Green Lantern was just mediocre like so many big budget blockbusters.
For me, GL wasn't a bad movie at all; it was flawed, but reasonably entertaining. It just had the bad fortune to come out in the same year as three really brilliant superhero movies, Thor, Captain America
, and X-Men First Class
, so it felt inadequate by contrast. If a film with this same story (though obviously less advanced VFX) had come out earlier in the decade, at a time when we had some good movies like the first two X-Men or Spidey films and Batman Begins
but also a lot of weak ones like Catwoman
and Fantastic Four
and Ghost Rider
, I think it would've been regarded as one of the better superhero films. It's just that the bar has been raised so much in the past few years.
Your last sentence says it all.. there is no excuse to make mediocre superhero movies because others have proven that you can make great ones.
Green Lantern isn't a boring or worthless character.. in fact the whole Green Lantern thing just reeks cool in the same vein as a grumpy short guy with an indestructible skeleton who can pop claws from his hands and heals almost any wound in seconds.
Yet the movie fell just flat.. for me it seemed the producers were more concerned about it looking pretty and visually captivating instead of crafting a rock solid story first and then concentrating on the flashy scenes.
Why was Batman so successful? The characters and his story is interesting, that's not the point. It's that Nolan managed to almost perfectly capture the essence of the character and work with it whereas the GL guys launched more reports on the CGI costume.. there's the difference.
There ware way worse movies out there.. you already mentioned Elektra and Catwoman as examples but Green Lantern is still mediocre.. i don't mourn the two hours i spent on it but there are definitely better superhero movies out there now to choose from (though counting Thor as better than GL is up for debate and a topic for another thread).