Is the Warner Bros plan to make all comic book movies "dark and edgy" a smart move?

The L.A. Times had an article yesterday about how Warner Bros. is still planning Green Lantern 2, but that they intend to make it "edgier and darker" than the original.

*sigh*

This, of course, is the big lesson WB took from the billion dollar worldwide take of The Dark Knight: dark and edgy = better. If that song sounds familiar, it's because that's what they said a couple years ago when announcing their intentions for the next Superman movie. I'm also pretty sure this isn't the first time, they've said all their superhero films will be "dark and edgy."

It's ridiculous that is their only judgement on why Green Lantern underperformed. I don't think the problem was that it wasn't dark enough, it's that there wasn't enough sense of fun and adventure. Oh, and the second act had problems.

Why did people like Iron Man? Because it was fun and because Robert Downey Jr. was charming and charismatic. The Spider-Man movies are among the top grossing films of all time and they were plenty of fun too. "Dark" works for Batman because that's the world he inhabits. But it's not Superman's world, it's not Spider-Man's world, and it's not Green Lantern's world. At least not in the degrees that Batman's is.

If you apply this sort of "one size fits all" assessment to every underperforming comic book film then you fail to examine each one as a unique property and a unique story. "Comic Book Movie" isn't a genre in the sense that "Horror" and "Comedy" are genres. If you equate Green Lantern to The Dark Knight, you might as well try to find a common element in the failures of The Godfather part III and the Star Wars prequels.

As I joked on Twitter, WB could make a Holocaust film about Hitler raping dead gerbils and when it failed at the box office, they'd think the problem was it wasn't edgy enough.

The comics have gone dark - sometimes successfully, sometimes not. The DC miniseries Identity Crisis was effectively dark and edgy when dealing in the moral greys that the Justice League was revealed to trade in, to say nothing of the shockingly brutal murder of Robin's father. It was less successful when the story's twists included a completely unnecessary violation of a beloved female character.

The Star Trek franchise succeeded when went darker with Deep Space Nine and used that to explore greater moral complexity during wartime. It was less effective in the final Next Generation film Nemesis, which featured the completely unaffecting death of one character and the mental rape of another. (Hmmm... I see a disturbing pattern developing.)

Dark is overrated. Sure, everyone remembers The Empire Strikes Back as their favorite Star Wars film, but they conveniently forget that when they were seven years old, that shit on Dagobah was boring as hell. It might be fun to rip on Return of the Jedi and the annoyingly cute Ewoks, but to the average 10 year-old who saw those movies as they came out, Jedi was probably the more exciting and "better" of the two.

Imagine if the same studio execs working on Green Lantern today had been put in charge of Return of the Jedi, and that Empire Strikes Back had been hailed as the superior Star Wars film as much as it is today. The Ewoks would either have been replaced with more ferocious, brutally violent beings, or we'd have seen the Empire's troops plow through the Ewok forces with all the intensity of the D-Day sequence in Saving Private Ryan. Jabba the Hutt would have raped Princess Leia, Han never would have survived the unfreezing, or would have done so with a horrible disfigurement, and Luke probably would have killed his father, only to end up in the Vader suit himself by the end of it.

Okay, maybe that wouldn't have happened. But must we always go "dark?" Don't we need some tonal balance in our superhero films?

The "Act Two problems" of Green Lantern: Part II - Hal's arc

Part I

We continue with our look at the Act II problems of Green Lantern.

The next problem: Hal's internal arc. When we meet him, he's a cocky test pilot, seemingly driven by ego and a lot of false bravado. Before long, we learn he's haunted by the death of his test pilot father in a plane crash years earlier. Some of this works - I can buy that Hal is haunted and being fired from his job might send him towards rock bottom. But the script whisks him off to Oa for training, where he retains his cocky personality until Corps member Sinestro basically says he doesn't deserve to wear that uniform, saying he brings shame to it.

Somehow, these words from someone Hal's known for all of three minutes cut him so deeply that he decides he needs to quit the Corps. Thus, Hal spends the entire second act moping that he can't be part of the Corps because he's afraid, and that his fear makes him weak and he'll never be as good as the other Lanterns, and so on and so on.

Having a character mope during the entire second act is always a dangerous move. Your hero sets the tone. The reason people loved Iron Man had less to do with any affection for comic book heroes and more to do with the fact that Robert Downey Jr. was a helluva lot of fun to watch in the role. I absolutely believe that Reynolds could have been just as much fun as Green Lantern, but he's stranded by a script that doesn't give his character much sense of fun. There's no motivation for Hal to really be hurt by the fact that Sinestro doesn't respect him and so the whole arc feels false. It's just there to give him self-doubt that he can "heroically" overcome by the end of the film.

