Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 9

[Lencho01]

A ver good article. Also, Green lantern needed at least 60 million on the opening weekend for a greenlit sequel:
'Green Lantern': 5 Lessons for Hollywood bit.ly/kTs17z

GL being called a wannabe superhero made me laugh.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/green-lantern-5-lessons-hollywood-204697

'Green Lantern': 5 Lessons for Hollywood

In the current issue of The Hollywood Reporter, Heat Vision looks at what Warner Bros. should learn from the disappointing launch of a wannabe superhero.

7:44 PM 6/22/2011 by Borys Kit

Warner Bros. and comic book movie fans are reeling after the poor opening weekend performance of Green Lantern, which was to serve as a cornerstone for a line of DC Comics-based films to rival those of Marvel. Lantern collected a lower-than-expected $53 million domestically, and a 22 percent drop from Friday to Saturday indicated poor word-of-mouth. Warners insiders say that the $200 million-budgeted movie needed to open at least in the $60 million range for the studio to move forward with a sequel, for which it has already committed to a script by Michael Goldenberg. Even before the greenish dust has settled, here are five things that went wrong.

1. It's about a singular voice

Readers connect with comic books through original stories by writers and artists: For Green Lantern, it could be stories from the 1970s, by Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams or, more recently, by Geoff Johns. These people offer a vision and direction. The same rule applies to movies. When you watch Christopher Nolan's recent Batman movies, or even this summer's X-Men: First Class or Thor, you feel like there is a singular vision behind them.

In contrast, critics pounced on the generic, paint-by-numbers feel of the Lantern movie, which played like dozens of people were in control. And they were. In addition to director Martin Campbell, producer Donald De Line and DC executive Johns, four separate screenwriters were credited, and insiders say that even Warners execs Jeff Robinov, Greg Silverman and Lynn Harris were heavily involved, especially in the editing stage.

2. Special effects can be your Kryptonite

A lot of blame is going to fall on Campbell. Having launched the stints of two James Bond actors (Pierce Brosnan in GoldenEye and Daniel Craig in Casino Royale) and made the great adventure movie The Mask of Zorro, Campbell specializes in gritty, on-the-ground action. But Lantern is about a man who becomes part of an intergalactic police force, and Campbell has almost no experience in that sci-fi realm. A $200 million summer tentpole shouldn't be on-the-job training.

Plus, Warners underestimated the scope of the special effects, whose costs began to skyrocket when it was decided that the Green Lantern suit would be created digitally. The complex effects work, combined with the decision to convert the film to 3D, added months to the production schedule, preventing early marketing and test screenings, which could have helped to hone the film.

3. Be like Marvel

Part of Warners' problem is the way it has structured DC Entertainment. The studio created the subdivision in 2009 to better plan its franchises. But DC remains subservient to Warners in many ways, with its execs being more "suggestors" than anything else.

Marvel, on the other hand, has an autonomous movie division in Marvel Studios. Run by Kevin Feige, it has continually demonstrated an understanding of its core audience -- the comic book fans -- and how to parlay that intense base into a broader audience of regular moviegoers. From Iron Man to Thor, it has made movies that appeal to fanboys and average moviegoers alike.

At Warners, it's the studio division that says yes or no to DC projects, and it can change them up however it sees fit. Last summer's Jonah Hex was a box-office disaster, and even Warners' quasi-DC movies Watchmen and V for Vendetta failed to lure more than hard-core fanboys. You don't have to be a geek to make these movies, but you need to know what geeks like and, more importantly, how to translate that into accessible themes.

4. Don't be like Marvel

Marvel has a clear plan: Take a core group of characters (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America) and weave them into a series of movies that lead to one big team-up (next summer's The Avengers). It works for fans and allows moviegoers not familiar with the Marvel Universe to be indoctrinated.
Green Lantern was to have been the first step toward making a movie featuring the Justice League, DC's all-star collection of superheroes. But what worked for Marvel may not for DC, which in its publishing history established the connections within its universe only after Marvel had already done the same for its world.

DC should be blazing its own path. Heroes like Superman are more iconic, more primal and elemental, more akin to the Greek gods than their conflicted counterparts in the Marvel universe. DC superheroes are our modern-day Hermes, the god of speed, or Hercules, the demigod son of Zeus. They can stand alone.

