The Green Lantern Movie: How *Not* to Plot a Story

by Jami Gold on July 5, 2011

in Writing Stuff

Green Lantern Movie image

I recently saw the Green Lantern movie.  I know, I know.  The reviews were terrible, but I often enjoy turn-brain-off movies.  This fun-but-dumb superhero action flick definitely fit the bill.

But the real entertainment came after the movie, as my family and I analyzed why this superhero movie failed compared to other recent titles.  Where did this one go wrong?

Sure, it was formulaic, but many stories are.  The real problem was the movie felt formulaic and superficial.  Maybe if we understand why, we can avoid that feeling in our stories.

I’ll assume most of you aren’t suckers for punishment like I am, so I’ll include context from the movie.  And don’t worry if you plan on seeing it later.  My notes won’t spoil anything because the movie had no surprises.  Yes, that was just one of its problems.

Lessons from the Plot of the Green Lantern Movie:

  • Prologue: Prologues by themselves aren’t bad.  (I’ve used them.)  But this prologue was long and all backstory and world-building.  One of my new favorite bloggers, Janice Hardy, recently posted about how a Green Lantern trailer suffered from the same fate, and the movie’s prologue was twice as long as the clip in that trailer.
  • Lesson: If a prologue is used, make sure it’s engaging and relevant.
  • Flashback: Flashbacks are difficult under the best circumstances, but no matter what, they have to occur when the character would have time to think about the past.  Hint: When you’re the pilot in a plane below the altitude for a safe ejection and you’re about to crash, you wouldn’t have time to think about the last time you saw your dad and what he said to you, etc.
  • Lesson: Don’t interrupt tense action scenes with inappropriate flashbacks.
  • Convenient Plot Points: Why didn’t the helicopters chase Hal Jordan as he fled the crash scene of the alien ship?  Why was Hal more successful against the bad guy than any other Green Lantern after one day of training?  Why would the yellow ring work without a yellow lantern to recharge it?  Because it was convenient to the plot.
  • Lesson:  Make coincidences add complications, not take them away.
  • Relatable: Contrived plot points can make a story feel like it isn’t taking place on this—or any other—real world.  The military shouldn’t test equipment by rules of engagement counter to wartime requirements.  After superpowers are first used in public, the superhero shouldn’t be able to return to the scene the next day without a hundred cameras capturing his every move in a media frenzy.
  • Lesson:  Logic must exist, even in a comic book story.
  • Chekov’s Gun: If we see a gun in Act One, we expect it to be used in Act Three.  In the middle of Green Lantern, Hal Jordan needs to recharge his ring using his green lantern.  The audience thinks this will be important later.  Maybe his ring will run out of energy at a critical moment.  Ooo, tension, worry, good stuff.  But no.  The problem never occurs and the plot point is never addressed again.  This failure to meet expectations would be a good surprise if it had introduced more complications.  Instead, it made things easier for our hero—again.
  • Lesson:  Don’t include unnecessary story elements, or even better, complicating plot points should be used rather than ignored.
  • Subtlety: We sometimes include a “save the cat” scene to show an unlikable character as a good guy.  However, if that scene is irrelevant to the rest of the story, audiences won’t be fooled.  In the Green Lantern, we see Hal attend his nephew’s birthday party just so we can see him as a decent guy.  We never see or hear of these family members again.  Subtle, this movie was not.
  • Lesson:  Make “save the cat” scenes relevant to the overall story.
  • Stakes: In the quest for bigger stakes, it’s tempting to go for *imagine voice-over guy here* the fate of the whole world.  But the whole world is too big for us to grasp easily.  Good stories know how to zoom in on a subset of characters at risk to make the stakes more personal.  Green Lantern didn’t take advantage of this—no shots of his favorite nephew in trouble, etc.
  • Lesson:  Make stakes personal to the characters.
  • Black Moment: Green Lantern suffered from a weak “there is no hope” black moment, and the internal character arc and the external plot arc didn’t line up together to make the low points lower.  By the time Hal faces the big bad, he’s already serene and has a plan.  And if the character isn’t worried, the audience won’t be either.
  • Lesson:  Make internal and external arcs build on each other for powerful black moments.

In many cases, little changes in the plot could have made the Green Lantern movie vastly better.  An additional scene with his nephew would have upped the stakes and made Hal’s “save the cat” scene less obvious.  The end scene by the sun would have made more sense if the recharging issue had reared its head at that critical moment.

