/10.
I agree that the first half of "Green Lantern" is better than the second, but I'd give it a 5/10 or 6/10. It's not exciting, it's not original, and I don't like the main characters at all. They really were miscast.
However, ridiculous powers is absolutely no impediment to good filmmaking! I've already brought up Ant Man, but how about Thor? He's got a big hammer and can use lightning, how goofy and limited is that? And Batman, who could be taken down by any schmuck with a gun? And Hawkeye? Okay, maybe Hawkeye's "powers" are just too silly to sustain a solo film, but it's an established fact that good filmmakers can make good movies about ridiculous superhero powers.
Supes turning the world around is Exhibit A.
shareAh, but your example doesn't count in this argument, because turning back time by spinning the Earth the wrong way isn't actually a power of Superman's! It's nobody's power, if you spun the world the wrong way, even in a fantasy universe where magic was possible, you'd just cause massive tidal waves, earthquakes, and other natural disasters!
Therefore, Ant Man still has the most ridiculous powers that were ever made into a successful movie.
turning back time by spinning the Earth the wrong way isn't actually a power of Superman's! It's nobody's power, if you spun the world the wrong way, even in a fantasy universe where magic was possible, you'd just cause massive tidal waves, earthquakes, and other natural disasters!
Except, of course, Superman did no such thing. HE traveled back in time by flying faster than the speed of light in a counterclockwise direction. The view of the Earth turning backwards was simply the point of view of traveling back in time.
I know this confounds everyone. And it wasn't explained in the film. It is, however, the classic method that Superman uses to travel in time. (To travel to the future he flies clockwise). Yes, the directions are arbitrary; but it is the consistent trope used throughout Superman's history.
Yes, I heard it explained before and described it in my original post above as such:
didn't Supes turn the world back in time by flying around it in his super-successful debut movie?
Yes, so he wasn't causing the earth to rotate backwards. All that was happening was his view of the earth as he traveled. So I don't see what was ridiculous.
Yes, I understand that many thing time travel itself is ridiculous and I can see that argument. But it is a common trope in the super hero genre. If time travel is ridiculous, then so are all other super hero powers and tropes.
Some people view it that way and that is their right. But ridiculousness should be judged within the conventions of the genre.
Well said.
My original point was that the OP said Green Lantern's powers were too ridiculous to make into a
great superhero flick. I disagreed and pointed to Supes going back in time by flying around the earth at super-speed, which -- let's face it -- was a laughable sequence (straight from the comics) -- and yet the film was super-successful. My point was that a superhero with absurd powers can be made into a successful film, like the first two Superman flicks, which was four decades ago.
So modern cinema with its CGI capabilities is the perfect visual medium to display GL's unique powers.
Personally, I thought the first half of "Green Lantern" was on par with any quality superhero flick; it just lost its mojo in the second half. Yet its still worthy of a strong 6/10 IMHO.
I feel the same way - I think the problem with GL is not that he's overpowered, but that his power is literally arbitrary. It's inherently absurd because, imagination being unlimited, GL's power is essentially unlimited. The vulnerability to the color yellow is similarly arbitrary.
Super strength, super speed, durability and flight are all very specific powers with easy-to-intuit shortcomings. The ability to imagine and create ANYTHING, while being vulnerable to an entire color ... not so much.
It's hard to explain - maybe an analogue would be an all-powerful genie with a vulnerability to turnips. There's explanation of where his power comes from (it's just magic) nor why it's turnips vs. radishes or other tubers.
This is what I meant. You're right, arbitrary is the right word, not overpowered. Sorry bout that.
It's the same as Scarlet Witch character. Her superpower is also as arbitrary. It has no rhyme nor reason. It's just magic. Random magic. It can be anything the director wants for any particular scene. I don't think Scarlet Witch can be made into a great solo movie too because of this.
I've said upthread that absurd powers can work in movies, as in Ant Man.
What didn't work in this movie is that the Green Lantern powers seemed so unlimited, and effortless. How can anyone put up a fight against someone who can just imagine a 16-ton weight to drop on you? Sure, the script gave him a bit of difficulty in mastering his powers, but once he did, they were unlimited and had no personal cost, giving this unpleasant schmuck basically unlimited power.
I suppose the movie might have been better if there was some sort of ongoing personal struggle involved in using the powers, if using the ring had a physical cost or something. Personally I'd have been tempted to write a script about a guy who had zero imagination ("I don't imagine stuff, I just do it..."), but that would have ended up a twee mess about the power of imagination and probably would have sucked just as much as this mess.
Very good points made. Scarlet Witch in the MCU seems arbitrary, except that her powers at least require using her hands (which was why she was cuffed in the Raft cell) and involve shooting cloudy energy things, not actual Hot Wheels tracks or anti-aircraft guns.
The 16-ton weight analogy, though, I think goes to the heart of the problem - GL's powers aren't just arbitrary, they're cartoonishly so. It'd be like fighting Roger Rabbit, or worse Bugs Bunny with the animator's pencil (the one he used to torture Daffy Duck).
Ant-Man's shrinking is cartoonish, too, but they went to great pains to make it "look right." The shrunken world used tilt-shift perspective and shallow depth of field, the way Ant-Man would look through a microscope. The first movie made a point of highlighting the comical aspects. Good example: cutting from Yellow Jacket's horror at getting crushed by Thomas the Train to a long view showing the toy train falling off the tracks ineffectually.
The ongoing struggle might work - I recall Mark Millar's "Red Son" series (Superman as a Soviet) describing, in great detail, Hal Jordan's ability to imagine things in perfect, accurate detail (while he was a P.O.W., he imagined building his own prison, brick by brick, in his head). No idea how to translate that onto the screen, but it sold me, for the first time in 40 years, on the notion that GL's "willpower" is actually a thing, and an impressive thing at that.
Excellent points! If the filmmakers had highlighted the difficulty of having to build a perfect mental image before the ring could materialize, the lantern powers would have seemed less cartoonish, and not so unlimited.
Because yes, putting limits on someone's powers really is mandatory for superhero movies, the audience cant be afraid for the hero during fights, unless they know there are limits to their powers which are about to matter.
Not that I wouldn't pay good money to see a superhero with Bug's animator pencil! Maybe they'll throw that into a Deadpool movie, those guys are willing to try anything.
Deadpool vs Green Lantern movie!
It will be full of endless cartoony fights with Deadpool constantly breaking the fourth wall making Green Lantern confused while he keeps throwing anvils and TNTs.
Except that in a during-credits scene in the wonderful "Deadpool 2", they eliminated the possibility of a Deadpool vs. Green Lantern film...
shareOr a superpowered alien who's somehow allergic to pieces of his homeworld?
shareI agree with the OP's responders that say it's a "challenge."
So are Reed Richard's stretching abilities and Ant-Man's shrinking abilities. We've seen at least one of them done "right" at least.
But yea, there's something so ... I dunno ... arbitrary(?) about forming any old thing out of nothing and using it as a weapon. It's like Green Lanterns wear a literal deus ex machina on their literal fuck-you finger.
Try as I might, though, I can't think of a way to make it "work."
I do like what the previews show of "Ms. Marvel." My understanding from Avengers video game vids is that she can stretch and grow body parts, and in the video game clips it looks just as goofy as it sounds. The upcoming Disney+ series looks like she's using energy to manifest whatever she needs, be it something to walk on or something to punch with.
Maybe Green Lantern on film should look more like that (i.e., more abstract instead of literal Hot Wheels tracks or machine guns - though I could forgive the jet planes at the end since he himself is a jet pilot).