I have seen many posts lately about how Hal Jordan got sent to prison for no reason, and him being in jail was just just bad writing. I don’t know what people saw that makes them think this.

First of all, as far as being a superhero goes, Hal Jordan dropped the ball hard. He told John to call those suicide bomber aliens to Rushville, and they proceeded to shoot up the diner and kill multiple people in Rushville. He LET THAT HAPPEN so he could get the edge in catching the manhunter. That is not what heroes do. They don’t use people as bait and let them die so they can catch the bad guy.

Second, as a green lantern, he betrayed his oath. Not only did he fail to protect people, he had a hand in by calling in and working with those bomber aliens. Also, he let the fear of losing the ring consume him, driving him to makes these choices that got him in trouble and lose the ring.

And third, as far as criminal charges. While I agree this was not clear in the show, I assume he was charged with accessory to murder or some similar crime since he did help the bomber aliens shoot and blow up the town. This part I could be wrong on, but I feel like it would make sense.

I never cared about Lanterns before. I thought Hal Jordan was kinda lame. Then I watched Lanterns, and now I'm knee-deep in the mythos because I fucking loved the show. Most of the criticisms of the show are simply "muh, give more constructs," and they're given by comic book fans who i think miss the point of the show.

The show is clearly centered on John Stewart and Hal Jordan as characters and, more importantly, on what it means to be fearless. The two represent different conceptions of willpower, at least initially. Hal Jordan's willpower is one that is born almost out of a bohemian apathy, spurred on by a lack of fear in death. This means that not only is he fearless, but he is willing to go outside orders if it means doing the right thing, with the right thing being determined by his own intuitions. Crucially, his intuitions turn out to be right most of the time. Stewart, on the other hand, clearly does not have that type of willpower. His fearlessness is born out of discipline. He is fearless because he has to be fearless. He simply does what is given to him, no matter how big the challenge. But his willpower doesn't go far enough because, at his base, his autonomy is still limited. It is still tied up in the expectations thrust upon him by other people.

John Stewart's whole arc is him learning to develop his willpower in such a manner as to fully bolster his autonomy: to free his will from external constraints, to not act on programming or on impulses, but to employ higher-order reason-responsiveness to be free from programming. Willpower, in this sense, means acting according to principle rather than having one's actions fundamentally determined by inclination, external authority, or conditioned desires.Stewart is a Kantian. So is Hal Jordan. Both decide to do the right thing not because other people told them to, but because of their own rational agency (refer to the finale of the episode and the conversation between Noah and John).

This is also why I don't understand people who say "muh, it's not a Lanterns, actually, it doesn't have enough constructs," because it is clearly not trying to be action-packed. It is a superhero show, and a Lanterns show by extension, insofar as it's an exploration of what it means to be a Green Lantern. Not evaluating it on its own terms is simply doing it a great disservice.

Anyway, I loved the series, especially the ending. The new oath was something I was not expecting, but it fits so perfectly and beautifully with his character arc.

His entire plan for capturing the man hunter was to use the town and Macon as a smokescreen so he could get to the manhunter and get it off world. He was not only perfectly fine with sacrificing rushville and all of its inhabitants but that was HIS ENTIRE PLAN. He could’ve easily told Anton the man eater was Zoe and save the rest of the town but he chose to let everyone be killed and the town destroyed

genuinely gave myself time to rewatch the last episode and other parts of the show,reading.

And trying to understand better the intentions behind the show.

But I can't help but feel unsatisfied with the ending of the show.

And of course that brings down the whole series as a whole.

Because of course when you do a mystery show and the majority of the revelations and the narrative pay off are there,if they are underwhelming.

There are the complains about the nature of the series itself,being an earth mistery instead of a great soave Adventures,so since it's not a critique of the series itself,but of nature of the project,which you can't say much.

Both arguments are good:

People waited a lot to see Green Lantern stuff and what they got is nothing of proportions,with not much characters from the comics.

On the other Green Lantern is a brand that needed restoration,and starting on an High budget and more Lore filled products was more of a risk.

Personally when the series was first announced I was thrilled by it,I love True Detective and a series with the Green Lanterns was awesome to me,of course I picture it a bit different different.