Instead, Green Lantern took every opportunity to make things easier on the hero.  Coincidences, contrivances, unrealized stakes, and flat black moments don’t make for a high tension story.  Simplifying a plot makes it more superficial, and a superficial plot will feel formulaic.

Come back Thursday for Part Two, when I’ll take a look at this movie from the character side of things.  And if you haven’t entered my blogiversary contest yet, check out my post to see if you can “win” me.

If you’ve seen Green Lantern, what was your impression of the plot?  What stories have felt superficial or formulaic to you?  Why?  Do you have plot issues to add to my list?  Do any of these lessons apply to your stories?  Or have you avoided these problems?

Photo Credit: DC Wikia

Pin It
88 Comments below - Time to Add your own.

Paul Anthony Shortt July 5, 2011 at 5:42 am

I felt exactly as you did, Jami. I LOVE superhero movies, but this just fell so flat. There was no tension, anywhere. Parralax was just too big and too sudden a threat. Not to mention, Parralax as an antagonist was compleltely binary. You could either defeat him, or you died. There was no other threat he posed other than to wipe everyone out within moments of appearing. So there’s no creeping dread, no sense of “how can the hero get out of this?” because it was either victory or death within seconds.

For an entity of pure fear, the filmmakers completely failed to make him something to be afraid of.


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 6:28 am

Hi Paul,

For an entity of pure fear, the filmmakers completely failed to make him something to be afraid of.

Yes, very true! The black moment should be all about the dread and “how can the hero get out of this?” But this movie was missing all of that. Thanks for the comment!


Paul Anthony Shortt July 5, 2011 at 8:00 am

I’m looking forward to your post about the characters!


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 8:03 am

Thanks! I’ll be going a bit ranty in that one. LOL!


Ava Jae July 5, 2011 at 6:23 am

Ha, ha, you were right on the nose on this one.

Green Lantern was one of those movies I enjoyed more for the actors (i.e.: Ryan Reynolds) than the plot. Plus the CG was pretty cool.

I really like your points–I’ll definitely take a look at your suggestions while I’m editing to make sure I didn’t fall into the same traps. Great post!


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 6:39 am

Hi Ava,

Yep, I’m not immune to these issues either. As usual, my blog posts are all about sharing what I’m learning. 🙂

Some of my other stories in development feel on the edge of formulaic, and I’m hoping this analysis will help me fix that while I’m plotting things out. I suspect my internal and external arcs/black moments aren’t lining up as well as they could. Good luck with your editing and thanks for the comment!


Susan Sipal July 5, 2011 at 6:40 am

I’ve not seen the movie, Jami, but your explanations of the important missing components are clear and insightful. You do a great job of explaining what is missing and how that affects the tension.

Thanks for saving me some $$ too! 🙂


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 6:42 am

Hi Susan,

LOL! Yep, save your money for the good stuff. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Brooke J July 5, 2011 at 7:45 am

Great post Jami.

What you say about complicating the plot is something a lot of weak stories fail to do. I haven’t seen Green Lantern, but I know movies or stories like that just aren’t as enjoyable.

Another thing I’d like to add to is your mention if the prologue. For a good example, the new Star Trek film had one that worked really well because it paralleled to a later scene. And that movie was just awesome.


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 7:48 am

Hi Brooke,

Great example with Star Trek. Yes, that prologue was in scene, showed what Kirk had to live up to, and as you pointed out, paralleled a later scene. Thanks for sharing! 🙂


Sarah Pearson July 5, 2011 at 8:42 am

I haven’t seen this yet, but I’ve been umming and aahing about it as I usually love superhero movies. Might wait for it to come on TV!

I love your flashback comment – the only thing I’d be thinking in a plummeting plane is ‘oh s*** 🙂


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 9:55 am

Hi Sarah,

LOL! Yes, exactly. Or my brain wouldn’t be working at all. I certainly wouldn’t be doing a big, complete-scene flashback. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Jen J. Danna July 5, 2011 at 8:59 am

Great run down of the weak points in the storytelling! I haven’t seen this movie (even though I too think turn-off-the-brain popcorn movies have a place), and you’ve just ensured that I won’t see it. I blogged about pet peeves in plotting just this morning, so this fit right in – convenient plot twists, lack of continuity or follow through, a lack of logic or missing great emotional turning points… if pretty much sounds like Green Lantern had it all and not in a good way. If I saw it, it would likely drive me nuts.

