Green Lantern: The Comic Books vs. The Movie

Published 4 years ago by , Updated February 10th, 2012 at 8:03 am,

green lantern comic books versus movie Green Lantern: The Comic Books vs. The Movie

Martin Campbell’s Green Lantern – starring Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan, Blake Lively as Carol Ferris, and Mark Strong as Sinestro – has taken a ferocious critical beating – not the least of which was from our very own Kofi Outlaw.

For all intents and purposes, the Green Lantern film is a very streamlined adaptation of Geoff Johns’ Green Lantern: Secret Origin comic book – with other elements, events, and characters awkwardly thrown in for good measure.

The purpose of this article is to compare and contrast the various elements, characters, etc. that are shared between the Green Lantern comic books and movie,  in an attempt to deduce which medium did the better job. For example, if the movie did a better job, the movie gets a point. If the comic books did a better job, the comic book gets a point. At the end, we’ll tally the points on either side and see which medium — The Comic Books or The Movie — comes out on top.

FAIR WARNING: If you really, really loved the film and really, really hate snark, you’re really, really, not going to like this article.


The Mask (Comic Book vs. The Movie)

green lantern comic book movie masks Green Lantern: The Comic Books vs. The Movie

Advantage: The Comic Books – I shouldn’t even have to explain this. Just look at them! One’s an actual domino mask, and the other’s a veritable nose amplifier made from what appears to be green jellyfish flesh.

The Costume (Comic Book vs. The Movie)

green lantern costumes comic book versus movie Green Lantern: The Comic Books vs. The Movie

Advantage: The Comic Books – The movie costume doesn’t look as bad as some feared, but an iconic look is iconic for a reason.

The Green Lantern Corps

What little we see of the Green Lantern Corps — Kilowog, Tomar-Re, and so forth — the Guardians, and Oa gives us the impression that they’re nearly identical to their comic book counterparts (save, perhaps, Oa, which at times looks strikingly different). Unfortunately, we see so little of them in the film that they’re scarcely worth mentioning. The comic has had ample time to give all these characters wonderful depth and complexity – which has only improved since the release of Geoff Johns’ Secret Origins. Unfortunately, the movie chose to focus on other things…

green lantern comic book points Green Lantern: The Comic Books vs. The Movie

You can multiply this by 3: The comics do the mask, costume and corps better than the movie.

Next, Hal Jordan…

« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8»

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I couldn’t agree with you more. Well done!

  2. I agree with this article!

  3. Ugh more movie bashing. The bad review wasn’t enough eh?

    • Clearly the bad review wasnt, because everyone that are obviously hardcore GL and DC fans refuse to accept the bad reviews and bad word of mouth this film has garnered,saying how much better it was than Thor (clearly it wasnt, obviously the are DC fans) and some going as far to say this is the best comic adaptation ever (I think spiderman2 and dark knight might have something to say about that) SO screen rant felt it needed to drive the point home/defend their opinion with in depth reasons to back up their argument, which is a valid one at that.

      Oh, plus you where warned in big giant bold letters at the top of the article about what you were in for.

      • “SO screen rant felt it needed to drive the point home/defend their opinion with in depth reasons to back up their argument, which is a valid one at that.”

        I sincerely hope that was not their rationale in writing this article. I don’t think it was, and I hope I’m right.

        • @INK

          No, we have, in the last year, taken on a GREAT comic book expert who loves to write on these subjects and we gave him a crack at this film.

          We’ll likely do more of this in the future.

          Trust: We don’t feel the need to defend a thing. For all the controversy, we were happy our GL review generated that much attention.

          This ain’t our first rodeo, cowboys.

          • “We’ll likely do more of this in the future.”

            And for those future articles I have one suggestion:
            Less snark > More snark

            I really enjoy reading about the comics of these characters since I have been out of comic collecting for almost 20 years now, but I prefer reading about their differences and being able to form my own opinion before I see one being bashed over the other. I don’t mind seeing the picks at the bottom of the page for “comic” or “movie”, but I think the snark could be left out completely or buried at the end of the article. Just my opine.

          • cool. im really interested to hear what mr. moore has to say about x-men: first class. good or bad. can we make this happen SR?

      • You do realize that just because someone actually likes a movie that you don’t doesn’t mean you should be talking to them like they are a group of morons right?

