Why did the Green Lantern movie suck ?

Ok I have been read and watching lots of reviews and alot of people said the GL movie sucks and i'm wondering why ? I mean it was pretty close to the comics the guy they got to play Hal Jordan was cool. So whats the deal ?

I hate Hal Jordan anyway, he's the worst lantern to me.

I think it was because the script/writing was bad. I thought it was "ok" I just think Ryan Renolds has bad luck with the scripts he gets

Because Hal shouldnt be played by Ryan Reynolds, Ryan should play Deadpool which he was really good at.

The villains were not done well at all. A good superhero movie needs a villain you can hate, and it's hard to hate a big yellow cloud (even if it is threatening to destroy Earth). As for Hector Hammond, the viewer was almost made to feel sorry for him--I'm sure they did this to make him seem more human, but in the end it just made the movie worse.

ryan reynolds is a comic movie killer. that and pacing, they tried to throw waaay too much in , Oa and the other lanterns, parallax and a love story so it all came out as crap

Because everyone told you it sucked, therefore there opinions became your opinion 

Its mainly because it seemed like that didn't know what they wanted to do with it, that being said it wasn't nearly as bad as the freak out would lead you to believe but it was by no means a good movie

It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good.

@DarkKnightDetective: This

@SoA: This

The script sucked, the editing sucked, direction sucked, the villains sucked. The only thing I can commend the movie for are the scenes that took place on Oa, all 15 minutes of them.

You will probably sit through Green Lantern thinking, “How many remedial screenwriting 101 students did it take to scribble this on to a cocktail napkin?” I didn't care for Ryan Reynolds, jinxuandi already mentioned Hector Hammond and let's not forget the painfully bad CGI. WB thinks it failed because it wasn't dark or edgy. If that's how the company thinks expect the reboot to fail as well. If you want to check out a Green Lantern film, go ahead and rent Green Lantern: First Flight. Just my opinion.

IMO.....Bad script, bad editing...and lastly, not enough of Mark Strongs Sinestro

It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good

1. Did not get enough development with the Lanterns, especially Sinestro.

2. Hector Hammond felt unnecessary ( if you took that character out of the movie nothing would be drastically altered.)

3. Some bad editing

4. Hal Jordan's speech before the final showdown was CW worthy.

• Bad story
• Ryan Reynolds
• Bad acting
• CLOUD Parallax (nobody liked that with Galactus and nobody liked it now)
• Ryan Reynolds
• Poorly rewritten characters
• Ignored the comics
• Ryan Reynolds
• Plot holes

Oh, and Ryan Reynolds.

It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@Kal'smahboi said:

It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good.

^ We have a winner.

o___O. You liked it? Well, you kinda liked it?

I'm genuinely surprised.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@Kal'smahboi said:

It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good.

^ We have a winner.

o___O. You liked it? Well, you kinda liked it?

I'm genuinely surprised.

For a space epic most of the movie took place on earth when it shouldn't have. Not enough time on Oa, Hector Hammond and Hal were whiney douchebags, Parallax was depicted as a giant fart cloud, Bad acting, Needed more time with the other Green Lanterns, Needed better writing. Needed a lot more Sinestro.

Because a good movie doesn't make you go "Did I miss the part where he got a ransom note from Hector?" or "WTF how did he know that there was a secret lab there that needed saving?". Come on Spirit of Vengeance was better than this.

I really don't pay attention to critics I watched and enjoyed the movie it was a fun 2 hours. So what's the damn problem

It was a bad story. I thought too much of the movie focused on Hal. He had to battle one of his childhood friends who also fell in love with Carol. For a movie focusing on a hero that regularly travels through space, not much attention was given to that aspect.

I also though that there was a lack of other Green Lanterns, and all Sinestro did throughout the movie was talk to the Guardians...no mentoring Hal or anything.

Green Lantern: First Flight was a better origin movie by far.

I was a huge proponent of this movie from the time it was announced. Hal had long been one of my favorite characters, as his "Chuck Yeager" sensibility really appealed to me.