Looking forward to the characterization study later this week…


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 9:56 am

Hi Jen,

Yes, I was able to enjoy it while it was playing, but as soon as it ended, I couldn’t keep my brain off any longer. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Lucy Brown July 5, 2011 at 9:09 am

You made some excellent points there. I came out of the film dissatisfied but unable to pinpoint why. I now understand it was a combination of many, many things!

My own personal bugbear was the family issue. I wanted them to come back into the plot, maybe after Hal had run away from his new responsibilities, and be the catalyst for getting him to go back.

I think the film lost itself in trying to look good. That left it feeling a bit soulless and, ultimately, quite run-of-the-mill.


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 9:57 am

Hi Lucy,

Yes, “soulless” is a great word for it! Thanks for the comment. 🙂


Murphy July 5, 2011 at 9:59 am

Hi Jami!
I so get the point ‘make the stakes personal to the characters’. Nothing drives me nuts worse than a: I need to save the world theme – when all the characters in that world haven’t suffered/worried/stressed enough yet to have any believable stakes.
Great post!


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 10:01 am

Hi Murphy,

Yes, you know I believe in torturing my characters. LOL! So anything that’s too easy is just disappointing. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Tamara LeBlanc July 5, 2011 at 2:49 pm

Seriously, blog posts don’t get much better than this!!
I haven’t see Gree Lantern (wasn’t planning on it even though, like you, I enjoy brain off movies as much as anyone. I simply don’t like crowds, so movie theatres aren’t my favorite places to go unless a new Star Wars or Star Trek movie drops:)
Anyhoo, your breakdown of plot do’s and don’ts (don’ts being the dominant here) was amazing!
So good in fact, that I would attend a workshop given by you any day of the week. My local chapter, Georgia Romance Writers holds a conference (a great one I might add) every fall called Moonlight and Magnolia. We’re always hunting for fabulous teachers and you dear Jami would be highly sought after!
I loved the post and can’t wait to read Thursday’s installment.
Thanks for your wisdom and have a great evening!


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 3:08 pm

Hi Tamara,

Wow. I think I’m kind of speechless at that idea. LOL! I can very easily see myself getting into the conference/workshop circuit…eventually. I think I’m still too much of a nobody to deserve a slot quite yet. 🙂 But knowing me – teacher at heart – I’d love it! *hugs* for thinking I’d be good at it. Thanks for the comment!


Lisa Gail Green July 5, 2011 at 3:30 pm

Great post! I didn’t see the movie, and I don’t intend to. But I love how you broke down the mistakes and related them to writing. 😀


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 5:52 pm

Hi Lisa,

Yep, consider this post a public service announcement. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


PW Creighton July 5, 2011 at 3:32 pm

You are much braver soul than I for watching that movie. The largest issue with comic and gaming movie adaptations is that most stories do not survive the transition. Several dozen hours or hundreds of comics worth of plot arc need to be condensed into a 90min window. It’s like taking Tolkien’s epics and turning them into a 20page comic. It’s not going to go well. That said, you have excellent insight on the lessons learned.


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 5:53 pm

Hi PW,

Yes, anyone could rip into the movie, but I wanted to see what I could learn from it. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Susan Kaye Quinn July 5, 2011 at 3:42 pm

Awesome post! I really wanted that movie to be good. So tragic.


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 6:05 pm

Hi Susan,

Yes, so many stories don’t live up to their potential, don’t they? Tragic is right. Thanks for the comment!


Tamara LeBlanc July 5, 2011 at 4:35 pm

Totally serious about the workshop thing. If you’re ever interested in coming east to attend one of the smaller, but no less fabulous conferences
you MUST take the trip to GA and teach a class for us.
And it’s not true that you’re too much of a no body. You’ve got lots of faithful followers that know exactly who you are, and there are so many writers who could learn so much from you.
think about it. I know my fellow coordinators would welcome you with open arms.


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 6:04 pm

Uh-oh, the pressure. 🙂

Thank you again for thinking of me! I’ll check it out and see if a trip to GA is in the cards. 🙂


Amos Keppler July 5, 2011 at 5:28 pm

I dislike action stories in general. They hardly go deep enough. The focus is on the action, so to speak. I like dwelling stories myself, with far more adherence to detail. There can be many “unnecessary” elements there, because that’s life. So, I don’t buy that argument at all.