        Let people have their own opinions. Hardcore comic fans loved the movie.

        I liked it. Could have been better. Especially if it had been written by the current comic writer, Geoff Johns.

        Thor was only a better film because it was actually written by the writer who brought Thor back in the comics. J. Micheal Stracksynski.

        Screenrant “driving their point home” is nothing more than them realizing that some people that visit their site actually form their own opinions. Not just share the ones given by Screenrant.

        • “Hardcore comic fans loved the movie.”
          Your statement implies that anyone who didn’t love the movie isn’t a hardcore comic fan, and thus your statement is false. I’m a hardcore comic fan, but I also enjoy character development and good plot structure. I wanted more than anyone I know for GL to be a well crafted film, and it’s not. Did I still enjoy it? Yes, but IN SPITE of its flaws, not because it didn’t have any.

          • Um, Gary, I am a hardcore comic fan AND a harcore GL fan AND a hardcore movie fan in general.

            Green Lantern was so bad I found it painful. I hated BECAUSE I am a fan who loves this character and his mythos. I wrote my review from that mindset…only to find that [SOME] “Hardcore fans” support this steaming pile of turd on film.

            So I was surprised by the backlash – I honestly thought fans would side with my review. I wrote it to honor them as a group that demanded more for their preferred genre of film, and preserving the essence of the material.

            Suffice to say, this has been quite a learning experience.

            • Keep up the good work Screenrant! You’re not hear to cater to everyones personal opinions and feelings and write about happy thoughts and daisies. You give it to us straight and I appreciate it greatly.

    • When did “ScreenRant’ become “ScreenLove”?

  4. The bad movie wasn’t enough for you, eh?

    • No actually, because I thought it was good and hope they make an even better sequel. This whole article just seems like a childish “rubbing it in” that you guys didn’t like it. I think the review pretty much spoke for itself and if people didn’t agree with your points there, elucidating them here doesn’t seem like it has much point.

  5. I thought it a fair comparison.

  6. Well done article but I didn’t see any of these for other comic book movies that screwed over their comic book counterparts.

    Haters gonna hate I suppose.

    • Do you have personal feelings for this movie?

  7. No offense directed at anyone, but I’ll be kinda relieved when the shockwaves created by this film’s dissapointment settle and go away. I had hoped it would do really well, but not enough to kick a dead horse because it didn’t. Lots of faithful Ranters enjoyed it rgardless of my, or anyone’s opinion…and this site is way too good to rub their noses in continued derision. Please guys, let this one expire and lets get back to upcoming stuff, okay? I know its a “hot topic”, but it seems to have become a polarizing one…

    • Agreed. I see no reason to stoke the fire. I’m surprised the people at SR aren’t more accommodating as far as the feelings of their readers goes. I realize it’s called ScreenRANT, and that it’s more or less a blog where they can write whatever they want, but I guess I don’t feel like they should just because they can.

      But if there isn’t a lot of upcoming news on the way, I suppose you gotta do what you gotta do to get ratings/traffic.

    • thanks for those wise words.

  8. OK we get it, screenrant hates the movie but why don’t you do this for the movies you like? Why not do this for the Dark Knight when it came out? Maybe do it when The Amazing Spider-Man comes out or do it for Captain America, this was completely pointless because all a person has to do is read the title of this article and realize you won’t give the movie any credit because you hated it, which is obviously your right, but it was kind of pointless because it was obvious you would give the advantage to the comics.

    • well i do agree with doing comparisons to movies you enjoy. but i liked this one for showing me all that COULD have been that i missed seeing the movie. it was definitely showing that it wasn’t the character’s fault, it was the writers’s.

  9. atleast theyre trying to redeem themselves after that horrible review. screen rant sincerely disappointed me with that one. every one makes mistakes though. that being said i do agree this is somewhat pointless. a 2 hr movie could never compare to decades of mythos and issues after issues. its illogical to compare them.

    • Good point, and I fully agree with you. It is easier to give a story with far more depth in a 12 issue mini-series than a 2 hour film. With 50+ years of comic history, there is only a limit to the amount of history they can cover in a 2 hour movie.

      No comic book film has been an exact adaptation of a certain comic series (Watchmen and 300 exluded.)