That said, I was horribly disappointed by the Green Lantern movie. Why? I'll tell you.

1) Scripting

The script had some serious pacing problems. There was the obligatory "secret origins" sequence showcasing the death of Martin Jordan, which is fine, but there was very little time spent on making the audience care about the character of Hal. There are some nice moments with his nephew, but other than that, he seems like a rather generic cutout in the frat boy, "Top Gun" mold. This gives the audience nothing to really root for as the movie progresses.

The Oa sequences, which were by far the most visually spectacular portion of the movie, were poorly handled. WB spent an inordinate amount of time and money marketing the various Green Lantern Corps members only to reward them with perhaps a few seconds of screen time apiece (Kilowog being the lone exception). Again, this creates no emotional investment on the part of the audience, which means that when several of these characters bite the proverbial bullet at the end of the second act, there is no reason for the audience to care.

2) Direction

Martin Campbell deserves much of the fault for the critical failure of this film. All of the actors in the cast, from Ryan Reynolds on down, have all turned in far superior work from an acting standpoint on other films. Ryan Reynolds was allowed to slip, far too often, into his standard personality, which is completely on the director. His Hector Hammond was overblown, and many of the supporting characters felt like cartoons rather than fleshed out people. Again, when you know that the actors have the capability based on previous work, then the responsibility for this failure falls squarely on the shoulders of the director.

3) Wasted Opportunities

Parallax: Done. Hector Hammond: Done. Krona: Done. All great concepts that could carry films on their own, if done right, and were mashed together in an unintelligible jumble.

The original production design for the film included references to Gotham and Metropolis, which would have made this film feel a part of a larger universe, but was written out by WB execs as "confusing". There was even an Alan Scott reference in the original shooting script that was also canned.

In short, the production was rushed, the script was rewritten to death, and the studio didn't trust audiences to be intelligent enough to know a good movie when they saw it. The sequel has the opportunity to make up for a lot of these mistakes, but only if done right. Otherwise, WB will have squandered one of their best opportunities for an enduring science fiction franchise that could be the next Star Wars.

/endrant

-----

CapelessCrusader.org

It sucked because of

• Laughably bad dialogue: Seriously not kidding when I say almost as bad as Batman & Robin
• The plot is basically a DC ripoff...er, "version" of Spider-Man with a little bit of Iron Man thrown in for good measure
• I didn't care about any of the characters. They were very poorly developed
• The villain was absolutley ridiculous. And this is coming from the guy who liked Absorbing Man from Ang Lee's Hulk
• Plot holes
• Sinestro is a good guy for the whole movie. WTF?
• Fails to take advantage of an enormous universe of different lantern corps
• I didn't hate the villain. If anything I felt sorry for him. Which was also a reason why Batman Returns sucked with the Penguin

I don't think it sucked that much.Yes,the story was bad,so was the Cloudy Parallax and Hector Hammond but basically it was an entertaining movie for me,

@TDK_1997:

If you liked Green Lantern you have to like Daredevil and Ang Lee's Hulk. Both were insanley underrated

Because they turned Hal into an a$$. Plus how Carol recognised him through the mask broke all the superhero rules, it's not ground breaking to defy them.

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

Because everyone told you it sucked, therefore there opinions became your opinion

this.

Personally, I found the movie enjoyable.

At the time it was competing with X-Men: First Class, Avengers, etc.

