20/20 Hindsight Green Lantern
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.
"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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.