The thing is, there was a better way to get to this. While Hal's sent back to Earth, Sinestro leads a squadron of Corps members against Parallax, who makes shortwork of them by tapping into their fears to make them vulnerable before he finishes them off.

My solution: when Sinestro tells Hal, "You suck, I can tell after 30 seconds you haven't got what it takes. Hal retorts, "Screw you. I'm as good as any of you." Play up that arrogance and insecurity that we've already seen and then send him on the initial mission to confront Parallax. Here's where Hal finds out he's in over his head because he experiences first hand the menance and what he'll need to overcome it. When the Corps attack, Hal should fall in battle pretty quickly, overwhelmed by the fears that Parallax brings to the fore. Perhaps with Sinestro's help, Hal is one of the few to escape alive, only to flee back to Earth.

Here's where we would hit the "Dark Night of the Soul." Hal wouldn't mope for an entire act - but maybe just ten minutes or so. Then he gets forced into action by Hector's plots. He doesn't have time to think about it - he has to be a hero. And then it gets worse. Maybe Sinestro and the rest of the Corps have fallen back to hold the line at Oa. There's just one problem - Parallax isn't headed there. Having become aware of Earth through Hector, he's now heading there to power up before going to Oa for the main dish.

In the film right now, there's not a particularly good reason given for why the Guardians don't send the Corps to defend Earth. Yeah, it gives Hal a good scene where he stands up to the Guardians and accuses them of being afraid. In the end, it feels like a clunky way to set up Hal as the only one to take on Parallax.

For what it's worth, I enjoyed Green Lantern, even if it wasn't as airtight as I would have liked. It's a shame that the box office fell short this weekend, because I would have loved to have seen this universe explored in a sequel or two. WB and DC Entertainment really needed this one to be a hit and I can't imagine they're thrilled with the box office results. It's a shame because I'd say it's a mostly decent comic book movie.

In terms of this summer's offerings, I think it's better than Thor, but perhaps short of X-Men: First Class. The difference is that even while Thor was held back by some of the cheesy stuff in Asgard, Chris Hemmsworth really anchored that film and was allowed to give a fun performance. Reynolds isn't given the same freedom from his screenplay, and unfortunately, I think that's what led critics to attack the film.

The "Act Two problems" of Green Lantern

An unfortunately-not-uncommon term among screenwriters and critics is "Act Two problems." Even if you don't know exactly what this means, likely you've observed them. If you're a writer, chances are at some point in your creative efforts, you've birthed them.

See, if you've got a good hook for a script, writing the set-up is often pretty easy. When you're really lucky, the first act writes itself. If you're really sharp, you've come up with an exciting climax and a strong ending that perfectly suits your concept and set-up. In other words, you know where your plot and characters start and have a good idea of where they end up.

Here, I'll give you a good example of this kind of pitch. This is from The Player. The story itself starts at about a minute in. Tim Robbins plays a studio exec who's getting a pitch from two writers. (One of whom has an arrogance and pretension that eventually comes across as off-putting and, frankly, naive.)



In a later scene, Robbins' character remarks that among the story's other deficiencies, "It's got no second act." It's a problem a lot of writers face - how do you get from A to C?

Green Lantern is - much to my great disappointment - a pretty good example of Act Two problems. As I discussed last week, I'd been anticipating this film like no other and was very concerned when I saw so many negative reviews. When I finally saw the film, I spent the first 40 or 45 minutes pleasantly surprised. The mythology of the Green Lanterns was introduced as effectively as film allowed, Ryan Reynolds' Hal Jordan got an exciting introduction that summed up his character well, and the big scene where he received the ring from the dying Abin Sur had all the weight and power I expected it to carry.

The film doesn't really run into trouble until partway through the second act. While Hal is whisked away to the planet Oa for training, an Earth-bound threat emerges in the form of scientist Hector Hammond, who becomes infected with energy from galactic threat Parallax.

The Green Lantern Corps need to mount an attack on Parallax, which is winging its way through space and is bound for Oa. The problem: there's still an hour left in the movie, so the film has to find some way of stalling that climactic battle.

Thus we get our first major Act Two problem: The Hector Hammond subplot. Peter Sarsgaard performs the role well, and under the right circumstances, Hector can be one creepy SOB. Here, he feels like a placeholder - a way to motivate some action to happen on Earth. Since the movie wants to set up Hal's earthbound life for future chapters, there needs to be some kind of subplot set-up Earthside, preferably one that puts Blake Lively's Carol Ferris into some kind of damsel-in-distress situation.