Well, GL wasn't  great, but I don't think it sucked either. I agree Daredevil also did not suck, but also was not great...Ang Lee's Hulk, I think did suck! Anyhow, back on topic, the main thing wrong was LAME VILLAINS. They didn't look intimidating, they didn't act intimidating, and were hard to take seriously. I hope they don't reboot GL, just go on to part two with Sinestro. The weird thing is, the villains were also LAME in The Avengers, yet since it got good reviews, so many people have let that slide. Let me explain: We all knew Loki's "army" was not a threat. Those guys were basically like side-kicks for any villain. We know Batman won't have any problems with Joker's henchmen, the real showdown comes when he faces the Joker. Same here, we all know Loki's "army" wasn't the threat, the threat had to be Loki himself. Problem was...he wasn't a threat! Hulk jumps up, tosses him around for thirty seconds, and the threat is nullified. (which was a cool visual/comic relief, but nothing more.) There was no showdown like Batman had with Joker hanging off the building in TDK. Basically The Avengers was a film without a climax.Unless you thought for one second Iron man wasn't going to come back from the portal in time. But, in true cliche fashion, he barely escapes in the nick of time.If we think we know as much about writing as we say we do when critiquing a comic, that was a blatant example of bad writing. Worse than anything that happened in GL. Yet because Rotten Tomatoes gives Avengers a 93% rating and everyone becomes programmed to say how great it was, (I'll bet 90% of the people had their minds made up it was great before they stepped foot into the theatre.) everyone over-looks it's many flaws. With GL, everyone said it sucked and so do most of us. It's really nothing more than going along with the crowd. If i asses both film honestly, I think the Avengers was better than GL, but barely, the main thing is it LOOKED better.

Personally I liked the film, and the costume was very well done in my opinion. Ryan Reynolds played a great part as Hal Jordan, I just thought that maybe the 'imaginary car saving the helicopter crashing' and the 'imaginary gun firing at Parallax' was a bit to 'childish' for my liking, would like to see more expert use of the Green Lantern power.

But like someone said before, don't let other peoples opinions influence yours, if you enjoyed the film then stand by your opinion.

@DarkKnightDetective: Ok if Ryan Reynolds should not play Hal Jordan then who ? Oh funny you said Deadpool because I heard there going to make a deadpool movie and Ryan is going to play him.

@Kid_Omega_Prime said:

@DarkKnightDetective: Ok if Ryan Reynolds should not play Hal Jordan then who ? Oh funny you said Deadpool because I heard there going to make a deadpool movie and Ryan is going to play him.

I don't see why there should be any problems with Ryan Reynolds playing both Hal Jordan and Deadpool; both characters are from different universes and comics all together so there wouldn't be any clashes. I think he played great both as Deadpool and Hal Jordan, in my opinion keep him for both roles.

@Kid_Omega_Prime: I think he should be played by Chris Pine or Nathan Fillion, and I am awere of that movie that keep getting postponed.

@Manwhohaseverything said:

Well, GL wasn't great, but I don't think it sucked either. I agree Daredevil also did not suck, but also was not great...Ang Lee's Hulk, I think did suck! Anyhow, back on topic, the main thing wrong was LAME VILLAINS. They didn't look intimidating, they didn't act intimidating, and were hard to take seriously. I hope they don't reboot GL, just go on to part two with Sinestro. The weird thing is, the villains were also LAME in The Avengers, yet since it got good reviews, so many people have let that slide. Let me explain: We all knew Loki's "army" was not a threat. Those guys were basically like side-kicks for any villain. We know Batman won't have any problems with Joker's henchmen, the real showdown comes when he faces the Joker. Same here, we all know Loki's "army" wasn't the threat, the threat had to be Loki himself. Problem was...he wasn't a threat! Hulk jumps up, tosses him around for thirty seconds, and the threat is nullified. (which was a cool visual/comic relief, but nothing more.) There was no showdown like Batman had with Joker hanging off the building in TDK. Basically The Avengers was a film without a climax.Unless you thought for one second Iron man wasn't going to come back from the portal in time. But, in true cliche fashion, he barely escapes in the nick of time.If we think we know as much about writing as we say we do when critiquing a comic, that was a blatant example of bad writing. Worse than anything that happened in GL. Yet because Rotten Tomatoes gives Avengers a 93% rating and everyone becomes programmed to say how great it was, (I'll bet 90% of the people had their minds made up it was great before they stepped foot into the theatre.) everyone over-looks it's many flaws. With GL, everyone said it sucked and so do most of us. It's really nothing more than going along with the crowd. If i asses both film honestly, I think the Avengers was better than GL, but barely, the main thing is it LOOKED better.