      I thought the film did a good job adapting Hal Jordan to the big screen. There was a lot more they could have done, but I think they established the character pretty well on the big screen. My biggest beef with the film was the lack of Sinestro action, and the Parallax cloud (Still better than the Galactus Cloud from Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.)

    • This article was NOT trying to redeem anything. Really, there is NO good reason for its existence.

  10. Was this really necessary? I mean really. I understand you hated the movie, but no comic book movie is going to follow the source material page by page.

    • Even Dark Knight which is considered by many to be the best of the comic book films didn’t follow the Batman comics exactly. Joker wasn’t a guy who fell into a vat of chemicals and came out as the Joker, but no one complains about that.

      Comic books have the ability to give more backstory because a month after the end of a story we get more issues that further the story. This is one movie in a possible series. Any details that haven’t been touched on yet in the first Green Lantern films can be touched on in a possible sequel.

      For a website who pretends to be film experts, it’s pretty funny that they don’t understand the fundamentals of adapting a popular franchise to the big or small screen. YOu have to give people something new, but familiar.

      I think Green Lantern gave us a live-action Hal Jordan, one that I would enjoy to see again. It had everything I love about the comic book, but gave us some refreshing changes to certain aspects. I liked how instead of the Anti-matter planet Qward being the reason behind the yellow power-ring, it was a weapon that the Guardians created as a means to combat
      Parallax, until Hal Jordan talked them out of it.

      But Screen Rant giving the film 1.5 stars out of 5 is ridiculous, considering how I saw they gave that lame Mel Gibson movie with the puppet or whatever it was a 4.

  11. I agreed with the comparisons but I don’t understand why Ben Moore turned the analysis into some kind of conclusion/proof that comics accuracy is not needed to make a good movie.

    If the movie HAD been accurate to the comics (more particularly the recent ones), Sinestro’s development would have been more interesting, no? Abin Sur would have died as a result of his paranoia stemming from his confrontation with the Five Inversions, right, instead of some fear juice, right?

    Hal Jordan would have been less of a whiner, Parallax would have been more interesting. What I can’t comprehend is how Geoff Johns, the writer of these same comics, was actually on-board and the movie STILL went off the tracks.

    Also, I didn’t like Batman Returns, either.

    I didn’t know Hal Jordan was based on a younger Paul Newman though. Looking at pictures of Paul Newman, I can definitely see the similarities.

    Agreed on Carol Lewis being a tie between the comics and the movie, I’m not crazy about her in the comics, either. I chuckled at that.

    • I mean Carol Ferris.

    • Ben’s conclusion was that even though the comics have such rich material to draw from, the movie didn’t HAVE to use it to be good – it could’ve done a wildly different interpretation and still worked fine.

      What it DID do was snatch little pieces of “Secret Origins” and made them silly and far less logical than the “Secret Origins” comic, which was (ironically enough) intended to take silly silver-age Green Lantern mythos and ’90s-era mistakes and retcon them into something more logical and cohesive. The movie then rendered them silly again, which is a pretty big #FAIL

      That’s the point he’s making. And it’s a valid one.

      The piece is ALSO meant to educate people who discovered the character via the film, about the awesome stuff presented in the comics – notice the links to amazon on mentions of GL story archs.

      Don’t you “fans” WANT people to move on to discovering the comics, thereby making GL even more popular?

      • I do want people to discover the comics but if they discover a comic book world that is nothing like the film that they may or may not have enjoyed then who’s to say they don’t stop reading before they even get started?

        • ^ Brian has succinctly summed up exactly why I disagree with turning a comic book-based property into something that doesn’t resemble what it was supposed to be based on in the first place.

          It’s just sad.

          Unless the comic books were lame in the first place — which the Blade movies were definitely an improvement on.

          But if the comics WERE awesome in the first place, why change what isn’t broken?

      • I don’t see that as what they are doing. This article isn’t to try to turn people who discovered the character through the film to the comic, it’s to make a list of pointless nitpicking to try to alienate the readers who actually enjoyed the film.

        It is attempting to make us feel intellectually inferior just because we don’t share their views.

        It’s just like their review for Super 8. They gave that film a positive review, but I watched the film, and couldn’t stand it. The kids were fun to watch, but the film itself was pure garbage.

      • You guys are speaking in circles…

        You’re saying, if they had done the recent comics right, which you’ve admitted were retcons of older (and yes, siller) stories that became more logical and cohesive, then it WOULD have been a better film.