Hector is supposedly an old friend of Hal and Carol's, but this fact isn't mined for anything beyond perfunctory "I had the hots for her too, Hal" tension. When it comes down to the final battle between the two, there's none of the depth or heartbreak that X-Men: First Class was able to tap when Xavier found himself on the opposite side of the situation from Erik and Mystique.

There's also the fact that superhero film conventions demand that Hal flex some muscles on Earth and have a public debut of sorts as Green Lantern. Hector's first public stunt provides this, but then the film makes one of it's most baffling misteps: Hal's public debut barely feels public. The helicopter rescue gives him a chance to show off some of his ring constructs, but then we only get the barest hint of a public reaction to the new superhero in their midst.

I get that a lot of Superhero movies - particularly Superman - have covered this ground, and there's the risk of being derivative. Still, it's something that would have made the world feel realer, and given a stronger sense of Green Lantern's powers and responsibilities. From what we see - the world reacts with a shrug more than a "Holy shit! This guy can fly and his ring does anything!" If no one in-story is reacting to amazing things with any sense of wonder, it often weakens the impact for the audience.

(I had a similar problem with the Smallville finale last month, where Clark's public debut as Superman was practically non-existent and we saw none of the reaction to "The Blur" finally showing his face after years of being little more than an urban legend to the people of Metropolis.)

That's a lot for one day, so we'll save another major Act Two issue for tomorrow's post, where we focus on Hal Jordan's personal arc.

Please don't let Green Lantern suck

I've been a casual fan of Green Lantern for many years. I picked the title up off and on throughout the nineties and since Geoff Johns took over the book with Green Lantern: Rebirth in 2004, I've been a regular buyer. In fact, I can't give Johns enough credit for revitalizing the entire Green Lantern mythology and in the process, crafting a long run that builds on itself in a really satisfying way. I'd say that some of the best mainstream comics from the last 15 years come from this run.

So when Warner/DC Entertainment got around to doing the movie, they seemed to make some smart moves. The writers apparently drew heavily from Geoff Johns run, down to some of the storylines and character design - and they even put Johns on the film as an executive producer. They cast Ryan Reynolds, who should fit the role of a cocky test pilot like a glove, and they gave the director's chair to Martin Campbell - a man who TWICE revitalized the James Bond series.

I've been amped about this film for well over a year. I really liked the trailers too. Much like how the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter geeks lost their minds at how "everything looks how it's supposed to look" I went nuts for the glimpses of Oa, Kilowog and Parallax in the trailers.

And as I type this, Green Lantern sits on Rotten Tomatoes at 23%.

To put that in perspective - the so-so Thor has a 77% and even Mr. Poppers Penguins is at 45%

For now, trying to build up denial by rationalizing that a lot of reviews have buyers remorse about praising comic book films like Watchmen - which was visually powerful, but a bit too uneven and didn't hold up to repeated viewings - or Iron Man 2, which was a mess once the afterglow of Downey's performance wore off. Director Favreau did his best, but the film was too busy tying into future Marvel films to tell an interesting subject on its own. And there's the possibility that with Green Lantern being the third comic book movie this year, the market is just over-saturated.

All good rationalizations.... but 23%? Maybe Parallax is creeping into my subconscious, but I'm definitely feeling some fear. (That one was for the Green Lantern geeks!)

Wait! 82% of the audience liked it - compared to Thor's 80%! Is there a Blue Lantern Corps ring in the area or am I feeling some hope? (Again, that was also for the GL geeks... possibly that one was too arcane.)

Warner Brothers, you need this thing to fly. Please don't let it suck.

Feel free to sound off about this film in the comments. I'll be seeing the movie this weekend and likely will be posting about it soon after.

Friday Free-for-All: Ryan Reynolds makes some kid's day at Comic-Con

This has been making its way around the internet this week, but in case you didn't see it here's Ryan Reynolds making a kid's day at Comic-Con. While on the Green Lantern panel, Ryan is asked by a young fan what it feels like to say the Green Lantern oath.



Interesting side note: when I went looking for this video last weekend, the search terms "Green Lantern Comic Con" returned one instance of this clip and four separate videos of Blake Lively's appearance on the panel with titles that indicated there was some sort of wardrobe malfunction. (I didn't watch the videos to confirm.) This proves that as much as comic book geeks will go crazy for the Green Lantern oath, boobs always win in the end.