Why do people like Hal? Hal is bravado. He’s an arrogant pilot that’s very sure of himself. Heck, even in Johns’ Secret Origins, he is so in love with flying that he alienates his family.

In this movie, I’m not even sure he liked being a pilot. He seemed like he did it because he was expected to do it, and because he was naturally talented. Much as I had problems with Johns’ Secret Origins, at least Hal obviously loved being a pilot and pushing the envelope, he wasn’t just a piloting savant that happened to also be an emotional cripple.

The best portrayal we could have seen in the movie was a Hal that heard the Guardians and other GLs downplay his ability, and Hal not caring what they said and doing his job better than anyone else could have.

In fact, while the overall story wasn’t great, the character of Hal Jordan in Green Lantern: First Flight at least seemed like the Hal we should have gotten in this movie.

Flash could be a great, fun super hero movie with great, fun villains, but instead, if it gets made, we’ll probably get brooding, “my mother was murdered” Barry Allen instead of someone that loves helping other people and has fun doing it.

The biggest problem with DC’s movies is that the movies aren’t about the characters as they have most successfully been portrayed. Hal Jordan isn’t known for self-doubt and inner fears, and Clark Kent isn’t known for whinning about not being able to be with a human woman and brooding over how alone he is.

On the issue of relatability, Marvel is more relatable because it was more advantageous to be that because it had to be different from DC in order to sell more. But its not that hard to make DC characters relatable, just gotta find a core or an anchor that allows insight into a character that allows us to care.

This isn’t the end of the Comic book movie. We have plenty of time to see your favorite character soar or flop!

Some of you people really have no idea what you’re talking about…it’s really astounding that you even embarrass your self commenting.

People have been saying it’s “bad”, but can’t really demonstrate why. Someone here said “it needs better actors”…. Umm, it was nearly an all-star cast!!

My only problems with, were A) I didn’t care for the way Parallax was depicted, but then I’m not sure his true insect version would’ve went over any better, and B) even though Ryan Reynolds pulled it off okay, I feel like he would’ve made a better Kyle Rayner, than Hal Jordan.

Other than that, I loved the movie, can’t wait for it to come out on blu-Ray.

A) you mention the fictitious cities bit, like that’s a bad thing. I’ve been reading DC for over a decade now, and I’ve yet to see any of these “talking animals” of which you speak. The only one I can recall, is Talky Tawny, and (sadly) he’s rarely ever present.

B) DC does in fact use real cities from time to time. Blue Beetle operates out of El Paso, TX. Knight and Squire are in London. NY and DC are present and accounted for as well.

Let’s face it, shticks aside, what do we have in the new GG movie, or the Sups before it, in comparison to Bats? Bats was a classic because it was wonderfully done, both acting and script-interpretation to the screen, the others…? Meh. Movie makers have to acknowledge that the current crowd demands more, and just as the comics industry evolved, so does the related movies should.

Thor wasn’t exactly a masterpiece, but it was well-directed, well-acted, fun, and, over all, pretty original for a mainstream superhero/action film. The writing wasn’t great, but it wasn’t bad.

I can’t say any of these things for Hex, Superman Returns, or GL. The Losers was fun, but, really, we’d seen that story several times already, so it wasn’t anything new. There IS a reason these DC movies isn’t doing well…and it’s not about being relatable, but I think Millar knows this and was just trying to say something that incites a response.

Is the lack of being relatable why Kick-Ass underperformed? No. Not at all.

Over time, it forces writers to make countless little decisions in plots, decisions that reflect how a fictional character would do something in a real world place. It imposes a kind of rigor or discipline to always go “X” when it would be possible to do “X” “Y” or “Z” if it were a purely fictional city, where anything could happen. (For years, the DCU was the place more likely to have talking animals than the Marvel 515.) Even Hogwarts is moored by proximity to London, after all.

And Mark if we are to think your point about these characters not being human enough than Thor should have flopped bigger than anything and so should any Super-hero movie its an out of this world situation no matter how down troted the main character is. Bruce Wayne is not relatable in many ways. I mean okay how many regular people get to see their parents shot in front of them at a young age and use their ten of dollars to fight crime. really that’s it, Batman is so Fantastical it blows my mind. Yet you draw a nice shadow in a comic and suddenly every suburban kid with a complex thinks he is Bruce Wayne. Batman is lucky that his story for the most part is easy to tell and has been told by good talented people. That is all. Don’t make too much of this i’m sure Mark will be talking about how awesome DC characters are when he need s a job. You are a Fraud Mr. Millar.

The arguments of whether DC characters are relatable are ridiculous. We are still paying millions to see Superman films, even when they are not very good. Green Lantern is a marginal character in the general public’s awareness. They needed inspired casting and script/direction that knocked it out of the park (like Iron Man) in order for it to succeed. And they didn’t do it.

It has nothing to do with the characters. The problem with the WB is that its too Hollywood. Too many people are involved. Too many writers, producers, etc. Marvel gets to do it as their own studio which helps them control things a lot more. This is where the WB is failing.