        Yet, here you almost seem to argue that it would have been a better idea to move entirely away from the stories in these comics and done something completely different.

        These Green Lantern comics were DC’s best-selling comics for a reason.

        The film did not accurately borrow these ideas RIGHT.

        Thus, the film failed.

        A wildly different interpretation would have been an unfaithful interpretation of the character.

        Thus, a failure of sorts as well.

        When they make a Green Lantern movie. I don’t want Nova. I don’t want somebody I don’t know. I want Green Lantern.

        When they make a Batman movie, also, I don’t want a killer. I don’t want a Penguin who chomps people’s noses off. I don’t want a Catwoman who was miraculously returned to life by magical kitties.

        When they make a Superman movie, too, I certainly don’t want an alien Bruce Lee, either.

        • “You’re saying, if they had done the recent comics right, which you’ve admitted were retcons of older (and yes, siller) stories that became more logical and cohesive, then it WOULD have been a better film.”

          Yes. A good film can be made by accurately adapting the source material.

          “Yet, here you almost seem to argue that it would have been a better idea to move entirely away from the stories in these comics and done something completely different.”

          No, we’re simply saying that they could have done that. They could have moved away from the comics and done so successfully. The point is, being different from the comics isn’t what made Green Lantern bad, and being similar to the comics isn’t what made it bad. Both avenues can be equally effective. Being bad is what made it bad. That’s a pretty obvious statement, but people tend to equate “straying” from the source material with “diminishing the quality of.”

          L.A. Confidential is one of my favorite films and in many ways it strayed far, far from the book. But, in my opinion, it’s better than the book. It can be done. That’s all.

          • Okay, a reasonable reply, I like that.

            Yes, they can get away from the comics to make a successful movie, but if they want to do something different from the comics… name it something else.

            Just saying.

            They half-assed being similar to the comics, though… and what do you get with a half-assed attempt at anything? Half-assed results.

            I don’t completely disagree with going in a different direction from the source material, but there HAS to be a good reason why.

        • IMO i like the Burton Batman films over the Nolan films.

          • I liked the first Batman movie. I just think Burton was allowed a little too much leeway with Batman 2, so it really could be said to be more a Tim Burton movie than a Batman movie.

            I do like the Nolan movies much better, though. When I watched Batman Begins I was like “now THIS is Batman done right.”

            I am not as crazy about The Dark Knight, but it’s still in that same vein.

    • Maybe they cut out too much?

  12. Altogether, this was pointless lol.

    Why would you compare the comic book to the movie in the entire article, trying to show how the comic was way better, but then change your thesis in the summation– “if the movie stands alone, then it stands alone”? lol.

    You go from a compare/contrast to a “it could still have been a good film if it was done right”, but you spent the entire article saying it wasn’t good because it wasn’t like the original source material.

    The article COULD HAVE been good, minus the summation lol.

    • See above, you’re not really following his argument.

      • I think we are following his argument quite well. ANd the last couple paragraphs make reading the entire article pointless if you take him at his word. I don’t mean to take shots at Ben because I generally really like his articles and without the last couple paragraphs contradicting, IMO, the meaning of the article,m I liked this one.

        • Let me say this again:

          The article reads like this (to me at least):

          Ben M says – The movie was a takeoff of Secret Origins.

          He then shows what was used from Secret Origins and how the movie handles aspects of Secret Origins compared to how they were presented in the comics. He continuously says the filmmakers mishandled the material, and points out how they did so.

          He concludes by saying “Look, you don’t HAVE to draw from a comic book to make a good superhero movie (a la Batman Returns). But if you DO use the material, then know how to use it properly.

          That’s what I got from it. And that makes sense to me.

  13. Though I really liked the movie myself, I can’t argue with the point that the comics did it all better. My only dispute is regarding Parallax. According to the Geoff Johns comic book mythos, Parallax was once an insect on Earth. He was the first creature in the universe to ever feel fear, and this somehow magically transformed him into the giant ultra-powerful glowing yellow embodiment of all the fear in the universe. Somehow, I found the movie version easier to swallow.