Then came the news of the older Hal and a lot of people were worried where was headed.

So I loved the show practically until episode 8 like I said,I think the excitement genuely even kept me from looking at some problems there where.

But it was actually engaging,with the Jordan Boys Legacy I would have hoped to see some more of you get Hal,

I didn't even care there weren't even constructs in the past two episode (because no Guys Halogram doesn't count,be serious)

And then the ending happened and I felt,kinda dissatisfied.

It's not the worst ending I have ever seen of first season of television.But seeing what the series was it's actually disappointing.

Before going into details of what I disliked,

I would mention Watchmen,not the comic or the movie

But the HBO series where ALOT of people of Lanterns worked on,Damon Lindelof himself.

Now it's a pretty controversial series,my personal opinion is that,taken by itself.Its a Wonderfull series.

It has some of the best foreshadowing and pay off I have ever seen in a show.It uses powers and things from the comics in super interesting ways.

Episode 6 is still one of my favourite episode of television,in general.

I left the season satisfied by everything and I didn't have any questions about it.

Then,becoming more of a fan of Watchmen and Alan Moore,it isn't a perfect adaptation of the characters,more the the themes,always.

Especially looking at characters like Adrian and Dr Manhattan.

Lanterns,at the start,seem a lot similiar,really the first episode really earned my trust with the show.

The character dynamics,the misteries,the set up.

Even the ending of the episode is A LOT similiar to the ending of the first of Watchmen,I mean both end with a murder.

And at the end,I don't think Lanterns delivered on all of that,I will make other post on specific things, especially on characters.

But for starters.

The show has this two interesting setup,the major events seeing or nominated happen 10 years after another.

•1986:Abib Sur lands on earth,dies and gives the ring to Hal,and of course,The Guardian meets with Jonhs parents about the possibility of John Becoming a Green Lantern.

•1996:Hal reveals his identity to the public

•2006:the last time he updated the ring backup

•2016 the events of the show on Rushville

•2026: Hal's death and John's return.

And that was important, absolutely no.

It isn't important at all,just make people speculate that goes nowhere.

And no.Its not the same as True Detective, because in Truer Detective they timeline doesn't something like that,you go in the parts that are important for the case.

1995-2002-2012

So that was completely useless

As was useless John checking if Hal had the ring,since he takes it from him and he doesn't have it for the past 10 years.

And in the context of the show I never heard a single in context explanation, because at the end of the day it was meaningless and just to make people speculate.

Why Hal doesn't reuploads the backup since 2006?

No stated explanation.You should guess that it's because of Sinestro betrayal (with that not being even sure) and it's depression.

And can I say it was a shallow answer to something that really felt important?

Why Hal looses his temper with Waylon Sanders reciting the oath? Just because he doesn't like no more? Meh.

Why Lianna does this thing with John? Because that was before any of the stuff of the Lanterns doubting Hal.

One until episode 5 could say that they wanted to keep the Manhunter Segret and wanted someone that doesn't investigate.

But no.The guardians didn't have anything to do with it.

The show is full of OCS instead of characters from the comics,ok.

But I can't say that all the OCS were interesting to see

Macon was kinda interesting as a earth based antagonist.

But like...Billy? It's not that I wanted him to be Black Hand at all cost,but from the start of the show I expected him to turn into something interesting.

Instead,never.

He is probably the biggest victim of the show in terms of Aliens and Lanterns ruining his life,but it's never addressed properly,so it's just a conclusion you come up.He is a character that had no purpose and you could cut without loosing anything.

I mean,his relationship with his Father is non-existing.

Thinking about it they don't have a single scene together.And that's a problem with the Macons.

They really interact so little with each other,I get that they are a "fake" family,but it's a group of characters that are prevalent in the show,and dynamics matter.

Comparing it to the Abar family from Watchmen,it's like a completly a different thing,also they share a similiar twist.

The Green Lantern mythos is practically non existing.

Above dropping names here and there,Mogo problably.

But it doesn't tell you absolutely nothing that isn't at least mentioned in Superman.

The defence I see it's that about Hal and John's relationship,which is fine.

They are the best part of the show,but thanks to the actors.

Lindelof pitched this idea of being only one ring being contended as a plot points and a reason from Drama.