5. Cloud villains don't work

Didn't anyone get the memo after 2007's Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer? That movie changed the long-standing comics villain Galactus from a giant humanoid into a big black cloud, and was ridiculed.
Parallax in Lantern looks like another demonic black cloud, and that design was a misstep. Neither audiences nor the Green Lantern can wrap their arms around him -- he's just another smoke monster escaped from the island on Lost. Superhero Screenwriting 101: If audiences don't care about the villain, they won't care about the movie.

 

[RoughNTumble]

I really can't believe they didn't go with insect parallax. did they think he'd be too scary for kids?

 

[Octoberist]

I really can't believe they didn't go with insect parallax. did they think he'd be too scary for kids?

Funny enough whar Parallex did to his victims were horrific and not too kid friendly...

 

[Poni_Boy]

I really can't believe they didn't go with insect parallax. did they think he'd be too scary for kids?

No, not scary enough to be "believable"

The alternate opening sequence with insect Parallax was almost identical to the once in the current film except when the alien astronauts encounter it, the creature isn't imprisoned as much as captured/exiled. Parallax is a tiny little thing until it attacks one of them and feeds off his fear.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Meh, I always thought insect Parallax looked stupid anyway, even in the comics. I don't know that a turd cloud with a head was a better look, but that bug thing was pretty silly looking too.

 

[Saint]

5. Cloud villains don't work

Fact.

 

[KRIM]

Meh, I always thought insect Parallax looked stupid anyway, even in the comics. I don't know that a turd cloud with a head was a better look, but that bug thing was pretty silly looking too.

Agreed. Coming in as an outsider neither of the two designs were particularly ideal. Granted, it is difficult to conjure up a physical manifestation of an emotion. Still, those designs are uninspired.

Fact.

Parallax cloud was featured heavily in the marketing. You should've seen that turd coming.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Parallax cloud was featured heavily in the marketing. You should've seen that turd coming.

It even looks like one.

 

[gmanca]

Was Parallax really that bad? I mean, the generic "cloud monsters don't work" reply doesn't sit with me as it's been done before without issue. For example, Stephen Sommers went to that well numerous times with the Mummy and nary was there a complaint.

The problem is when you don't properly develop the villain, it will not work, period. And when you decide to make a villain with a CGI construct, you need to doubly make sure that there's a way to effectively develop the character which means you have to properly write and budget it's scenes.

A full sequence of Parallax devouring an entire planet, sucking the souls/will out of it's alien inhabitants, killing all of the plant life, leaving it a lifeless ball or even causing it to implode; there's no way you can tell me that wouldn't have been an effective way of demonstrating not only it's power but of developing it's threat level so that when it came to Earth, the battle against it would have necessitated a great effort.

Again, the problem with the movie is that at the pre-production/development level there were never enough questions asked about what would be the primary sequences that would have cemented the plot. They made two half villains and stretched out a love story to fill the gaps.

 

[JAK®]

No, not scary enough to be "believable"

I'm pretty sure a lot more people in real life are scared of bugs than clouds.

 

[moviedoors]

Was Parallax really that bad? I mean, the generic "cloud monsters don't work" reply doesn't sit with me as it's been done before without issue. For example, Stephen Sommers went to that well numerous times with the Mummy and nary was there a complaint.

Really? Sommers' Mummy flicks have quite a few detractors. I don't recall the mummy's only form being a big cloud of sand either.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Was Parallax really that bad? I mean, the generic "cloud monsters don't work" reply doesn't sit with me as it's been done before without issue. For example, Stephen Sommers went to that well numerous times with the Mummy and nary was there a complaint.

There was no "cloud monster" in The Mummy. It was a cloud of locusts. The only other cloud-like this was a sandstorm with The Mummy's face in it; but you actually SAW a physical manifestation of the character throughout the film.

I agree that there was no development of the character Parallax in GL, but I think that blame lies on whoever thought his design was all they needed. It wasn't. It looked like Galactus-cloud's angrier brother.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I'm pretty sure a lot more people in real life are scared of bugs than clouds.

Tell that to Geoff Johns

 

[The Sage]

Did Galactus even have a face in FF2?

 

[Poni_Boy]

Did Galactus even have a face in FF2?

