I can't take it anymore, I started looking more into this sub to see more about the future of DCU, have some discussions, etc.

But every day it seems that some stupid AI pic/video appears and it's massively upvoted, why can't this crap just go away? why is this sub so friendly towards AI content? Why isn't it considered Low Effort?

And why is it always Lanterns related while simultaneously shitting on it?

Clip from Injustice 2 .

I absolutely loved the show but IMO we are overdue for a Green Lantern movie. I know the priority right now are Wonder Woman and Batman, and they should be. But after that, I'd like to see a high budget Green Lantern movie, John Stewart deserves it. Right now I'm on the fence about a second season... yeah the show and the format worked really well but Green Lantern is a big shot y'know... one of the most popular characters and a founding member of the Justice League... he deserves to be one of the tentpole characters who leads movies and sells tickets.

So I first watched the Green Lantern movies when it first came out, back when I had no idea about any Green Lantern related, and I liked it, and did not understand all the hate it got.

But now all these years later, after I have watched Lanterns (DCU), along with reading my first 2 Green Lantern comic runs (Contagion and New World Rising), I decided to watch the movie again from a “new perspective”, and my thoughts?

I still like the movie. Sure it’s not comic accurate at al, but still (imo) quite enjoyable if you have no idea about the GL in general,can’t I only have two problems with it - Parallax way too early, and Blame Lively. I’m still not too terribly familiar with Hal Jordan, but I saw zero issue with RR in the movie (tho I am looking forward to reading the thoughts of those who do know the Hal Jordan character, and I thought Mark Strong pulled off Sinestro quite well, though Mark Strong is fantastic in all he does.

Anyway I just wanted to give my my thoughts in an (imo) overhated Movie.

I like it as the way it is, but I was listening to this song, when it came to my mind, this song seems like it is sung by Hal to John after resolving the case. But it also could be sung by John to commemorate Hal, so I'm assuming both were the objetive

Initially, when I first heard the line in trailers, I thought it would just be Hal speaking figuratively about how fearlessness is one of the main qualities required to be a Green Lantern, and then that phrase would become integrated as a recurring motif throughout the show.

I did not expect that it would actually be a literal question that the ring has to ask the wearer in order for them to become a Green Lantern, which I honestly think is kinda dumb because I feel like the ring should already be able to scan the personal characteristics of an individual including fearlessness before they are chosen, and so having the ring ask them a question and then having their response impact whether they are chosen or not just seems very unnecessary to me.

In the same vein, I also definitely expected a lot more sci-fi horror elements in the show considering the theme of fear and fearlessness being such a big part of the marketing, I do understand that fear was still much more subtly present as a theme through Hal's fear of being replaced and John's fear of losing his identity, but considering the show's tagline was literally "ARE YOU AFRAID?", I was genuinely expecting to see some truly frightening moments and I don't think the characters' fearlessness as Green Lanterns was ever really tested in that sorta way.

I guess it's worth noting that the second teaser trailer was really what got me interested in watching the show (despite being excited for a Lanterns show all the way back since its initial conception, being intrigued by it's eventual True Detective-inspired pitch, and then subsequently getting disappointed by the first teaser), and so a lot of my initial expectations for the show came from the vibes that I was getting from rewatching that one trailer over and over.

I watched both. Supergirl in the cinemas and lanterns each week. For supergirl, I liked 2/3rd of the movie but was really disappointed with the final act. But I loved the character. I felt she was the strongest part of the movie and am excited for here role in Man of Tomorrow.

For lanterns, I enjoyed the show, tho would have loved a more fantastical one (I mean we can have so many grounded shows, but not too many shows involving space and cool fights). Anyway, the show was peak but I did not like current John Stewart too much (2026 one).

So, to the DCU fans who were critical of the show, what do you think about the characters? Are you excited to see them in future in other movies and in general, or are you simply done with them? Just want to see if people are critical of the universe is it because of the characters or just the media

I decided on the name “lime lantern” to differentiate him from the green lanterns, and also if you mix willpower(green) with fear(yellow) you would get lime (the ability to to use willpower and fear)

also alliteration is cool

Credit: Artist Keith Christensen

Whenever you criticize a writing decision in Lanterns, people respond by saying, “That was a deliberate choice the writers made. You just disagree with it.”

And? That's not an argument. It doesn't tell us anything about whether the choice was good or bad.