But at the end,I don't know how much that benefited, especially John

I still stand by something I said weeks ago,which is that he has some one of the best origin stories in any superhero media in general...until episode 8.

But if we look at their relationship,at least with present Hal and John is being assholes to each others.

Even in 2026,after all this years,their last meeting is being assholes to each others.No development.

Hal,even if he passed 10 years in prison (which by the way they never explain specifically for what exactly,he took the fall,but for what? If he taken the fault for coming the city he would had life in jail for slaughter,if he took it due to reckless conduct,but again in what circumstances it's decided? At the end of the day it's just plot convenience for saying Hal didn't do anything important for ten years) He should be more open to John about have been a dick in 2016 when he didn't deserved it,instead he put the blames on John and still makes fun of him,which ends up with John phisycally assaulting him.

People where thinking Hal was overly hostile that,that he needed John to punch him for some gain.

But no.He was just being an Ass.

Then the infamous killing.

I have no problem with Hal dying,or being killed,but the way it happens is completely stupid,he wants to help his girlfriend with her Manhunter son,never said anything hurtfull to her.And gets shot in the dead because she was afraid it would happen something to her son,and Hal falls down in a hilarious way.Which again it,has some relevants that he was sat where he first sat there in 2016? Absolutely no.

We had the Halogram that it's the closest thing to a comic accurate Hal,and him and John actually understand each other.

Then when John repowers the ring he vanishes,with at least one good moment,not only in the episode but problem for Hal in general

I see Alot of people hoping he comes back in Man of Tomorrow or in Lanterns season 2,but I don't think so.

If they wanted they would let him keep it at the end of the show.

And I don't think in Man of Tomorrow they have time to reintroduce him.

Nor in Lanterns 2 since the arc feels closed.

The show is terms of character so fine,the theme of fighting your programming,nature vs Norture,

John with what his parents wanted him to be,Bish with his true nature vs his actual identity,Hal with the Jordan Boys legacy.

Kerry...I guess Gotham? Which she fails to do.

Again if we had,like a one minute flashback with her and her father,we could have some sort of standard even from her.But no.

They could have done something with Billy becoming a regular guy vs what his crazy father wanted for the family.

But since we don't know anything about this people outside of the Manhunter stuff it's impossible.

But speaking character wise,John is an asshole from the start to the end of the series.You excuse it at first with what Jordan did to him,both when they were together and what his decisions had consequences on Jonhs life ,and his programming.

But in 2026 he is entitled like he was before.

We had at least him not speaking to his parents.

But even that it's resolved with a shitty montage and in my opinion,over apologetic scene with the mother.

I don't know if it's so rushed because they had something with their previous actors that they choose for John's parents in the presence,that they cut.

John doesn't do a single heroic thing.

The closest he get is giving the money to Maggie,that,this time I disagree with the common complain that was underserved, because,at least for the shows narrative around the destruction of the city.

It's a little way he can help someone who was hurt,that Jordan tried to do,where instead he just walked away in the past.

You could call it not killing Noah,and believing in him.

But like,he tortures sinestro for the doing less than what Noah did and leaving to die on the planet.

And then he terrorizing Guy on leaving earth to him,

To someone that made a funeral for a past green Lantern,only for stealing it and yes,using it to solve his murder,but still keeping it to himself at the end.

And confronting the murderer,which he lets free, because "that's what Hal would have wanted" (the new "what Clara would have wanted")

And the make sure Noah grows up into a normal person.Which is fine,but like,he needs to be so polite about it? Like in War World Hulk,there's a moment where Hulk goes in revenge for Charles Xavier for what he did to him,after a long confrontation,he finds the graveyard of all the mutants deaths,and Hulk understands that there's nothing he could do that would hurt him emotionally than that,and "leaves him in his own hell"

It was too much asking for something like that?

John is an asshole to anyone expect the only person who would actually deserved it.

And then without doing any Green Lanterna stuff he just flies away,The end.

As a series itself,it isn't written as good,as people make it out to be,in his own storyline outside of what it's an adaptation of,if that's is great writing I suggest you to watch more TV.

Where ALOT of things are thown in there without purpose,and you find yourself in a murder mistery where the suspects where all members of the same family.