Nope, but he had a "head"

 

[moviedoors]

Nope, but he had a "head"

Holy crap, was he really that big? He should have wrecked apocalyptic destruction upon the Earth from the force of his gravitational tides alone! And look how close he got!

 

[Poni_Boy]

Holy crap, was he really that big? He should have wrecked apocalyptic destruction upon the Earth from the force of his gravitational tides alone! And look how close he got!

When comparing cloud monsters I think at least Galactus-cloud looked like it could destroy the Earth from it's sheer size alone.

Oops, almost forgot Smallville's Darkseid:

 

[moviedoors]

When comparing cloud monsters I think at least Galactus-cloud looked like it could destroy the Earth from it's sheer size alone.

Yeah, at least its cosmically scaled, but I can't help but chuckle. The tides and earthquakes alone would've been tremendous. Not to mention the stripping off of the atmosphere.

 

[Silver Surfer]

Is it me or does Smallville's Darskeid look better than both Galactus and Parallax?

 

[Lencho01]

Is it me or does Smallville's Darskeid look better than both Galactus and Parallax?

Maybe because you can really make out Darkseid from the cloud/smoke. He was still pretty crappy, though.

 

[dark_b]

the problem with cloud villains is all the same. they are nto characters. they are something that you use for destroying the planet. ntohing more. but this doesnt make a good villain.
it wouldnt be a problem if they would start with the villain as small blue alien (Krona). and through the movie he would get more powerfull. and then at the end he can eb a big cloud. you need to start smal land then build up.

the movie starts with Parallax as a cloud right? aliens find Krona and he escapes and becomes big in less then 2 mintues right?

 

[Poni_Boy]

Maybe because you can really make out Darkseid from the cloud/smoke. He was still pretty crappy, though.

Hell, they may as well make them all related to each other. One big race of cloud monster... things.

Can we start a petition to send to every studio letting them know cloud monsters are a no-no? I think we've had enough for this millennium.

 

[GhostPoet]

That Green Lantern lessions post hit the nail square on the head.

 

[Lencho01]

Here's another article about the studio messing with things...

http://www.pajiba.com/trade_news/th...ns-of-the-green-lantern-that-we-didnt-see.php

The Four, Mostly Superior Versions of The Green Lantern that We Didn't See

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trade News | Comments (5)

Let me just preface this by saying that I don’t know a ton about comic books, and anyone who has read this site knows that. So, though I know I’m asking for mercy from deaf ears, please forgive my mistakes. However, in researching Green Lantern ahead of the film so I wouldn’t make a complete ass of myself with the review (for a more comic-book friendly review, do read TK’s take), I ended up learning more about Green Lantern than I anticipated. And in doing so, discovered some fairly neat story lines and read about the Green Lantern script at various stage of development. Truthfully, nearly every other iteration I read about was not only better, but substantially better, than what ended up on the screen. And the thing is, though I loathed the film, I legitimately gained a lot of respect and fondness for the comic character through my cursory research.
Here’s what I learned about four iterations of The Green Lantern that we didn’t see.

Spoilers below, if you care:

1) The Original Draft: There were a ton of problems with with finished film, obviously, and from what I can surmise, one of the biggest problems — Carol Ferris — had been an issue all along, even before Blake Lively got involved. Another huge problem was that they attempted to cram in too much mythology into the opening film. In script form, that seems great: The idea that Sinestro, Carol Ferris, Kilowog, the Parallax, and Hector Hammond would appear might sound appealing. But, in the finished product, much of it was obviously forced into a bloated film that couldn’t contain it.

Believe it or not, the finished product was better than the original script in that regard: The original script also had Alan Scott, Guy Gardner, Legion, Gotham, and Clark Kent, in addition to what we saw in the film (minus Parallax). At the time that script was leaked, fanboys were fairly ecstatic with just the names being mentioned. But, again, what sounds good on paper doesn’t always translate well onto the screen.