  14. Wait wait wait…

    Ben you just wrote a whole article describing how different the movie is from the comic and yet your saying, and I quote “Green Lantern is a film that actually tries to be accurate to the source material”

    I liked the film but it seems to me the big problem people have with it is the fact that it wasn’t more faithful to the comic. You seem to be advocating here, and maybe I’m wrong about this, a sequel/reboot that would ignore the source material even more? If that’s right then what sense does it make to scrap the elements of the film that people did like, and was arguably more faithful to the source material, in favor of the elements that people didn’t like and wasn’t very faithful to the source material?

    Oh, and I hope you were joking about “a buddy cop film in space called Green Lantern Corps” because that sounds horrible. I just get images of Beverly Hills Cop In Space when I hear that.

    • See above. You also missed the point.

    • “Oh, and I hope you were joking about “a buddy cop film in space called Green Lantern Corps” because that sounds horrible. I just get images of Beverly Hills Cop In Space when I hear that.”

      I was thinking something more along the lines of 48 Hours or Lethal Weapon in space, but what you just described would literally be one million times better than the film we got.

  15. Ben Moore wrote, “The movie costume doesn’t look as bad as some feared, but an iconic look is iconic for a reason.”

    What works on paper doesn’t work on screen. Just ask every Batman film director ever. Batman’s costume is iconic in the comics, but wouldn’t work on screen, so they changed it.

    The Green Lantern costume looks good in the comics, but would look too Halloween costumish on screen. I thought they make a good choice making the suit be a construct of the ring, that pulses with energy as GL uses his ring. It looked amazing in 3D.

    • …Except that a lot of the movie wan’t 3D, and what WAS 3D wasn’t real 3D, but rather cheap and poorly done post-converted 3D. I watched most of the movie with my glasses off.

      So…. Yeah….

      • You must have grabbed the glasses and walked into the 2D theatre, because everything looked awesome at my theatre.

        You are mistaking this film with “Clash of the Titans” which was converted to 3D post-production.

      • A lot of the movie wasn’t in 3D? You sure you have 20/20 vision? How far were you from the screen?

        I mean I did a double take after you complained about the 3D in your review. I’m near-sighted. I was sitting in the middle row and took off my prescription glasses for a few minutes and looked at the screen. I didn’t put the 3D glasses on because it did indeed look like most of it wasn’t in 3D.

        I put on my prescription glasses without the 3D glasses and clearly saw how the movie WAS INDEED in 3D. Where I saw the blurry parts of the screen the entire time indicating 3D scenes. Needless to say I put on my 3D glasses and enjoyed the 3D.

        I mean this movie is no Avatar 3D but it WAS in 3D and definitely NOT cheap and poorly done. You want that go see Clash of the Titans. It wasn’t as bad as that.

  16. Ben Moore wrote, “The comic has had ample time to give all these characters wonderful depth and complexity – which has only improved since the release of Geoff Johns’ Secret Origins. Unfortunately, the movie chose to focus on other things…”

    I’m sorry, I thought the movie was about the origin of Hal Jordan. Hal’s time on OA is suce a small part of the origin. I’m sure with future movies, we will see more of OA, but I think we saw enough to be satisfied. Even Geoff John’s “Secret Origin” had small amounts of OA. It had more Sinestro, which I believe there could have been more of in the film, I think we saw enough. But the story was about Hal Jordan adjusting to becoming a Green Lantern and accepting the responsiblity that comes with the ring, which the film did perfectly.

    What’s the next argument? That we didn’t get to see enough of Hal Jordan’s father before his death? Maybe that Hal’s hair wasn’t brown enough? Maybe that we didn’t get to hear Hal call Tom “Pieface” as he did in the comics for years? OOOH, I have one. We could tell it was Micheal Clark Duncan because he looked more like Kilowag and only had the voice of said actor.

    I can make a large list of pointless nitpicking that this website will do next.

  17. Saw the poopfest last night

    I Liked Mark Strong.

    Other than that it was pretty much garbage.

    (when he rescues the heli wahy did he decide to create some giant race track thingie? Whay did he take so long to react? This is but one of the dozens of dumb sh*t scenes I saw last evening. Not Whooooa scenes but why scenes

    I wanted to give Ryan R the bene but he is just far too femme for the role. Hal Jordan is young Shatner Captain Kirk not Fey underwear model with a femme voice.