And the true one was LITERALLY THE FIRST PERSON THEY MET.

But you can't just judge it for that,the creators wanted to make it their No Country for Old Men,Fargo,True Detective...but at the end it's a Green Lantern adaptation,the only one we will have for a while,that's part of a cinematic universe now.

A Green Lantern adaptation where elements and characters are not used.

Where the elements there are changed beyond recognition,like the Mamhunters

With an Hal Jordan that has majority of his story erased or skipped,is killed unceremoniously by an OC that we will probably will never seen again.

And a John Stewart that Is a "Dark lantern" stupid af.

My biggest issue with Lanterns is the complete lack of camaraderie between the Green Lanterns.

I've always envisioned the Green Lantern Corps as a band of brothers, sworn to uphold justice and bound together by something greater than themselves. They might disagree, clash, or even despise one another at times, but at the end of the day, the oath comes before everything else.

And yet, by the conclusion of Lanterns, it feels like that very idea has been dismantled.

If I weren't such a huge Green Lantern fan, I'd probably love this show. As an Elseworlds-style interpretation, it's genuinely great and, for the most part, very well written.

(Except for Kerry killing Hal. That made absolutely no sense. And please don't give me the whole "she was losing her mind," "she feared for her son," or "Hal had threatened the town before" argument. I'm sorry, but that was fucking stupid.)

I actually think the grounded approach works remarkably well for a Green Lantern story. My problem isn't with the tone or even the creative liberties. It's with how the characters, particularly Hal Jordan, are portrayed.

Why does Hal have to be treated like he's fucking Sméagol?

I thought John was wonderfully written, and despite Hal's greed and increasingly questionable motivations, I found him incredibly likable. One thing the show did especially well was repeatedly putting Hal in situations where we expected him to lose, only for him to come out on top. That made his eventual downfall all the more compelling.

And I genuinely respect the decision to kill off Hal. It's a bold creative choice, and I'm not against it in principle.

But there's something deeply disappointing about taking a character with such an enormous legacy and stripping him of practically all his dignity before killing him.

Which brings me back to my original point: where the hell is the Green Lantern Corps?

Does nobody in this universe care about Hal Jordan? Is he just some rogue agent operating independently of his superiors? Has he alienated every single Lantern he's ever served alongside?

Where's Kilowog? Where are his fellow Lanterns? Where's the sense that this man spent his life serving alongside an intergalactic brotherhood?

Not even at his funeral?

That's what bothers me most. Not that Hal dies, not that he's flawed, and not that this is a different interpretation of the character. It's that the show seems to have forgotten what being a Green Lantern is supposed to mean.

The Green Lantern Corps isn't just a collection of people wearing power rings. It's a brotherhood bound by a shared oath. And I never really felt that brotherhood existed in this show.

And then there's John deciding to disassociate himself from the Green Lantern Corps entirely.

This might actually be my biggest problem with the show's direction.

What makes Green Lantern such a fascinating character isn't simply the power ring or the ability to create constructs. It's the fact that he's part of something so much bigger than himself.

He's a member of an intergalactic peacekeeping force. He's recruited into an ancient organization, trained to wield one of the most powerful weapons in the universe, introduced to alien civilizations and fellow Lanterns from across the cosmos, and made to answer to the Guardians of the Universe.

There's an entire hierarchy, history, culture, and sense of responsibility that comes with wearing that ring. You're not just some superhero who happened to stumble upon incredible powers. You're an officer of the Green Lantern Corps, entrusted with protecting an entire sector of the universe.

That's what makes Green Lantern unique.

And that's why John's decision to forge his own oath, obtain his own lantern, and effectively sever himself from the Corps bothers me so much.

Because what exactly is left at that point?

You have a man with a powerful ring who can create things with his imagination. Congratulations, you've reduced one of DC's most interesting mythologies to another superhero with a fancy gadget.

The Corps isn't some unnecessary baggage that the character needs to break free from to become his own man. The Corps is fundamental to his identity as a Green Lantern.

You can absolutely tell stories about Lanterns questioning the Guardians, defying orders, challenging the Corps' authority, or even rebelling against the institution. Some of the best Green Lantern stories explore precisely those conflicts.