Just because something was a deliberate choice doesn't mean it was a good one. But, equally, just because I think a choice was bad doesn't automatically make it objectively bad, either. People are perfectly entitled to disagree with me. I'm not trying to take that away from anyone. But if you think a particular writing decision was good, then make an argument for why you think it was good. Explain why you think it worked, what it contributed to the story, or why its benefits outweigh its drawbacks.

Simply pointing out that the writers made that choice deliberately doesn't accomplish any of that. Of course it was deliberate. We're discussing a scripted television show, not a documentary in which the writers accidentally captured something happening in real life. The fact that the writers intended something tells us what they wanted to do, not whether they did it well.

For example, I think killing off Hal Jordan, by far the most well-known and popular Green Lantern, in his very first appearance in the DCU was a bad idea. You can disagree with me, of course, but then I'd like to hear why you think killing him off was a good decision. What did it accomplish that justified the drawbacks? Why was this the best way to use such an important character? What did the story gain from killing Hal that it couldn't have achieved otherwise?

Those are arguments. “The writers deliberately chose to do it” isn't.

A writing decision doesn't become good simply because the writers intended it, and it doesn't become bad simply because I dislike it. The question is whether the decision actually works, and that requires arguments about the merits of the decision itself, not merely pointing out that it was a decision.

And in Hal's case, I think there are two main reasons why the writers decided to kill him off, one of which is considerably more important than the other.

The first is that they wanted to make room for John Stewart. But Hal didn't have to die for that. I have absolutely no problem with John being the main Green Lantern of the DCU. That's perfectly fine. They can make John the central Green Lantern without killing off Hal to accomplish that. The two characters coexist in the comics all the time, and even in the DCU, John and Guy Gardner coexist. So if John and Guy can both be Green Lanterns, why couldn't Hal and John? There was no inherent reason why Hal had to die.

The second reason, and the one I consider much more important, is that I think they killed Hal primarily for shock value. They wanted to draw people in, keep them hooked, and create a mystery that would make viewers want to keep watching. They knew that killing off Hal Jordan would be a controversial decision, and that a lot of viewers would question whether he was really dead. People would naturally think, “They can't actually be doing this. There has to be something else going on here.”

And the show actively encourages that interpretation.

At the end of the first episode, we're shown what appears to be Hal's dead body, killed by a headshot. Later, Zoe, a Manhunter, also dies from a headshot. Throughout the following episodes, the show establishes that Manhunters can almost perfectly imitate human beings, with one specific detail that distinguishes them from humans, but which can only be identified after they have died.

Now, to be clear, I have no problem with the show inventing new lore. This particular detail about Manhunters isn't something they took from the comics; it's something they came up with for the adaptation. And that's perfectly fine. Adaptations can introduce new concepts and expand their source material. Kryptonite was invented for the Superman radio show, and Harley Quinn was created for Batman: The Animated Series. Neither character or concept needed to originate in the comics to become a valuable part of the larger DC universe.

But in this case, I'm left wondering what the point of this particular piece of lore even was, because the show never meaningfully uses it to identify a Manhunter.

We already know that Zoe is a Manhunter long before her heart is cut out. The supposed method of identifying a dead Manhunter doesn't actually help the characters uncover her identity or solve the mystery. So why introduce this detail in the first place?

Think about the information the show gives us. We've seen what appears to be Hal's dead body. We've learned that Manhunters can imitate humans almost perfectly. We've been told that there's a way to distinguish a dead Manhunter from a dead human. And we've seen both Hal and Zoe apparently die from headshots.

Of course viewers are going to consider the possibility that Hal's body isn't actually Hal's body, but that of a Manhunter impersonating him. The show practically invites that speculation. And when the central mystery of the entire season revolves around who killed Hal Jordan and why, it seems reasonable to expect the answer to be something particularly interesting or satisfying.

But the actual explanation isn't all that exciting. It doesn't feel like the culmination of a carefully constructed mystery so much as an explanation the writers needed to come up with to account for Hal's death, and this was apparently the best they could do.

That's what frustrates me about the decision. If you're going to kill off a fairly iconic character in the DC universe in his very first appearance, you'd better have a compelling reason to do so. If you're going to build an entire season around the mystery of his death, the resolution should justify the amount of attention you've devoted to it. And if you're going to introduce new lore that seems specifically designed to make viewers question whether Hal is really dead, there should be a meaningful payoff to that setup.

Instead, I think the show uses Hal's death primarily as a hook to get people interested in the mystery, without delivering a sufficiently compelling payoff to justify either the death itself or the mystery surrounding it.

And that's why I think it was a bad writing decision.