![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.filmdetail.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/06\/Ryan-Reynolds-in-Green-Lantern.jpg\" "\\"Ryan")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Does the expensive folly of Green Lantern<\/a><\/strong> mark the end of an era for super-expensive comic book movies?<\/p>\n Over the last decade Hollywood studios fully realised the commercial potential of bringing famous comic characters to the big screen.<\/p>\n Whilst Superman<\/a> (1978) and Batman<\/a> (1989) were big hits, ever since 2000 there has been a deluge of Marvel and DC characters at multiplexes.<\/p>\n The commercial success of X-Men<\/a> (2000) proved that, if done well, mainstream audiences were ready for what was once regarded the preserve of geeks.<\/p>\n When Spider-Man<\/a> (2002) became a record-breaking blockbuster, the pattern for the ensuing decade was set as franchises were built and merchandising dollars flowed in.<\/p>\n A generation who grew up familiar with the original characters embraced seeing them on the big screen with modern visual effects, as what once seemed goofy now became spectacular.<\/p>\n Out of this period came some well-crafted genre films, such as X-Men 2<\/a> (2003) and Spider-Man 2<\/a> (2004), along with some instant clunkers like Catwoman<\/a> (2004) and Elektra<\/a> (2005).<\/p>\n It even resulted in the previously unthinkable when The Dark Knight<\/a> (2008) not only became a critical and commercial success, but was even talked of as a Best Picture contender<\/a>.<\/p>\n But the summer of 2008 may in retrospect have been when a certain plateau was reached, as Christoper Nolan’s Batman sequel (which embraced an unusually realistic feel for the genre) became a genuine box-office and cultural phenomenon.<\/p>\n Predictably, the major studios green lit another wave of comic book adaptations, resulting this summer in Thor<\/a>, X-Men: First Class<\/a> and Captain America<\/a> later this summer.<\/p>\n Which brings us to Green Lantern.<\/p>\n To actually see this in a multiplex with a paying audience (as I did) was quite an experience.<\/p>\n Not because it is good (it is pretty bad), or because it is an all-out fiasco<\/a> on the level of Catwoman<\/a> (it isn’t quite that either).<\/p>\n But because as I was watching it unfold, it started to seem fascinatingly<\/em> bad given the gargantuan sums of money that were spent on it.<\/p>\n For starters, how much name recognition does the Green Lantern character actually have outside the comic book realm?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I know studios are running out of iconic names so fast that they are making reboots and team-up movies, but Green Lantern is probably best known for being easily confused with The Green Hornet<\/a>.<\/p>\n Directed by Martin Campbell, the resulting film is a sloppy mish-mash of superhero tropes, in which a maverick fighter pilot (Ryan Reynolds) is granted special powers through a ring given to him by a dying alien warrior.<\/p>\n He then has to prevent a mysterious being from destroying large chunks of the galaxy (including Earth), as well as dealing with his former fighter pilot\/businesswoman girlfriend (Blake Lively) and a rogue scientist with a silly moustache and large forehead (Peter Sarsgaard).<\/p>\n Opening with a baffling prologue that sets out the film’s wider universe, it races between set-pieces on earth and outer space, in which we essentially see the same old superhero crap.<\/p>\n A reckless protagonist gains powers which teach him to be humble; a glamourous female lead who is just there to be rescued; a father and son sub-plot involving Oedipal<\/a> rage; mentor characters who don’t have any faith in their new student; and lots of visual effects which are just there to make fanboys go “awesome”.<\/p>\n But watching all this again, it felt like the law of diminishing returns had finally caught up with the genre.<\/p>\n The deluge of clich\u00e9s and lack of any real surprise made it feel like Green Lantern marked the fading of the era which began over a decade ago.<\/p>\n One moment in particular stood out.<\/p>\n Part of the Green Lantern’s powers are that he can make any object providing his ‘will’ is strong enough, which means in a fight he can produce swords and machine guns.<\/p>\n But when he produced what looked like a big, comedy fist I really thought the filmmakers and effects guys were just having a laugh.<\/p>\n Added to that is way in which CGI is integrated with the live action. Yes, it is a fantasy, but did it have to look so goofy?<\/p>\n Word around the Hollywood\u00a0camp-fire\u00a0(or what Warner Bros insiders have leaked to Nikki Finke<\/a>) is that this has been a troubled production.<\/p>\n Four credited screenwriters (Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Marc Guggenheim and Michael Goldenberg) is never a good sign and there are scenes that smack of rewrites and reshoots (especially one during the climax, which feels laughably out of place).<\/p>\n Finke reports<\/a> that Warner Bros marketing saw the finished film “extremely late in the game” and that they “didn’t have access to more than 70% of the finished movie until two weeks ago”.<\/p>\n If true, this might explain why the studio has spent $100 million dollars on a late marketing blitz (expensive even for a blockbuster) in the hope that people turn up this weekend.<\/p>\n Whilst the deserved bad reviews<\/a> (23% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 40 score on Metacritic) will only have a marginal effect on box office, it is hard for a wide release like this (it opens at 3,816 US cinemas this weekend) to actually have a bad opening, as mainstream audiences generally go to see the next big tentpole release.<\/p>\n But when a Warner Bros executive\u00a0reportedly<\/a> says: “I’m not going to tell you this is the greatest movie” when the studio have spent around $300 million dollars to make and market it, something has gone badly wrong.<\/p>\n