A-list creators who can tell the studio, back off, like Chris Nolan, are pretty much the only ones who are going to save DC movies.

If you like something, fine… like it. Trying to justify liking something by ripping on the competitor is in no way going to sell your argument to the people you are arguing with. And, if you’re not trying to actually convince others of your viewpoint, why bother posting at all? Simply seeing your words on a message board thread cannot be the point, can it?

I thought Green Lantern as a film was very uneven. I thought the casting was poor (except for Sinestro), and I felt like the movie lacked cohesiveness. Meanwhile, I quite enjoyed Thor, which I felt did a very good job of creating a different type of hero, one who was unbelievably arrogant (but arguably justified in being so), without malice, and whose character arc, while short, was believable and involving.

That doesn’t mean DC’s stable of heroes is worse than Marvel’s. It just means I felt this one DC movie turned out poorly. Marvel has definitely had a better track record so far, but they’ve (a) released a LOT more movies, (if you release 15-20 movies, it’s easier to have a handful of genuine hits), and (b) made the smart move of trying to bring movies back under their creative control. DC will get there too.

I’m very much looking forward to Captain America. I’m also looking forward to the Superman reboot. If they could ever get Wonder Woman to film or television, I’d look forward to that as well.

It does not have to be a case of one or the other.

“when are people just going to admit that green lantern is terrible. 24 percent on rotten tomatoes. that doesn’t happen by accident. i’m tired of reading “but i liked it” Well if you did you have no damn taste. And that has nothing to do with another boring dc versus marvel conversation. as a film it’s a steaming turd.”

This, coming from the guy that sites “Rotten Tomatoes” as a source. You’ll forgive me if I don’t take someone whose a clear victim of Group-Think mentality seriously.

See, this is why some people shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a computer.

“DC characters are camp, they have silly and or dated names, ridiculous costumes and powers that make them nothing special or super godlike and therefore -boring.”

So wait, Thor IS a god, but he’s not boring?

Captain America isn’t a silly name? Or the Silver Surfer?

Nothing special??? You’ve never read a DC comic, have you? Flash can run so far beyond the speed of light, that he can access an extra-dimensional plane (time, space, etc). Can Marvel’s Quicksilver do that? Hell, QS is slower than DC’s slowest speedster.

The Flash? Sounds like something from the 50′s,

Uhmm, that’s because…. He is from the 50′s. So are almost ALL of Marvel’s Super-Heroes.

“Superman? He wears underwear on the outside of his tights…”

OMG, if I hear this argument one more time…. So did Cyclops. So did Magneto. So did the FF. So does Captain America. So did Daredevil. So did Wolverine. So did Sentry.

You are acting like you just started reading comics yesterday. You are looking at Marvel’s updated looks for their characters, as if they had always been that way, when it wasn’t.

Besides, how stupid is it, that Bruce Banner changes to the Hulk, a creature 10+ times his size/mass, and busts out of his shoes, but still keeps the same jeans/pants on? That’s not lame to you?

“Wonder Woman? Apart from for camp nostalgia at a gay pride event, who seriously is interested in such rubbish?”

Wow, that’s an insult to most women everywhere, but coming from you, I’m not surprised.

You’ve never actually read a DC comic in your life, have you?

“Batman is the only remotely cool character DC have and even that took DECADES at the movies to get even half way right and watchable.”

Dude, were you born yesterday? Marvel’s latest movies just started becoming popular, in the past decade. Aside from the Hulk on TV, Marvel basically had NOTHING.

“Swamp Thing, Hawkman, AQUAMAN?! LOL! LAME!!!!!”

So wait, Swamp Thing is lame, but Man-Thing (an obvious rip-off) isn’t?

HawkMan is lame, but Angel (another rip-off) isn’t? Aquaman is lame, but Namor isn’t?

I won’t even bother asking you why; we both know you dont have a reason.

I didn’t realize this article was about Geoff Johns. NATCH!!

I disagree with most of what you said:

Honestly, it probably did horribly BECAUSE it was too Johnsian….. like green representing the emotion willpower (willpower isn’t an emotion)”

This has been stated NUMEROUS TIMES before, both in the comic, and even actually in the movie itself (did you actually watch it? I’ve seen it TWICE, and it gets better with every viewing): Will is not an actual emotion, it’s the balance to all the other emotions.

What’s so hard to get about this?

“….and yellow representing the emotion fear….”

And what’s precisely wrong with that?

“….and how stupid Parallax was…”

I gues I can’t argue with this point. But there’s no real guarantee that Parallax in its true, comic form would have went over any better.

“….and how the movie was schizophrenic in not knowing if it wanted to pander to kids or be disgusting and grotesque (total Johnsian complaint there)….”

I’m convinced that we didn’t watch the same movie. I continue to hear alot of people’s “complaints” about the GL movie, and most of them don’t match what my perception of the movie was.