In addition, the original script had Legion as one of the two main villains, instead of Parallax, but it was Hector Hammond who was the main villain. I have no idea why they decided to replace Legion with Parallax. In the film, Hammond is defeated by Parallax. In the original script, Hal defeats Legion and then defeats Hammond, but only after Hammond holds not just Carol Ferris hostage, but all of Hal’s family and friends (he had his sights set on destroying the entire city by crashing a plane into it with his telekinesis).
In either respect, as cool in theory as Sinestro was in all iterations of the script, he probably shouldn’t have been in Green Lantern or at least should have been reduced to a very small role to line himself up for a future sequel. His existence was too much, a nod to fanboys instead of a more cohesive story. (He’d be great in a sequel, assuming he wasn’t pink). Also, I don’t really know who Legion is (other than what I’ve read on Wikipedia), but I have to say: The description of him sounds much, much better than Parallax.

Granted, the original ending was super cheesy. Carol is trapped in a jet hurtling toward the city set to destroy it. Similar to the film, Hal gives up his ring to Hammond and because the ring didn’t choose Hammond, it destroys him, turning him into a vegetable. However, there’s no power left in the ring, so Hal can’t save Carol. But, Hal uses another plane to maneuver himself into position to save her, and as Carol and Hal are falling to Earth without a parachute, they kiss and the power of their love reignites the ring. Guh. Still, it’s slightly better than the film’s ending, which had the Parallax being sucked into the gravity of the sun while Hal escaped by holding on to jet airplanes (and with the ultimate help of Sinestro, et. al).

2) The Director’s Cut: There’s another interpretation of the movie that was actually filmed by Martin Campbell but left on the cutting room floor. A reader of ours, puppetdoug, left a comment explaining the original movie, and I did some research to confirm it. It sounds like a much better movie than what the studio gave us. Here’s his comment:

One thing I feel needs mentioning: this is not Martin Campbell’s cut of the film, but the studio’s. I live in New Orleans where it was shot, I read the shooting script, all of which was painstakingly filmed with intense research, and all of that was left on the cutting room floor — a sort of combination of what happened to Daredevil and Watchmen, respectively — character development sacrificed for CG, scenes made irrelevant by removing their setup. The movie in the theater starts with an explanation of mythos that is made redundant by the more natural, scripted questions from Hal when he gets the ring. Ten minutes of childhood Hal, Carol, and Hector that sets up Hal’s first ring construct is reduced to an awkwardly placed flashback in the middle of another scene. The training with the ring is almost completely excised except for one minor scene. Most appallingly, the ending completely deletes the fact that Kilowog, Sinestro, and Toma-Re arrive at the end and help Hal defeat Parallax. Not to mention Parallax was supposed to be a 3rd act reveal after we spend the film worried about Hammond going evil, not the main villain for the entire film. I sincerely hope we get a director’s cut or at least all the deleted scenes on the video release.​

It did feel like Parallax’s presence throughout the film felt tacked on and out of order. Puppetdoug’s explanation resolves that. Would it have made for a better performance from Carol? No, but it would’ve been a cleaner more coherent story that placed more of the focus where it should’ve been, on Hector Hammond, instead of making him something of an afterthought.

3) The Comedy Script: The only iteration I can imagine that might’ve been worse than what appeared on screen was Robert Smigel’s comedic take on the script, which he wrote back in 2004. (Smigel, as you’ll recall, is a former “SNL” writer and the man behind Conan O’Brien Triumph the Insult Dog). The script may have been decent, but the Green Lantern would’ve been played by Jack Black, and I simply can’t get behind that. Smigel wasn’t exactly pleased with the idea, either, as he explained to Mike Ryan in an interview with Vanity Fair:

f I were a diehard Green Lantern fan, I would have waited many years watching all of these other superhero movies like Daredevil get their turn and I would be very frustrated to hear that it’s finally going to be done as a comedy. I wouldn’t just feel screwed, I would also see it as a personal affront that the superhero that I’ve been worshiping is looked at as a joke. So I could see people being angry and I expected it. Whether or not it affected Warner Bros., I can’t answer that question. I assume they would have expected that people on the Web who care enough about the Green Lantern to write about it on message boards would object to the idea of turning it into a joke. ​

4) Conan O’Brien’s Find: Finally, and speaking of Conan O’Brien, he got his hands on an early cut of the film, and learned that Warner Brothers had never planned a sequel to the movie at all. You’ll understand why after seeing this clip (via Movieline)

Much better film, and it would’ve saved us from the absurd last hour.

 

[Motown Marvel]

i wonder if they were actually able to film all the deleted stuff, or it got cut before it was filmed.