    I loved the two minutes or so that Geoffrey Rush lent his voice, I liked Kilowog and as I said I loved Mark Strong for the 2.5 minutes he was in the film

    Besides Mark Strong I loved that one of the Guardians sounded like Mercedes McCambrige (The Devil in the original Exorcist) and another sounded like one of the Talos aliens from the Star Trek Pilot the Cage

    The rest of it was crap and it bummed me out because GL had been my favorite DC character.

    • “when he rescues the heli wahy did he decide to create some giant race track thingie? ”

      Because it was something fresh in his mind. He had just played with the race track in the kids room.

      • So rather than grab the chopper he put on a 3 minute pointless and goofy effects scene making the copter into a racecar with an old man in the thing? an old men whom would be an excellent heart attack candidate and he makes the chopper move faster and do loops?

        Lame and tragically f-ing stupid

        How about a giant hand grabbing it and gently putting it down

        • Then, you just would’ve complained about the unoriginality of a giant hand grabbing the copter. This was much more creative and less stressful, in the end…at least, done on the spur of the moment.

          • I tend to agree with Lord Garth here. (Nice name :P)

            It was over the top and less effective than a hand would have been.

            No, we wouldn’t have complained about the unoriginality of THAT. What they did here smacked of “ah they just gave us more money for our budget, we gotta do something big!”

            • You agreed with him. I did not…hence, my above response.

              • I also disagree. I thought it was a clever and, in reality, very real thing to do to fall back on something you recently saw. Yes it was stupid but it was his first time really using his ring and that was kind of the point. Plus they even directly poked fun at it IN the movie.

  18. This seems to be generating more negative buzz, but I enjoyed the article. I thoroughly have enjoyed Green Lantern’s current run so far, and agree that the movie deviated quite a bit WHILE randomly throwing in Secret Origin scenes. I would have enjoyed more back story with Hal’s family. His brothers (more specifically Jack’s dislike for him), mother and especially his father.

  19. Kofi, while you are expectedly defending your co-workers article, and while I generally enjoy your work on SR, I think you have to accept the majority opinion here – THIS ARTICLE WASN’T SUCH A GOOD IDEA.
    there are more than enough arguments to support this so I won’t rehash them.
    I hope we can move forward to more productive features in the future. This is turning into movie bashing

  20. I cant believe the people who are trashing a great movie. So many of you asked for a studio to spend a ton of money and make a visually believable comic movie with a good story. They did. You are still not happy.

    Kudos to those who made Green Lantern. It was great on all accounts. I know all critics are supposed to be opinions but many of you forget that. It is an opinion. And there are so many bad opinions coming from the comic community (on this movie) that have no merit. If you guys want more visually pleasing comic movies then you need to back off a little. I for one am tired of the cheezy comic movies that are half finished and Green Lantern was polished from start to finish.

    I fear there are so many that wont see this movie based on rotten tomatoes and sites like this. Dont believe the critics. Go see this movie!

  21. I enjoyed this article – I enjoy any article which compares a film/tv version with its source, such as comics, books, etc. I’m fascinated to see people attacking the article, just because there was a previous GL review that spoke badly about the film. It really is interesting to see how people’s pride can get in the way of understanding the point someone else is driving at. Personally I really enjoyed the GL film, but I also cringed at a lot of things going on, mostly related to the writing (plot, characters). I liked the film a lot, but I had high hopes and it could have turned out much differently.

    People don’t like the idea that they didn’t see anything wrong with certain elements of a film or show, and everyone else (including folks who digest and think about films/tv for a living) sees huge flaws in those same elements. “What I think and feel is wrong? You’re telling me I’m not able to pick up on things you’re picking up on?” People don’t like that idea, and rather than think “hm, maybe I should think about this some more, maybe they have a point?” they immediately reject any perspective that’s different than their own, and go on attack mode….just because they dont like the idea that they’re missing out on something that’s clear to other people.

    Pride is a funny thing.

    • The negative reaction to this article has little (if, deep down, anything) to do with the movie, itself. We had a review thread that got SO contentious it had to be closed down. We have a spoiler thread that is suffering from tense moments, though those (it seemed) had started to level off a bit. Now, THIS article comes out and STATES OUTRIGHT it is snarky on purpose. This article was written for NO other reason than to generate more buzz.