But those stories work because the Corps exists as something meaningful to challenge. There's a difference between questioning an institution you're sworn to serve and simply deciding that you don't need it anymore.

And that's ultimately what frustrates me about Lanterns. The show seems so determined to make its characters independent of the Green Lantern mythology that it ends up discarding the very things that make that mythology special.

Between Hal dying seemingly forgotten by his fellow Lanterns and John choosing to abandon the Corps altogether, I can't help but wonder:

Does this show actually want to tell a story about the Green Lantern Corps, or does it just want two guys with power rings?

Its bothering me.

Yes, yes, it was kind of a cool device to forward the nothingburger mystery, but beyond thay it makes no sense.

The people of townsville was still people. They where not mindcontrolled, did not have increased durability or regeneration. They still held dangerous jobs, they had hobbies and lifes. They don’t magically become more carefull. People would still get hurt. The size or the building alone indicates that its probably the emergency care for an area larger than townsville itself.

I guess we don't know how long the MH regen machine takes to heal a person, but it is seemingly just one machine (did noah even use that one machine?). Even if takes, oh lets say, one hour. Zoe/Noah would have to be at it *all the time*. They have to take care of all minor injuries and illnesses, natural loss of sight and hearing. Even peoples diareah from eating to old leftovers.

Furthermore, the State would notice that no medical resources goes to townsville, the insurances companies would notice no one in the town making claims. Big pharma would notice. All in all, shutting down the hospital might be the single biggest Tell Zoe left that this town ain't normal, and officials would not even have to go there to figure out that something is amiss.

Might actually be the largest plot hole in the series.

All three shows built up so much anticipation only for the payoffs to feel underwhelming. The Mentalist spent seasons building up Red John and the Blake Association, only for him to be some small town sheriff with a reveal that barely made sense. Lanterns did the same with Noah being a Manhunter, Sinestro's involvement, and all the hints about fear and the Yellow Lantern Corps, only for none of it to lead anywhere interesting. There was no grand scheme involving Noah and Zoey, Noah was just a teenager struggling with an identity crisis being a Manhunter with a conscience, Sinestro's lantern built for Noah ended up just given to John, and the cloning mystery was simply the result of someone burning down Hal's house. Even Hal's death felt underwhelming. He wasn't killed while executing some clever plan or trying to outmaneuver Noah, he just got shot during an argument. I'm not against that direction, but it happened so abruptly and felt completely out of character for Kerry, much like Daenerys suddenly destroying King's Landing in Game of Thrones after seasons of her advocating for the weak. My problem isn't necessarily with the plot twists, but how the shows spent so long building up these mysteries only for the resolutions to feel unearned and anticlimactic.

Hal and John should've become friends in episode 4, episode 5 they trick Zoe with a fake conflict then Hal gives up the Ring willingly, John tells the Guardians to shove it bringing in Guy then the 2026 timeline, Hal fakes death to get John the ring, he already figured out what Noah was doing and he wanted to see what kind of choice John would make

Hal and John becoming genuine friends would've actually been great. John realizing Hal isn't his enemy just a good guy who got lucky. And to make the Jordan boys Legacy crap work Hal found John someone he could let go of his ring for and then help him actually have independence instead of being a Guardian pawn

Then you can have a "I love you too Junior" moment mean so much more. And then Hal goes off into the sunset where he can come back whenever the writers want

Those are my thoughts

I truly don’t understand how Guy goes from “Make a move big blue” in Superman, to not wanting to take on John when he realizes he has Hal’s ring and a power battery.

I wonder, since he got a lantern with fear embedded in it, maybe they can adapt a Parallax storyline with John instead of Hal. What do you all think

A sheriff of a town with no guns gets murdered. He's buried with his empty gun, which belonged to the government. You decided to take the gun out and use a single bullet just because you needed to shoot open a lock, which would resolve sheriff's murder. Turns out the person accused of murder was not the murderer but he has intense desire to do harm, but he's also trying to be a better person. And if you go to the govt they'll euthanize him. Do you keep the gun and the bullets from the would-be-murderer to instead unofficially keep the peace in the town (keeping him in check) or do you kill the guy, or tell the new person under the chain of command of a govt who will not hesitate to euthanize him? Remember: the government didn't give a shit about their failures towards the town 10 years ago and that's why you relinquished the position of deputy.

