Talk:Green Lantern (film)

Science Consulting

The Science & Entertainment Exchange provided science consultants to the film's production team.

References

Orphaned references in Green Lantern (film)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Green Lantern (film)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "DCUSlateVariety":

• From DC Universe (franchise): Vary, Adam B. (January 31, 2023). "New DC Universe Unveils First 10 Projects: 'Superman: Legacy' in 2025, Batman & Robin Movie, Green Lantern Series, Wonder Woman Prequel and More". Variety. Archived from the original on January 31, 2023. Retrieved January 31, 2023.
• From Development of the DC Extended Universe: Vary, Adam B. (January 31, 2023). "New DC Universe Unveils First 10 Projects: 'Superman: Legacy' in 2025, Batman & Robin Movie, Green Lantern Series, Wonder Woman Prequel and More". Variety. Archived from the original on January 31, 2023. Retrieved January 31, 2023.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Green Lantern (film)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Closing as no consensus; no prejudice against another GAR being opened with a man-made rationale. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I propose delisting the Green Lantern film article from "Good Article" status due to several issues. The article is not well-written, with unclear prose, and failure to follow the Manual of Style. It lacks broad coverage, missing important details while including unnecessary information. The reception and production sections are underdeveloped and need significant expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lililolol (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you mind outlining a rationale with specific issues to be fixed using your own words, not the vague ramblings of a WP:LLM Lililolol? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

Green Lantern (film)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Hi, I believe the article and the review does not meet the quality standards outlined in WP:GAN/I and should be reassessed.

Here are some points I think need fixing. Sorry in advance if this ends up being too long.

1. Plot/Arrowverse sections

I don't think the plot section follows the guidelines (MOS:FILMPLOT).

It's almost 700 words, and some parts are too detailed, with "scene-by-scene breakdowns." It also talks about the characters' actions and events in a way that feels more like telling a story than giving a summary.

For the Arrowverse, I don't think it needs its own section. It could be mentioned in the opening paragraph of the plot summary that the movie is set on Earth-12, and then a note could be added maybe something like "Billions of years ago, on Earth-12 the Guardians of the Universe used the green essence of willpower to create an intergalactic police force called the Green Lantern Corps."

2. Music section

• It's not that significant on its own; it should be a subsection under the production section. (MOS:FILMMUSIC)
  • Done by Lililolol.

• I think the Green Lantern (soundtrack) page should be merged under the production section as a subsection because the soundtrack album is insufficient and fails WP:NALBUMS. So I don't think it's controversial to just merge it.(WP:SUBNOT).
  • Merged by Lililolol, rewritten by me. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

3. Release section

• I think the "Marketing" subsection should be the main section. Under it, the "Theatrical" and "Home Media" subsections should be merged into a single subsection titled "Release".
  • I disagree. Look at MOS:FILMRELEASE, which says the release needs to be a key part of the article. In contrast, MOS:FILMMARKETING shows marketing falls under secondary content. Also have a look at how various film FAs have structured their article (e.g. Dredd, John Wick (film), Mission: Impossible – Fallout). I've placed "Box Office" and "Home Media" both under "Release". Sgubaldo (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
• The other subsections, Animation, Comics, Roller Coaster, and Video Game, should be placed under their own section titled "Related Media." This makes more sense imo.
• The Roller Coaster subsection has an unsourced paragraph. Either add sources or remove it.
  • Removed as irrelevant to the movie. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

4. Reception section

• The Box Office subsection has an unsourced paragraph.
• Many industry analysts felt that Green Lantern failed to perform to expectations. This should be expanded to include who made this statement, when it was said, and the reasons behind it.
• Some publications listed the losses for the studio as high as $75 million could be better worded idk.
• In the Critical Response section, more reviews should be added (check Rotten Tomatoes for missing reviews). Also, following WP:RECEPTION. Yes, it's not a guideline, but I'm sure it will improve the quality.
• For Accolades, add another table for refs, also the Reelz Channel ref is broken.

• Table revamped. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

5. Future/In popular culture sections

• Maybe it's just me, but I think it could flow better similar to the "Cancelled DC Extended Universe Reboot" subsection. The other subsections might work better if they followed the same tone.
• "Future" section could be re-titled to "Follow-up" or "Cancelled Projects." Idk, it just makes more sense than calling it "Future."

6. References

• There are some CS1, MOS:CAPS, and MOS:QWQ errors that need fixing.

7. Infobox

• Relocate the references into the article body (MOS:INFOBOXREF)

8. Lead section

• Relocate the references into the article body.
• Add something about the Critical Response and Accolades. (MOS:FILMLEAD)
  • Lead already mentions negative critical response, and it hasn't won enough accolades to warrant a mention. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lililolol (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lililolol, can you not relocate references, fix CS1 errors, rename headers, merge sections, or remove unnecessary detail? Even if you can't add citations, you can do the other stuff, right? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @AirshipJungleman29 I can, but I am not interested enough to do so :) Lililolol (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Interested enough to start a GAR, and list out a series of easily-fixable things, but not interested enough to actually improve an encyclopedia article Lililolol? Alright then. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 i know its weried lol Lililolol (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Lililolol It's your choice. But personally I think if you have the dedication to point out all these flaws, you can fix atleast some of them (Be Bold). Not doing so feels a bit rude in my eyes. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Well I changed my mind. I personally think that a lot of editors refuse editing for practical reasons, whether it be lack of expertise, or just lack of interest. I think that's find reflecting back. I personally never really liked to copyedit. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@All Tomorrows No Yesterdays No im not trying to be rude, sorry if I sound like that!. Omg really sorry, tho, I did the merging a while back :) Lililolol (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I won't have the time until at least the middle of next week, but I can try and work on this. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Slow progress, but have started. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Some more done. Trudging along when I have the time and will. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)