      That’s a dumb reason to release an article…even on a site called ScreenRANT. Supposedly, the writer wants us to discuss…knowing full-well this particular subject has deteriorated far past discussion into brutish argument.

      Sometimes, leaving well enough alone is the best course of action.

      • Amen to that.

  22. Maybe i misunderstood the point of this article but it seems your trying to say that if the movie was more faithful to the comics it would have been better. but thats kinda stupid, like just look at XMEN FC for example, there were a lot of differences in that movie that were against both comic book and MOVIE series continuity, yet I found that it was the best in the franchise. Also look at V for Vendetta, its almost nothing like the graphic novel, but i still found it to be amazing (maybe better). And then there is Watchmen, which was nearly exactly like the graphic novel, and some people didn’t like it and found it boring (not me though:p).

    Look i’m not going to defend this movie and say it was the greatest, it was good and it maintained my expectations, and had enough going for it to be worth seeing it twice. Just because the movie didn’t try to go all philosophical and try to examine the big questions about life doesn’t mean its garbage (though i will admit i love those elements in superhero films).

    • What he’s doing in this article is comparing how the comics handled various elements, to how the film handled various elements, and seeing which worked better. He’s *not* writing about how closely the film sticks to the comics. He actually says in the article that how closely a film sticks to the source material is a totally separate thing from how well the film itself is made.

      • but it seems that he’s implying that if the movie did it the way the comics did it, then the movie would have been better. Like i understand that in his summation he says that its how they handle it, but he literally says that the comics did it better in nearly every comparison, so one would assume that that he saying that if it did it like the comics then it would be better.

        • Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

          The comic just so happened to make the story work better, the way they did the film didn’t work as well. Not because it’s different than the comic….that’s not the issue being driven at. It’s hard to explain fully what I mean. Remove “how close it is to the comic” from the equation. Let’s say there are three options when writing a GL origin. A, B and C. One of them works better than the others. The “Secret Origins” comic went with route C, the film went with route A. I believe this article is saying that if the film writers had chosen C as well, it would have worked better. That the comic also went with C is incidental, C would have worked better because it works better, not because route C was in the comics.

          • but see the article comes across as “the comics did it better”,and “if the movie was like the comics”, even if its unintended. Like i dont think there was a moment in the article where he said they were different but both equally good, it is always one is better than the other, and for him if was always the comic (which is fair, he’s entitled to his opinion), so the article just seems like he’s ranting that it wasn’t like the comics.

            And in all seriousness i dont think he needed to write an 8 page article to tell us that the comics are better…

  23. This is spot on. At times the film tried to rely too much on the comics (see: first 10 minutes) and other times it completely got away from the source material.

    I personally know more about the Marvel universe than DC, so when I saw the film and reviewed it, I had to read up on the origins of the characters. Some things just made me shake my head. Most of those I spoken with who are fans of the comic felt the same way.

  24. Just another crappy article nitpicking what was an enjoyable movie to pieces. The author just comes off as a whiny fanboy that didn’t get to see what he thought the movie should have been. I have been a GL fan since the early 70’s I read a ton of the GL books from that period. I didn’t read that annoying brightest day crud. I really hate those mega crossovers, and won’t pay for them anymore.

    The movie was fine. It had some shaky moments, but overall I found it was quite entertaining. MUCH better than Thor. Perhaps to enjoy this film you had to be someone who wasn’t immersed in the current storylines of the comic book or someone who could see the film objectively without his or her fannish tendencies coloring what they were watching.

    I started to read this site due to the annoying fanboys on Geek Tyrant, I can now see that it’s impossible to escape the narrow minded.

    • GL is in now way better than Thor.

      • I thought it was better. And according to the poll on screen rant. out of around 2,000 69% found it 3 stars or better.

  25. Okay lets get a couple things straight. First of all the review and the comparisons did exactly what they were supposed to do. They gave an opinion by someone who cares about the subject matter plus inspired a spirited debate. I like GL but I was disappointed in the movie. If we didnt want to know other opinions then why are we even here? Why even have a site? Its called Screenrant. And thats what we are all doing. This is a good thing. It shows that almost everyone here, Positive or negative, really cares about the characters. Personally I wish they would have done a breakdown like this with Thor. It would have benn interesting. I’d like to see a comparison after Cap is released with all four movies.