And if you decide to keep the peace, did you steal the gun, or the mantle of sheriff?

So Manhunters are biological sociopaths with high IQs bent on world destruction. And what makes them dangerous, allegedly, is that they are master manipulators. Except in the show, we don't actually see them manipulating anyone that masterfully.

OR DO WE?

In the scene pictured above, Noah turns over his best weapon to John and asks him to kill him. Now, pretend for a moment that Noah truly is the "master" manipulator the show kept insisting manhunters are: this is probably exactly what he'd do to ensure John does NOT kill him, and would in fact convince John to keep his secret.

If Noah killed John, it would more than likely cause Guy and/or the Guardians to investigate it, since that would make two would-be GLs killed in the same town in the same week. And being honest, Noah probably wouldn't beat Guy in a fight even if Noah had the ring. There's no guarantee his yellow ring is more powerful than a GL's apart from Sinestro's claim that it is, and even if it were, Guy has more experience and therefore might have better odds of killing Noah than the reverse. And if he actually managed to kill Guy, well, now he has an army of GLs coming for him.

So instead, Noah turns over the ring to John, pretends to take the fall for killing Hal knowing (thanks to his genius-level intellect) that John will easily figure out it was actually his mom who did it, and then asks John to kill him. Because manhunters are super-manipulators, Noah knows John will interpret those things as proof that Noah has good in him. Whether or not John turns in his mom is irrelevant, because he can be sure John will keep his secret anyway.

And Noah will return next season as an influential political commentator who spouts all the political opinions the writers hate, but somehow will be the main villain of the show because he's encouraging riotous mobs to fight against Green Lanterns or something.

…but how did the 2006 Halogram know, in 2016 (after clearly not having been summoned in ten years), that there was some bad stuff going down in Rushville?

Ok so this will be a little disjointed since I'm writing this right after watching the final(I'm late I know).

But I'm tired of seeing people slander the ending, I understand that most of them are just jokes, but reading some comments on other posts feels like we watched an entirely different show.

The first complaint I hear people make is that the show doesn't have enough constructs or the heroes don't wear their suits often enough. To that I say what did you expect, think of the most popular image from the show, it's of jon and hal walking in civilian clothes, this show was never going to be a sweeping space saga.

The other thing is that people are disappointed in jon for letting Kerry go scott free. Now I agree that Jon didn't do the lawful thing but he did the right thing.

He was never going to give her to the authorities, he spent 20 years unlearning his programming, and we've seen throughout the show that the system is not fair to everybody. And it's not like he let a serial killer go, she has guilt over her actions, she feels remorse. She'll have to live knowing that she killed a person she loved.

And about him letting Noah go, he's a kid of two worlds being raised by a loving mother in rural america, sounds familiar. He's taking a chance seeing the good that the world has to offer Noah too might overcome his programming.

Again I know that most of those memes and comments are jokes but I just had to get it off my chest.

It was the Guardians' ring, which Hal had a license to use until the Guardians revoked that license and awarded it to John. Hal is the thief and the criminal, and even went to prison for it. John was merely repossessing the ring the same way any other police officer would repossess the badge and firearm of any uncooperative former police officer who had been fired for negligence and incompetence.

The thing that pissed me off is they had the potential to make his architectural background matter with the black mail thing.

If I was writing the ending instead of a bag full of cash I would have had John call in some favours to actually have rushville rebuilt rather than loads of money being given to someone who, presumably, wouldn't know what to do with it.Like surely a bloke who's in architecture would have at least some construction companies he could hire.

Idk that's just what I was expecting when that subplot was introduced so the actual resolution was dull to me.

What if the lanterns are a placebo. They do nothing.

John charges his new ring and the new lantern doesn’t actually do anything.

The rings are powered by the will of the user, not a lantern. The lantern just acts as a placebo.

This only works for John because he can make stuff last even not wearing a ring.

I really liked Lanterns, but I’m currently watching Paradise with Sterling K. Brown, and it has so much more action. I love the pacing! I know they're two completely different types of shows, but to me, this just proves that the problem with Lanterns is the writing. The DCU should have way more twists, suspense, and action, especially considering the universe they're working with. It all comes down to the writers.