Another thing about GL and many movies/stories is that they are often written by many people, four and five often, by committee. never a good idea.


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 6:14 pm

Hi Amos,

Yes, I definitely got the feeling that Green Lantern was written by committee. 🙂

And I understand your point about the unnecessary elements. Some stories will certainly have what seem to be tangents, while they’re really illuminating some aspect of character or setting. But in this particular case, the unnecessary element was a plot point – not character and not setting – and yet the plot point went nowhere. So that’s why I thought they should have either cut it or used it (and I think the tension would have been better if they’d used it).

Thanks for the comment! 🙂


Frea O'Scanlin July 6, 2011 at 6:34 am

Green Lantern was definitely written by committee. I sat through this with my brother, figuring, hey, at least I’ll get to stare at Ryan Reynolds’s abs if the dialogue’s terrible, and while it didn’t inspire utter loathing and boredom like some superhero movies, the stakes just weren’t there. No heart, as much as Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds did their best.

So you can imagine my surprise when the credits rolled and Greg Berlanti was listed as one of the writers. GREG BERLANTI, whose only existence for four seasons of Everwood was to make sure half of his viewers walked away in tears from the sheer amount of emotion his shows could produce. I mean, his catchphrase among fans was (and pardon my language) “Damn you, Berlanti!” for making us cry.

Deeeeefinitely a committee script, then. I refuse to believe Berlanti alone could produce something so soulless.

But that’s neither here nor there. Thank you very much for this post; it broke down exactly why the film hasn’t sat with me well since I saw it (ill-timed flashbacks and ill-advised prologues!) and has provided some great writing advice. I’ll be sure to pass this along to my fellow writing nerds.


Jami Gold July 6, 2011 at 8:46 am

Hi Frea,

I rarely loathe movies, so as much as I’m complaining about this one, I still got a popcorn bucket’s enjoyment out of it. My line for enjoyment is apparently pretty low. LOL! But you’re right that it was missing a heart. Thanks for the comment!


Gene Lempp July 5, 2011 at 6:25 pm

Excellent points and pointers Jami!

The weakness in many modern movies seems to be epidemic and I think it all stems to one thing, marketing. When writers are forced or feel that they cannot succeed without catering to overblown marketing ideals then the story will suffer. The story has to be itself and marketers need to be more creative. Kristen Lamb pointed this same weakness out in her excellent breakdown of the second Star Wars trilogy. Plot holes you can fly a planet through are pointless. Yet, as Blake Snyder points out in Save the Cat many movies are made with the idea that they will cover costs and reap a profit in week one by simply marketing and hyping the product in pre-publicity with no thought for week 2 and beyond. Some books do the same thing, a few recent celebrity titles come to mind (i.e. Snookie).

The long term effect of this will either be that people will come to expect little more than flash and folly (which destroys story) or will realize that it is easier to watch these movies once they appear on a movie channel for the monthly bulk cost or free through some online source (which is what I and many others already do).

Hard to Save the Cat right after you Shoot Yourself in the Foot.

Great post, very insightful 🙂


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 8:19 pm

Hi Gene,

Yes, I think you’re right about the reasoning behind these superficial movies. I rarely see movies opening weekend, so I have time to hear from others whether or not it’s worth the money. Too often, these rush-for-opening-weekend movies are trying to grab the money before everyone figures out it’s not worth it. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Todd Moody July 5, 2011 at 6:31 pm

Makes me wonder if the screenwriter had ever written anything before, its almost like they couldn’t have hit the DON’TS in writing any harder if they were actually trying to do it.

Great post as always Jami!


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 8:19 pm

Hi Todd,

LOL! Yes, it would be hard, but I bet they could have made it even worse. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Sonia G Medeiros July 5, 2011 at 8:00 pm

Excellent points! I haven’t seen the movie, but I have seen others that suffer from some of these weakness. I need to remember these for my own work to make sure I’m not making the same mistakes.


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 8:21 pm

Hi Sonia,

Exactly! That’s why I wanted to write this post. Some of these are obvious, but others are less so. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Nina July 5, 2011 at 10:04 pm

Oy–sounds like a bad one! GREAT post though with very good lessons.


Jami Gold July 5, 2011 at 10:06 pm

Hi Nina,

It depends on what you mean by bad. It was very entertaining to deconstruct it. LOL! Thanks for the comment!


