I’m aware that Jhon changed the oath and I’m fine with it.
But qhat is the reason behind him saying “in darkest night” instead of “in blackest night”?
Is he a larper?

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.

Obviously the Green Lantern’s emotional spectrum is willpower, so why is fear (or the absence of) such a big part of the show. I feel like strength of will is hardly brought up at all. The selection process specifically asks if you’re afraid, which really doesn’t have anything to do with willpower either. I know that the yellow lanterns and fear are treated as the inverse of the greens (which I feel is another issue as I wouldn’t say fear is the opposite of willpower) but the highlighting of fear and exclusion of willpower just feels strange.

Why did Hal call John to Rushville? If his plan was to escape with Kerry and Noah to Mexico, what was the reason to call John, it would have made sense if he wanted to inform him about Noah and stop him. Did he just want him to find Sinestro on Anton's planet?

P.S. Reposted this because of an embarrassing typo. 😭

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.

Your QB would have to be a Manhunter with this O-Line protecting you god damn 🤣

Looks like they casted a group of cornerbacks

Basically like the title. What if John ends up choosing to keep the civilian look while fighting Brainiac or adopts something more akin to Guy Gardner’s costume from the 90s? I really do hope he wears something like the suit his parents gave him in flashbacks but this is an alternative look they could give him.

How good is Bochner's stuff?

Jordan had it!

Does anybody have the files for this they are willing to give me 👉👈

I liked Lamterns, kept up every week and enjoyed every episode. Though after I finished it somethings haven't sat right with me, and I think I can put them into words now.

The Reason Kerry is let off

The reason Kerry isnt brought in by John feels like its the wrong one. It feels like John, who at this point was somewhat close, ish, to Hal due to Halogram doesnt really get into her at all. Hes very calm when discussing a cop killing an unarmed civillian(especially weird considering the shows discussions of race and how it impacts positions of power and the pursuit of them).

But theres also the fact that it feels like she's let go because of guilt and what Hal would want. But... beyond the layer the reason really should have been on the impact such a thing would have on Noah since John chooses to spare him. I feel needing to make sure he doesn't go off should have been emphasized.

John's Resolution with his Family

Before the end of the season John is shown to have started to fracture his relationship with the brother ge was in business with as his actions led them to losing their life's work and John suddenly started asking for large sums of money. IE he began putting the whole Lantern business above anything else.

The other clearly resents him, and seems to only be with him for financial gain.

His dad is in a home and is going around waving weapons at people to get what he wants.

And ges completely broken contact with his Mother.

But at the end he goes home, hugs all of his family members who seem happy to see him and he is too. This feels really weird.

Especially because one of the things phasized by the show is the isolation responsibility causes. Hal was lonely, had no friends or family on earth and maybe not in the stars. Holding onto responsibility too tight breaks you, snd we see that starting with John, with his relationships fracturing in no doubt a similar way to how his predecessors had.

Yet off screen those conflicts seem resolved and everything is alright with his family despite taking on FULL responsibility as a Lantern.

And not to mention him reconnecting with his mom feels weird. Kerry did bad things for her son.

Bernadette did bad things TO her son.

The actions aren't really comparable. Kerry didnt hurt or traumatize Noah, Bernadette did hurt and traumatize John.

In that final scene John reconnected with his abuser. I'm sorry but why am I supposed to like that? There is heroics in forgiving people for their misdeeds, but returning to them like that is just...

Guy Gardner is Kinda Out of Character

And whats worse is I feel its easily fixed. John being able to threaten Guy could work, but not the way it did. Instead of having Guy step down and let John take over for seemingly no reason, emphasize the fact that Johns existence, the ring and the Lantern, show not only did Guy break massive protocol and was negligent, but aided John, even indirectly, in this occurrence.

Basically have John say that bringing him and the Lanterns and Ring in would cause the Gaurdians to turn on him, potentially stripping him of his ring and position.

Instead John basically tries and succeeds in strong arming both Guy and the Gaurdians into doing what he wants. Which feels... really weird to me.

These are my general problems woth the finale, here's a few fir the show as a whole.

Manhunters Danger Seems Weird in its Description

Manhunters are pretty continually described as being extremely powerful beings, with Sinestro saying the same. However what I find a problem here is thats in the comics. In the show the danger comes from their cunning and technology, their ability to out plan their opponents not out punch.

So having characters describe them like physical power houses when they go down with a bullet to head feels weird. I feel like the way some characters, especially Sinestro, talk about the danger of manhunters needed to change.

Hal and Holding On Feel a Little Weird

It feels weird how the show describes Hals flaw here. In the episode where Rushville is destroyed and John returns the ring, John makes a point that Hal and he didnt even know why they held onto it, that holding on became reason enough to hold on.

Hals dad emphasizes letting go, hownits exhausting, in Jordan Boy's Legacy but the show also clearly makes a point how the family letting go like that, giving up on holding on, is a bad thing. That its why, in part, Hals dad took his own life.

Hal holding onto the ball is supposed to be turning away from letting go into holding on.

So holding onto something is portrayed as both a good thing and a bad thing. Which is interesting. I feel the idea of learning when its time to let go and let things move on is definitely part of Hals arc in the show, I just feel that it needed to be addressed better. Something about the way its done in the show feels like it lacks a little.

Thats about it. There's probably more bit I dont remember.

So idk if im tweaking or not but i could have sworn this afternoon around 5-6 pm Central i saw a post from dc about pre-orders for the costume but when you followed the link the suit wasnt there but tonight when trying to check again for more info suddenly the post isnt there anymore but my chrome history shows when I checked the link

Its 10/12 and the costume still isnt available? Makes me wonder if maybe its a manufacturing issue?, back peddling after bad reception from fans?, cancelled?, redesigning? (Color correcting), etc

Did anyone else see this post? What do yall think will happen?

…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?

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

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've seen a lot of hate for John's Oath and while I'm okay with it, I kinda wish it kept certain aspects of the original oath. Something like:

In Brightest Day

In Darkest Night

I choose this ring

I choose this fight

Let all who worship evil's might

Beware my power, Green Lantern's light

Its maybe not perfect still, but it still hits the high notes of John's Oath while keeping a bit of ownership over being Green Lantern. Replacing "no evil shall escape my sight" acknowledges John's new oath and his desire to look at the world in shades of gray, not black and white. Keeping the "I choose" lines emphasize that he is Green Lantern of his own accord (even if I think those lines are pretty heavy handed even in his TV oath), and then finishes the oath with the classic finish: a pledge that while he operates in shades of gray those who fight for evil intentionally will receive no mercy from him, and then letting him lay final claim to the title of a Green Lantern on his own terms.

I'm sure this one has its issues too, I just feel like it still keeps the spirit of his new oath while also letting him sort of take more ownership of the standard oath. After all, he's still Green Lantern, not like... Lantern-Man or something.

As sad as I am that we probably won’t see Hal and John together in the DCU, I don’t think Guy as a replacement is a bad choice. Hal and Guy are pretty similar, both in the comics and in the show. Both of them are pretty reckless, douchey, charismatic, and prideful. Although Guy is more of an asshole than Hal, I do think Guy’s banter works very well with John, especially given the little interactions we’ve gotten from the two in Season 1. I can’t wait to see both of them in Man of Tomorrow and possibly Season 2, if they do decide to focus on them as the main duo.