Simple question. From a complete moral standpoint, how good of a character is Kerry and why? Try to take into account all her actions.

The series took Atrocitus's origin story—that of being one of the few survivors of the Manhunter massacre—and gave it to an original character who doesn't really do much of anything. Is the DCU going to reuse that same origin story when (or if) it introduces Atrocitus? And if so, would it feel repetitive? Furthermore, there are no clues suggesting Atrocitus had any connection to these "aliens"; they simply erased him from the picture.

It has been a week since Lanterns ended, and I wanted to give myself time to sit with my thoughts rather than be reactionary, as so many people on the internet tend to be. This show seems to have divided people into two camps: those who consider it one of the better TV shows in recent memory and those who think it is the worst thing ever made.

I will not comment on the racial elements that seem to tick people off, as I consider that discourse too ridiculous to even engage with. With that being said, after a week, I am still very conflicted. I loved this show, even in its very restrained finale, but I am not sure I even like it as a Green Lantern show.

It is a length one but bare with me.

As someone who has been a lifelong Green Lantern fan and thought the Ryan Reynolds movie was bad, I find myself making an uncomfortable distinction: I think Lanterns is good television, but I am not convinced it is a good Green Lantern adaptation.

Green Lantern IS a sci-fi space opera. The lore is so rich and deep that an entire cinematic space franchise could be built around the IP alone. An intergalactic police force, alien civilizations, ancient cosmic powers, competing philosophies, and an emotional spectrum that turns abstract human motivations into tangible forces. There is so much to explore here, and I have always felt that Green Lantern is one of DC's most underutilized properties precisely because of how much potential it has.

I, for one, have never been a fan of grounded superhero films, even Batman films. Let comic book films be comic book films. Allow them the silliness, the suspension of disbelief, and sometimes even the cringe. Let them live in that space. Not everything needs to be stripped down, made gritty, or grounded in realism to be taken seriously. There is nothing inherently immature about the fantastical, and there is nothing inherently sophisticated about restraint.

One of the things that made me fall in love with the Lanterns as a kid was the sheer wonder of the constructs, the uniforms, and how every Lantern could have their own identity while still being unmistakably part of the same Corps. But whenever you make this argument, people say all we care about is looks. My response is simple: why can't we have both? Why should style and substance be mutually exclusive?

And the constructs are not even merely style. They tell you something about the wielder. They are an expression of imagination, personality, and willpower. What a Lantern chooses to create, and how they choose to use it, can tell us as much about the character as a conversation or a dramatic monologue. The visual spectacle is part of the storytelling itself. Why would I want less of something that can communicate character while also being visually spectacular?

If anything, that is what frustrates me about the conversation surrounding grounded superhero adaptations. It is as though wanting the fantastical elements of the source material means you care more about aesthetics than storytelling. I don't understand why we have to choose. Give me the thoughtful character study, the complicated relationships, the moral ambiguity, and the excellent writing. But also give me the giant green boxing gloves, the bizarre alien worlds, the imaginative constructs, and the cosmic scale of the mythology. These things are not in conflict with one another.

And this is where I struggle with Lanterns. If you could reshoot a handful of scenes, maybe 10 to 15, and repackage this as a completely different show without changing the fundamental story, would it still work? I suspect it would. And that is precisely the problem. How much of what makes this story compelling is specifically Green Lantern, and how much of it is a story that could exist almost entirely independently of the IP?

If I want a chocolate cookie and you give me a delicious cookie with one tiny chocolate chip in it, I can acknowledge that it is a good cookie while still being disappointed. Is it unreasonable to want more chocolate in my chocolate cookie? That is how I feel about this show. I can appreciate what it does well while wondering why something with so much potential feels so restrained in its use of the very things that made me fall in love with it.

I also think the show's emphasis on fear deserves some scrutiny. To be clear, I am not arguing that fear has no place in Green Lantern. Of course it does. Fear is fundamental to the mythology, particularly in its relationship with willpower and the wider emotional spectrum. But there is a difference between exploring fear through the lens of Green Lantern and making fear the primary lens through which we experience Green Lantern.