Irene Vernardis July 6, 2011 at 1:49 am

Hi Jami 🙂

I haven’t seen the movie and I won’t see it :D.
But your points are great for plot structure. From what I understood, there is no proper conflict structure either, in the movie, if at all.

Very interesting post, thank you 🙂


Jami Gold July 6, 2011 at 8:21 am

Hi Irene,

Yes, the issue I mentioned with the weak black moment really comes down to a failure of the conflict structure, and I’ll be touching more on conflict in the part two characterization post as well. The movie is fast paced, so you vaguely get the idea that there was conflict, but once it’s over, you realize that it really didn’t. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Kerry Meacham July 6, 2011 at 3:43 am

Thanks for saving $15-$20 for me and the wife to go see this at the movies, not to mention the eye-rolling I would have had to endure when my wife said, “Oh, THAT’S why you love these kind of movies so much.” Yes, she goes to superhero movies with me, and I go to chick flicks with her. Only one of the many reasons we’ve been married 33 years.

Regardless, I loved the way you broke things down in this blog. As always, you did an excellent job of laying out what the problem is and suggestions for fixing it.

BTW, if you’re going to do the conference circuit, the lady that books for The Missouri Writers’ Guild Conference is in my monthly writers’ group. I would definitely be willing to get your information in front of her, and I’d be first in line to sign up. Have a great week


Jami Gold July 6, 2011 at 8:28 am

Hi Kerry,

Uh-oh, I’m being tag-teamed. 🙂 Thanks, Kerry!

Actually, I’d love to make it to STL sometime, so I’ll keep that mind, but no guarantees about when that “sometime” will be. 🙂

You’re welcome – happy to save you money and rescue you from eye-rolling. LOL! And as I mentioned in a different comment, it’s easy to rip and complain about problems, it’s harder to solve them. So I wanted to try to offer more here. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Ellie Ann July 6, 2011 at 3:57 am

I really enjoyed this post!! I love movie analysis.


Jami Gold July 6, 2011 at 8:32 am

Hi Ellie Ann,

I love reading others’ movie analysis posts too. I’d never done one here before, but after spending several hours deconstructing the movie with my family, I figured I had a blog post worth of material. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Glen July 6, 2011 at 6:11 am

Excellent points. In addition, the film ran two parallel plot lines: what happened on the earthly level mirrored what was happening on the cosmic level. Not necessarily a bad device, but in this case I found myself wondering if it would have been better to do one plot well than two lamely.


Jami Gold July 6, 2011 at 8:40 am

Hi Glen,

I think you might be right that they tried that, but I didn’t see the parallel. Yes, they had the events on earth and the storyline on Oa (?), but the stories seemed intermingled more than mirrored for the most part. That could have been cool if it had worked. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Lani Wendt Young July 6, 2011 at 1:37 pm

Im awful at pinpointing WHY i hate / like a particular book or movie. I agree wholeheartedly that Green Lantern was a disappointing (awful) movie (only redeemed by gratuitous shots of a half naked Ryan Reynolds…the ONLY reason anyone should spend money to see it)…but i couldnt put my finger on exactly why. YOu do a great job at breaking things down and have given me some useful alerts when re-looking at my own fiction. Thank you!


Jami Gold July 6, 2011 at 1:41 pm

Hi Lani,

Yes, many times, I can’t put my finger on why either, but this movie had so many problems, it was almost shamefully easy. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Reenie July 6, 2011 at 1:53 pm

Hi Jami
Thanks for the excellent insights re: Green Lantern. I learned some valuable tips from reading your comments. As Lani said, they’re “alerts” for me to watch for in my own writing.


Jami Gold July 6, 2011 at 2:05 pm

Hi Reenie,

Exactly. I know I want my writing to be as far as possible from “superficial and formulaic,” so knowing what to watch out for is good. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Ashley Graham July 6, 2011 at 2:57 pm

Jami, I love these points and I feel like I need to refer to them often! You’d think people who write screenplays for a living — especially big blockbusters like this one — would make sure the plotting’s up to par, but I guess not. I still wanna watch it and see for myself, but I know I’ll be thinking of your blog post the entire time! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!


Jami Gold July 6, 2011 at 3:30 pm

Hi Ashley,

Yes, let me know what you think after watching it! 🙂 Thanks for the comment.


Kyla July 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm

What a wonderful post! I love the way you turned something negative into such a positive influence. I am currently writing the first draft of a fantasy novel, so these suggestions will certainly be kept in mind while I’m writing.