Finally someone thinks Avvengers was overrated

They tried to do to much in the movie with Parallax and Hector hall, it took about half the film for him to get his power ring.

I think the film would have been a lot better if they introduced John Stewart instead of Hal Jordan.

@DarkKnightDetective said:

Because Hal shouldnt be played by Ryan Reynolds, Ryan should play Deadpool which he was really good at.

Agreed, but i heard he was gonna play deadpool, did they change planes or something?

Hot Wheels thing really made me just hate the movie to be honest other than I was just an okay movie to me that really didn't stand out though I'm not a huge GL fan either.

It has terrible and contrived writing. You may not notice it but it just feels weird and wrong.

Take for example the scene where Hal has just beaten the two computer controlled jets. He looks down and sees a picture of his father, which triggers a painful flashback and causes him to crash. That scene might seem OK when you watch it but if you just think about it for a second, you'll realize that it makes no sense. How is he even a pilot, let alone one of the best pilots, if he's that easily distracted? The picture was right next to the jet's instruments, there's no way he pilot the plane without seeing it. If that picture can cause such emotional distress, why did he even take it with him?

There are a lot of scenes like that where you may not initially notice how contrived they are but they just feel wrong and make little sense when you go back and think about it.

@deadpool6_6_6: no but Deadpool keeps getting postponed because Green Lantern 2 is in the making.

because

@KainScion said:

because

This^

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@ReVamp said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@Kal'smahboi said:

It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good.

^ We have a winner.

o___O. You liked it? Well, you kinda liked it?

I'm genuinely surprised.

I actually liked it quite a bit. The extended edition is pointless, but the standard release was really not that bad. It had great special effects, a likeable protagonist, a big threat for him to overcome (that he did with intelligence as well as power), a decent love interest. I mean, it wasn't perfect, obviously. But it was a fun popcorn movie based on a fun popcorn comic. It wasn't offensively bad like Ghost Rider 2, but it was a solid 6/10 movie. People act like the Green Lantern comics are some form of high-literature, come on. It's a popcorn comic. The spirit was carried into the movie.

IMO it isn't any worse than Thor

@Jonny_Anonymous: Me and Fade actually talked about that, I liked GL more than Thor.

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@ReVamp said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@Kal'smahboi said:

It wasn't that bad. I actually put most of the blame on Peter Sarsgaard. hector Hammond was the worst part of the film. The rest was actually pretty good.

^ We have a winner.

o___O. You liked it? Well, you kinda liked it?

I'm genuinely surprised.

I actually liked it quite a bit. The extended edition is pointless, but the standard release was really not that bad. It had great special effects, a likeable protagonist, a big threat for him to overcome (that he did with intelligence as well as power), a decent love interest. I mean, it wasn't perfect, obviously. But it was a fun popcorn movie based on a fun popcorn comic. It wasn't offensively bad like Ghost Rider 2, but it was a solid 6/10 movie. People act like the Green Lantern comics are some form of high-literature, come on. It's a popcorn comic. The spirit was carried into the movie.

IMO it isn't any worse than Thor

Let me list you why: too many plot lines...that didn't interconnect well

they had:

1. Hal's social life: both family and work plus emotional and psychological baggage.

2. Hal as a Green Lantern protecting earth

3. Hal as a Green Lantern training on OA

4. Green Lanterns vs Parallax

5. Hal and Carol's relationship

6. Hector's terrible life: his relationship with his father, and his obsession with Carol

7. Hector's gaining of powers and corruption

8. Hal Jordan vs Hector

9. Sinestro's gaining of the yellow ring.

10. Hal Jordan vs Parallax

If your going to make a Green Lantern movie you either focus on earth life or space life, you don't mix until you've had a two individual movies thats grounded both

@Agent9149: You're not listing plot lines. You're listing scenes. There are at best three plot lines in the movie: Hal's, Hector's and the corps' as they fight Parallax. Of any problems the movie had, being overcrowded with plot was not one of them.