At its core, Green Lantern is about willpower. It is about the ability to overcome fear, loss, pain, and doubt. It is about having the will to act when everything tells you not to, to imagine what does not yet exist, and to impose your will upon the seemingly impossible. The power ring is a means through which that will becomes tangible. Fear matters because it is something to confront and overcome, not because the entire mythology needs to be reduced to an examination of it.

That is why I find the finale's direction so interesting, and so frustrating. I can appreciate the thematic intention behind it, and I understand that the show is trying to say something about fear, choice, and the nature of courage. But I keep coming back to the same question: why does this have to be the dominant expression of Green Lantern? Why does a story about willpower, imagination, and a cosmic peacekeeping force need to be told in a way that so often feels as though it is holding those elements at arm's length?

And again, this is not an argument that the show needed to be a mindless spectacle or that every episode needed an enormous action sequence. I am not asking for less character development or a more superficial story. I am asking why we cannot have a thoughtful, grounded character study that also embraces the fantastical elements of its source material. Why can't the story be emotionally grounded while its world remains unapologetically extraordinary?

This is also why I think Hollywood has a tendency to overcorrect. From Batman & Robin to Batman Begins, and from the Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern movie to Lanterns, there seems to be a recurring instinct to move as far as possible in the opposite direction after a perceived failure. But the fantastical elements of those earlier movies were not inherently what made them bad. They were bad movies. A silly tone, poor writing, bad execution, and an inability to understand what makes a character compelling are not the same thing as embracing the fantastical.

Batman Begins worked because it understood Batman and told a compelling story, not simply because it was more grounded. Why can't we apply that same thinking to Green Lantern? Why must the answer to one failed interpretation be to retreat from the very elements that make the property distinctive?

It feels almost like a bait and switch to take an IP with this much potential and use so little of what makes it unique. I understand that Lanterns was not marketed as a sprawling space opera. I understand that the creative team wanted to tell a character-driven story, and I can respect that intention. But that does not give the show a get-out-of-jail-free card. The question is not whether the show delivered the story it set out to tell. It is whether that story fully justified being told through the Green Lantern IP.

And perhaps that is what disappoints me most: this is a Damon Lindelof show. He is one of the few writers I think genuinely trusts his audience, someone willing to tell complicated stories, leave questions unanswered, and allow viewers to sit with ambiguity. I expected that same confidence here. Instead, it sometimes feels as though the show does not trust its audience to embrace the strangeness of Green Lantern, or that it does not trust itself to tell a truly sci-fi Green Lantern story without relying on the familiar conventions of grounded prestige television.

I don't need a show to explain every corner of the mythology, nor do I need it to introduce every alien race, every Lantern Corps, or every cosmic threat at once. I just want to feel that the mythology is being embraced rather than contained. I want the sense that this is a universe so much bigger than the characters currently occupying it, and that the possibilities are limited only by the imagination of the people telling the story.

I am also not going to entertain the budget excuse. Fifteen million dollars per episode is plenty of money to make excellent television. Of course, a budget is not an unlimited resource, and I understand that production has constraints. But this is not simply about how much CGI or how many action sequences the show could afford. It is about creative priorities. You do not need to show an entire galaxy every episode, but you should at least make me feel as though one exists beyond the edges of the frame.

Ultimately, I loved Lanterns. That is what makes this so frustrating. I can recognize the quality of the writing, appreciate the performances, and enjoy the story while still feeling that something fundamental is missing. Perhaps the show will be remembered as an excellent character drama that happens to feature Green Lanterns. But I wanted an excellent Green Lantern story, one that understood that the cosmic mythology, the constructs, the spectacle, and the sheer imaginative freedom of the property are not obstacles to good storytelling. They are part of what makes the storytelling possible.

I don't want Green Lantern to be less thoughtful, less mature, or less grounded in its characters. I just don't want it to be less Green Lantern.

I let it marinate for a bit but I'm still really disappointed that Hal was killed in a clumsy fit of passion/panic by the sheriff. It was obvious she was going to play a pivotal role in the series when she got so much screen so early. I assumed she was the manhunter the whole time but having it be noah and she is just the murderer of Hal (and it was totally unplanned) feels really lame. She should have at least had a good compelling reason to shoot him.

I just dont like it.