Thank you so much for posting this! Have a great day and talk to you later.


Jami Gold July 7, 2011 at 8:06 am

Hi Kyla,

Great! That’s exactly what I was trying to do. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Maryanne Fantalis July 10, 2011 at 12:46 pm

Hard to add much to so many smart comments, but here I go…

After a while, the plot holes were so palpable, I felt I could stick my fingers right through them like a crocheted blanket. There must have been multiple writers. A single person COULDN’T have made those mistakes, could s/he?

Truly, I only went to see the man’s abs. And those beautiful eyes. 🙂


Jami Gold July 10, 2011 at 1:53 pm

Hi Maryanne,

There must have been multiple writers. A single person COULDN’T have made those mistakes

LOL! Good point. Thanks for the comment! 🙂


apscimio July 13, 2011 at 4:37 am

I made a video piece about a similar topic you may want to check out.


Jami Gold July 13, 2011 at 9:10 am

Hi apscimio,

Interesting point about how Ryan Reynolds would have made a better Flash than Hal Jordan. I don’t necessarily disagree about that, but the problems with this movie were much deeper than a simple actor change would have rectified. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


B. Mac July 14, 2011 at 3:06 pm

Another plotting element that felt really awkward to me–so awkward I got distracted by it in the theatre–was how clumsily the Green Lantern movie handled scene transitions. For example, the transition between a protagonist-geek scene and a protagonist-love interest scene was the geek randomly saying something like “Hey, doesn’t a superhero always get the girl?”

Oh, God. There are so many easy ways to switch a scene without anybody noticing the seams. For example, the protagonist-geek conversation could have been interrupted by a phone call from the love interest. Then 1) it would have made sense for the geek to start talking about romance, 2) it would have been a smoother transition to the protagonist-love interest scene and 3) it could have added some urgency to the protagonist-love interest scene.


Jami Gold July 14, 2011 at 3:20 pm

Hi B. Mac,

Great to see you here! Yes, very good point about how clumsy some of the transitions were. I wasn’t even paying attention to them because those fell under the “cheese” category for me, rather than a plotting issue, but your examples showed how the plot could have fixed those. Thanks for the comment!


chudez August 3, 2011 at 1:35 am

great points! makes me feel completely justified in ignoring it when the Green Lantern came rolling out in our local cinemas.

if it’s not too late to ask for a followup, could you contrast this to a movie where they tackled the same points and used them effectively?


Jami Gold August 3, 2011 at 1:43 am

Hi Chudez,

I’ll have to think about that one. Sometimes, it’s much easier to see problems. 🙂

Off hand, I think the latest Star Trek reboot did a good job. That movie had a prologue that worked and was a much stronger story in general. I’m not sure if every one of these points succeeded in Star Trek, but many of them did. I’d have to watch the movie again to make sure. I’ll keep it in mind for a future post. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Stephen B. August 3, 2011 at 7:52 am

Not sure if anyone pointed this out (you’ve garnered so many comments!), but the biggest plot hole, and worst use of bypassing in-world logic, was that Hal trained for several hours, quit, and they let him keep the ring!

If you’re going to try to hammer home that this is the most powerful weapon in the galaxy, don’t expect us to believe it when they let a one-day dropout keep it for kicks and giggles.

It also suffered from useless villain syndrome, which too often threatens to plague comic movies (Spider-Man 3 being the worst offender). Hector Hammond’s plot line stretched credibility and never felt like a fully connected threat.

“Oh, we should assume he’s closely related to the protagonists because his dad’s a senator, I guess? And look, he’s also a creepy stalker.”

Hal’s ease at defeating Parallax also made the entire Corps look like a joke, and Parallax being duped by something so silly made him look like a big, gaseous Wile E. Coyote. The Guardians seemed willfully dense and incompetent, and Sinestro’s desire for a yellow ring felt completely illogical and unwarranted.

I saw this movie for free and still felt gypped. Everything just sort of happened conveniently and never had any weight to it, not unlike the atrocious CG domino mask. If you’re interested in a less analytical, but hilarious and accurate look at the movie, check out Topless Robot’s list (not my own site — it’s just very funny):


Jami Gold August 3, 2011 at 9:35 am

Hi Stephen,

Ooo! Good point! 🙂 Yes, Sinestro was the only one who cared about the location of the ring, and that was more because of his respect for who had it before. It’s like they couldn’t actually decide whether the ring knew what it was doing with its decision to pick Hal. “We won’t take the ring from him, because the ring doesn’t make mistakes…except for when it does, and we’ll let this guy know that the ring made a mistake with him…hmm, but still not a big enough mistake to justify taking the ring away…well, we don’t know what to do, so we’ll do nothing.”