  26. kinda wish they made the Jack Black version of this film, then SR would realize how truly terrible this movie could have been

    • …After Kung Fu Panda, I’m thinking maybe the Jack Black version would’ve been BETTER.


      (OH NO HE DIDN’ – YES HE DID!!!!)

      • really, in that movie script it had him making a green condom as a construct…

      • Okay come on. Seriously this seems much more like some weird personal vendetta against this movie than anything else. As a serious Green Lantern fan you can’t possibly truly think that right?

        • Its a joke. relax. thats like saying jack black parodying spiderman at the mtv awards was better than spiderman. I dont really see any bashing of this movie going on, to me it just seems like my average Wed stop at the comic book store for new comics where its just a fun, healthy, but passionate debate about comics and their movies. this is what comic book geeks do.

          @ Kofi your feelings toward green lantern as a fan seem to reflect my own emotions the first time i saw spiderman3. i remember being so confused as to how they messed it up the way they did after having such rich source material.

    • Now that would’ve been horrible. Jack Black is annoying.

  27. Bias, bias, bias… IMO you are not adding to your reputation by treating your readers like they are idiots. We get it you didn’t like the movie. So you wrote a nasty non-objective review. Ok stuff happens, nobody (or film) is perfect. But why you feel the need to bang another nail into the way less than objective coffin, I truly don’t know? I think you could do this same thing to any super hero film from the last 5 years or so and I believe the comics will always win out because they have more time and space to develop a story, pay attention to details, and of coarse there’s the readers imagination which adds tons to a good comic book.
    To try to compare, the film costume to the comic book costume, I mean c’mon, I thought you were better than that.
    I’d like to see you do this same thing to TDK, X-MEN 2, IRON MAN, Spidey 2, Thor, and any others you choose. I bet you can find lot’s of reasons why the comic is better than the film and you can state it with out treating your readers like dummies.
    I have been a fan of Screen Rant for a few years, and I viewed y’all as pretty good journalists, until this Green Lantern debacle. Don’t let your bias ruin your reputation. More crap like this and you will have lost me for sure. Nuff said…. Oh yeah that’s Marvel… Sorry…

    • This article you’re commenting on was written by someone who didn’t write the GL review. Try to keep in mind going forward, there’s more than one person writing content for Screen Rant. This article adds MORE credibility to the idea of “GL could have been done better,” not LESS….precisely because a completely different person with no ties to the GL reviewer pointed to similar flaws within the film.

      • Sorry Ken but for me your argument doesn’t hold water for me. Weather the writer of this article is different than the reviewer, they both are working at Screen Rant, and they both are pushing a totally subjective point of view that could be argued forever. The fact that I have never seen such a bias review here, plus now Screen Rant chooses to add this article cries, defensiveness to me. It makes y’all look like your not gonna give up until we all agree with you. You are better than that IMHO. I am not the only one who feels this way, listen to a large number of your readers.
        Please don’t get me wrong, I frequent this place because I appreciate a good objective analysis. I do not always agree with your reviews (Screen Rant) but I don’t get the feeling like you are bashing, like this article and the infamous review, make me feel.
        No matter who writes here I assume that there is an editor, and that everything published has to get the good old Screen Rant editors seal of approval before being published, therefore the way I look at it you as an entity (Screen Rant) is making the statement, and in this case the statement does not imply journalistic integrity. At least that’s how it looks to me.

  28. Here are the sequel titles to the GREEN LANTERN films:

    GREEN LANTERN 2: (a,k,a “The Rise of the Star Sapphire”)
    GREEN LANTERN 2: (a,k,a “The Return of the Emerald Knight”)
    GREEN LANTERN 2: (a,k,a “The Power of the Star Sapphire”)
    GREEN LANTERN 2: (a,k,a “The Revenge of the Star Sapphire”)

    • lolwut? O.o

  29. “The purpose of this article is to compare and contrast the various elements, characters, etc. that are shared between the Green Lantern comic books and movie, in an attempt to deduce which medium did the better job. For example, if the movie did a better job, the movie gets a point. If the comic books did a better job, the comic book gets a point. At the end, we’ll tally the points on either side and see which medium — The Comic Books or The Movie — comes out on top.”

    Why are any of you taking this article as anything more than that? It was a fun comparison for the two mediums, CALM DOWN!

    • Because even before I read the article i knew they were going to say the comic was better.