And I agree with the rest of your points as well. The plot was just too convenient. Thanks for the comment and that funny link! 🙂


cetiken August 3, 2011 at 9:24 pm

To be fair the military frequently uses unfair rules of engagement to let the ‘correct’ side win wargames. I saw this more than once during my service.


Jami Gold August 3, 2011 at 9:32 pm

Hi Cetiken,

Thanks for that information. My impression of the scene was that it was less of a full-military wargame and more of a product demonstration. Either way, the military can make whatever rules they want, but my idealistic self hopes the military wouldn’t make billion-dollar purchase decisions on a rigged demonstration. Too much to hope for? *sigh* Yeah, I know. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


papa zero August 7, 2011 at 9:01 pm

I was thrilled to hear they were filming the movie in New Orleans and I think the oppurtunity was missed to depict the home city of the hero as facing a similar arc. Given the engine that is supposed to fuel the story of Green Lantern is willpower overcoming fear, it blows my mind that they did not use Coast City as an analogue.

Perhaps they thought that introducing Coast City as a city in the aftermath of crisis as a parallel plotline would be counter-intuitive to the formula but I felt a little cheated that instead we got a Godzilla style “city stomping” story.


Jami Gold August 7, 2011 at 9:47 pm

Hi Papa Zero,

Really? New Orleans? I didn’t feel any sense of NOLA from the movie. It seemed to be set in generic California-ish city, like almost every other movie. So if that’s the case, you’re absolutely right that they could have done much more with the setting. Thanks for the comment!


Daniel Swensen (@surlymuse) October 27, 2011 at 1:34 pm

Although you have left it somewhat ambiguous, I can’t help but get the feeling you did not care for the Green Lantern movie.


Jami Gold October 27, 2011 at 1:45 pm

Hi Daniel,

LOL! Well, it depends on what you mean be “care for.” Did I enjoy it as a turn-brain-off movie? Sure, my standards for popcorn movies are fairly low. But as soon as my brain comes back on, I’ll enjoy analyzing the plot holes too. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


Clifton Hill November 28, 2011 at 12:24 am

Excellent deconstruction. When I finally watched it, my impression was simply that they tried to cram too much into a two hour movie: origin story, two bad guys and a universe-spanning conflict. Seems like it could have made for at least three movies. I don’t know Green Lantern lore, but I was expecting Hector Hammond to be an actual challenge, instead of a throwaway villain. Makes me wonder if they tried to achieve too much which led to the problems you found in your analysis.


Jami Gold November 28, 2011 at 4:08 pm

Hi Clifton,

Interesting point! Rather than develop depth, they went broad. Thanks for the comment!


D.L. LeVack June 11, 2012 at 11:21 pm

They hired a bad screenwriter to make needless revisions 😉


Nathan J. Anderson February 18, 2012 at 7:47 am

Just saw it last night. You hit it right on the nose. I hate it when the hero goes from dismal and discouraged to Mr. Courage just because he had a little conversation with his girlfriend. No arc, no struggle.


Jami Gold February 18, 2012 at 8:11 am

Hi Nathan,

Exactly! I want the hero to have to work for success a lot more than that. 🙂 Thanks for the comment!


D.L. LeVack June 11, 2012 at 11:20 pm

If you want to know why the movie failed, read the original script. While not a terrific screenplay, it surpassed the final product. Hal passes out in the airplane, instead of choking due to fear. This is a guy who is supposed to have willpower to overcome fear and all he does is run away from things. Such as with his Carol Ferris. Also, in the original screenplay, the nephew is at an air show in the tower with Carol and Hal has to save them when a plane is manipulated by the telekinetic villian and hits the tower (trying to kill his dad in the crowds) This scene was moved to the dinner party and failed to close the fore shadowing.


Jami Gold June 11, 2012 at 11:26 pm

Hi D.L.,

Thanks for the information! It sounds like a case of death by tinkering, when the changes lost sight of what the scene was originally trying to accomplish. Interesting. Thanks for the comment!


What do you think?

88 Comments below - Time to Add your own.

Previous post:

Next post: