Tag Archives: Lanterns

Hal’s Remorse in Lanterns Episode Six

Posted on by
Hal's Remorse

Hal’s remorse is the driving force behind much of what happens in the sixth episode of Lanterns. Sadly, we never actually see Hal’s remorse, we are simply told about it in a variety of exposition dialog. The sad part about not seeing Hal’s remorse is it’s a really great theme.

Remorse is a powerful thematic element filled with potential and yet almost none of this potential is realized in the episode. It is not explored in any meaningful way and that’s pretty much a microcosm of the entire Lanterns series so far. Good ideas, bad implementation.

Hal’s Remorse as a Driving Force

We start the episode off with John in Midway City pitching the ugliest architectural bomb shelter imaginable while throwing a lame attack at gun culture. I digress. He gets a call from his estranged mother who claims Hal wants to talk, to apologize for his actions in Rushville. She tells him Hal is waiting in a Cafe in Rushville. I want to get into the entire timeline of John rushing back and forth between Midway City and Rushville; Hal alive, Hal dead, but I’m trying to stay on target, Hal’s remorse.

Later we hear from Sheriff Kane that Hal contacted her some time ago and expressed remorse over his actions. These two incident drive the plot entirely. John comes back to Rushville and Sheriff Kane’s involvement all grow from Hal’s remorse.

Telling not Showing

The problem is that we don’t see Hal acting remorseful. All we get is exposition about it. We don’t see Hal in the opening minutes of the episode. This means his remorse doesn’t feel real to us. It feels contrived, a way to get the characters where they need to be but inorganically.

In my opinion, we, the audience, must see Hal’s remorse. It’s key to the entire episode. We need scenes of Hal approaching John’s mother and sincerely expressing his remorse, not just mom calling John and telling him about it. We need to see Hal at the Rushville Memorial, the graves, see his anguish, hear it when he expresses his remorse to Sheriff Kane, to Noah. Then it’s real to us.

Remorse as a Theme

To explore the idea more thoroughly let’s talk about using remorse as a thematic backbone to the entire episode. John’s parents could be remorseful about the way they raised him; they should be. We can explore the lack of remorse as well. John’s father is clearly bitter and angry. Show this as a lack of remorse, a scene with John’s mother where she expresses remorse but he does not. He won’t let go and spirals into rage and self-destruction whereas she moves on.

John might express remorse for not taking the ring. John’s brother might express remorse for failing to be a better older sibling. Sheriff Kane might express remorse for her actions. In the Lantern Call scene, Sheriff Kane’s ex-husband might show lack of remorse for his broken marriage and this makes him bitter and angry, without redemption, deserving of the beating that comes his way.

Conclusion

Hal’s remorse is a wonderful thematic idea. A great plot device. Instead of using it, the show simply pays it lip service and moves on, leaving us emotionally detached. We just don’t care, or at least I didn’t.

Tom Liberman

Who is the Villain in Lanterns?

Posted on by
Lanterns

Today, in keeping with my weekly Lanterns analysis, I ask the question, who is the villain? At first glance this might be a confusing question. Obviously, The Manhunter is the villain. Or, perhaps I mean, now that the Manhunter is dead and there are three episodes left, they must be adhering to the True Detective mantra of introducing the villain but Not Obviously Announcing Him.

In this case, my question of who is the villain simply means what it asks. Who is the villain in the first five episodes? It’s reportedly the Manhunter but has the Manhunter behaved villainously? Let’s examine.

What is a Villain?

I think the first thing to examine is the nature of a villain. What role does she or he play in the three-act play? If we use writing parlance the villain is actually the antagonist. The villain, or antagonist is defined as a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary. This is a relatively simplistic definition and Wikipedia goes into the concept more deeply.

Is the Manhunter a Villain?

The agency hunting the Manhunter tells us it is the villain. It wiped out an entire civilization and is now hiding in small-town Nebraska. Sinestro tells us the Manhunter is the most dangerous villain in the galaxy. It must die. Ok, fair enough. Exposition on villain qualifications achieved.

Do we see the Manhunter behaving villainously? What awful things does it do? In True Detective we get firsthand experience of the villain in the opening scene where the staged body is displayed. That’s the act of a sick, vile, evil person. No doubt about it. Whoever did this is a villain.

In Lanterns we don’t see the villain doing anything sick or evil. The Manhunter fled pursuers and established itself in a small town. It healed people who were sick. It helped people in trouble. It is beloved. The entire town wants to protect it.

What brought danger, violence, and destruction to town is the group hunting the Manhunter. They blow up innocents. They threaten to destroy the entire town. By any standard, the Manhunter is the hunted victim just trying to lead a quiet life. Shane. The Manhunter is beloved, a doting grandmother and wife.

The only evil thing the Manhunter does is allow John to burn up in his car although it was Hal who directly caused the accident and ensuing fire. Even then, the Manhunter heals John while Hal doesn’t ever bother to check on him.

Who is the Villain?

So, I ask again, by any standard, who is the villain in Lanterns? It’s not the Manhunter and that fact does enormous damage to the story. Why am I rooting for John and Hal? Shouldn’t those internal bomb toting aliens be the ones we hate? The Guardians aren’t helping. John and Hal are certainly not helping.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying the villain can’t be nuanced. The villain doesn’t have to be Voldemort or Sauron, unadulterated evil for the sake of evil.

When John shoots the Manhunter there is no sense of accomplishment, there is no closure. We don’t hate the Manhunter and therefore the ending leaves us indifferent.

There is an obvious parallel with True Detective here. When Rust and Marty kill Reggie Ledoux in the fifth episode false ending, we are satisfied. Bad people died. Yes, we know there are more episodes, there is more to come but the ending is good. Ledoux was a terrible man and his death is satisfying. That guy deserved it. The Manhunter’s death, on the other hand, is deeply unsatisfying because it was not established as the villain.

Tom Liberman

Why John and Hal aren’t Marty and Rust

Posted on by
Marty and Rust

The fourth episode of Lanterns involved a few dialog scenes between John and Hal reminiscent of those in True Detective between Marty and Rust. This makes sense as one of the main creators of Lanterns, Peter Safran, admires True Detective and wanted to make Lanterns a detective story similar to it.

In the first season of True Detective the two main protagonists, Marty and Rust, often speak to one another candidly while driving from one location to another. John and Hal attempt to emulate these conversations in the fourth episode of Lanterns. It doesn’t work, or at least it doesn’t work as well. Why not, you ask? A good question. Let’s examine.

Marty and Rust Dialogs

The dialogs between Marty and Rust are captivating, hilarious, informative, and move the story along. They start in the first episode and continue throughout the series. The vast majority of viewers love these scenes. They are not action scenes with explosions and gun fights. It’s just two guys sitting in a car, talking about the case, their philosophy about life, and their own lives. It works, but why?

There are a number of factors about these scenes that make them compelling. The overarching plot of the horrific murder is interesting. The two men are working together to solve the case, and while being fundamentally different, respect each other greatly. Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey are fantastically good actors. They react to one another realistically and the dialog rings true. Yes, I say as I watch, that’s the exact reaction I expect from Marty to Rust’s metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. The dialog is hilarious at times and shocking at times. It varies. Sometimes Rust gets the best of Marty, sometimes it’s the other way around.

The dialog reveals the nature of both men, their outlook on life. We learn about them, we learn about the case, their plans, their lives. The story moves forward every time they talk. Perhaps the case doesn’t move forward but we learn something. We know more than we did before the conversation started.

John and Hal Dialogs

The dialogs between John and Hal are largely dull, lifeless, and do not move the story forward. They don’t start until the fourth episode. I don’t want to be too harsh here, the dialogs aren’t awful but in comparison to Marty and Rust, they are weak. Why don’t they have that same crackling energy?

A big part of the problem is John’s character. He is lifeless, boring, monotone. I don’t think the problem is with Aaron Pierre’s acting ability. This is the direction the character is driven. He is largely one-dimensional, fearless is his only trait. I follow orders. Yes, ma’am. I do what I’m told. Hal is a broader character, a far more interesting character in many ways but he is also somewhat one-dimensional, he’s a self-centered jerk.

The two characters just don’t listen to each other in the same way Marty and Rust do. Marty and Rust respond to each other. John and Hal simply speak their programmed lines in proper order. They don’t really listen to each other, react to what the other one just said, and therefore it’s less of a conversation and more of a pair of monologues. I am Hal and this is why I am the way I am. I am John and this is the way I am.

The conversations don’t really move the plot forward a great deal. We just hear John and Hal talking but nothing is accomplished. There is some movement but it’s minimal. They drone and I tune out.

Lack of a Compelling Plot

The overall plot of Lanterns is far less compelling that True Detective. In True Detective the opening scene is the disturbing murder. Lanterns just doesn’t have this compelling plot. What is going on? Some guy is a Manhunter which is bad. Why? Not sure. What has this Manhunter done that’s so awful? Not sure. Because the mystery is much less compelling, the dialog is also.

Conclusion

It’s not easy to explain why the dialog between Marty and Rust is so fantastic and that between John and Hal is pedestrian. There are many factors. Acting, writing, plot, themes, and more. I think it’s great that Lanterns tries to emulate the dialog of True Detective but I’m afraid it falls well short. This is not a terrible insult. It’s difficult to match near perfection, and hey, they are trying!

Tom Liberman

Lanterns Themes Attacked with a Hammer

Posted on by
Lanterns

I just watched the third episode of Lanterns and was struck by how it attacked themes with a hammer instead of other tools at their disposal.  The themes they covered were quite interesting but the manner they illustrated them left me largely bored and searching for aspirin to calm my headache.

The fact that Lanterns understands the various themes is a good thing. It is the manner in which these themes were addressed that I thought left something to be desired. There’s an old adage that when your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail. That’s what I thought about Lanterns in this episode. Bang, bang, bang!

What were the Themes?

The themes predominant in the episode included the racial biases black men face, the theme of following orders, patience, fearlessness, the differences between an alien culture and our own, and even vegetarianism although the later was barely addressed at all. Let’s address each one and see how Lanterns handled it and how I might have done it differently.

Racial Bias Theme

Black men do face challenges that white men do not, that black women do not. It’s an interesting and important theme to address but I think it was handled poorly and fed into anti-woke talking points.

John is a young black boy who is being watched by the Guardians as a potential Lantern and replacement for Hal Jordan. The way this is addressed in the episode is that John’s mother explains to the Guardian that black boys have a disadvantage in this society. Then she explains it again. And again. We never actually see John facing racism, just exposition from mom.

A better way to attack this theme, in my opinion, is to show John actually facing racism. A perfect opportunity for this came when his parents dropped him off in a dangerous part of town to see if he could make his way home. Why not drop him off, in broad daylight, in an exclusive, wealthy, white neighborhood where the neighbors immediately assume he is a thief. Confront him, call the police. This is an excellent way to show the difficulties of a young black man in society without resorting to useless exposition from mom.

Another opportunity might have been a scene in basic training where his vegetarianism would probably be a bigger problem than his race. Show white officers taunting him with fried chicken or something of the sort.

The Theme of Fearlessness

This theme was badly handled all the way around. Fearlessness is not lack of fear, it is management of fear. The way this theme was handled was largely to show John being stoic, fearless, when a variety of things are done to him or he is forced to do. The apple being the primary method. The problems here are many. First, John comes across as robotic, inhuman, and the last person we the audience thinks should be given the powers of a Green Lantern. Secondly, they returned to the apple and the gun again and again to the point of tedium. I’m not afraid he says again and again in a flat, monotone. I’m never afraid, it’s ludicrous and boring.

Patience

Here they did show some deftness, John sits in a chair overnight, stalks a target for nine months. He displays patience but we don’t see him becoming a patient man.

John’s artistic ability is key to him becoming a good Lantern but it’s not addressed at all other than when his mother dismisses his Mary Sue like natural talent. Why not show him learning to draw, mixing colors over and over, sketching a human figure a hundred times at the behest of a strict teacher, learning a musical instrument and playing the same tune over and over until he has it perfected. This illustrates his patience beautifully and dovetails with the requirement for artistic talent.

Following Orders

John merely states that if given an order, he follows it. He says the same thing over and over. Again, why not show this? John on the sports field, perfecting his throwing motion, which then explains how he could instruct Noah in a previous episode. Audiences like this sort of connection, it makes a character real and serves the thematic element in this case.

Perhaps we see the superior athlete John trying to do everything for the team. Why not have a coach explain John must stay in his position, do his job, that is the only way the team can succeed. This illustrates the importance of following orders and explains why John slavishly follows this theme.

Aliens are Alien

Aliens are not human; it’s a good theme. Unfortunately, the only way Lanterns addresses this is having the Guardian speak in an affected way, again and again and again and again. Once or twice makes sense but by the tenth time I was totally zoned out.

An opportunity was the ridiculous diamond offered to mom. Use that to show the aliens understand value but don’t understand how this gift is useless; that they needed to create a bank account with a million dollars or something. Show us aliens are alien, that they don’t understand our culture.

Vegetarianism

This theme was barely addressed at all but sort of thrust upon us with the cheeseburger reward. We never actually see John looking at a cheeseburger distastefully, a half-eaten burger on his plate. Why is John a vegetarian? Health reasons? Animal cruelty? Environmental concerns? Why not address this?

Perhaps we see John in a hunting stand with his father, waiting for a deer to appear. John’s father has a gun, John has a paper and pencil. John sees the deer and begins to draw it, feels an emotional connection. Boom, the deer is dead. John is horrified. John’s father orders him to start cleaning it. This addresses patience, artistic talent, following orders, and vegetarianism all in one scene.

Themes are Good

The thematic elements here are all good. They are just handled horribly, repetitively, unimaginatively. The episode was sheer boredom. After thirty minutes I couldn’t believe it was only half over.

I am curious, what did you think of Episode 3?

What did you think of Episode 3 of Lanterns?

View Results

Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Loss of Immersion Lanterns First Episode

Posted on by
Loss of immersion in Lanterns

I watched the first episode of Lanterns and I wasn’t particularly impressed although I didn’t hate it either. It had a lot of loss of immersion moments and that’s what I want to talk about today. As I said, the show is far from bad but not great either.

The biggest problem was my loss of immersion. It happened way too often during the course of the episode. It was hardly a deal-breaker and I’ll continue to watch the show. What is loss of immersion, you ask? Why did it bother me?

What is Immersion?

I think most people will agree that when watching or otherwise consuming a particular good show, book, movie, play, sporting event, or any other form of entertainment that time doesn’t seem to pass. That is, you’re so immersed in the event you don’t notice time is passing. Suddenly it’s an hour later, or two hours, or lunch time and you don’t really remember all that time passing. That’s immersion. That’s you immersed in the entertainment and not looking at your phone, the clock, the person next to you, just raptly attentive.

That’s what I hope to discuss today. The various events in the premier of Lanterns that made me stop watching the show and look at my phone, complain to mom, roll my eyes, or otherwise lose immersion. And again, I want to stress, I’m nitpicking here, going into fine detail not to claim the show is terrible, it’s not, but to discuss the concept.

When I lost Immersion in Lanterns Football Field

The first couple of scenes kept me immersed but then things really fell apart at the crime scene. First problem was when John arrived at the football field and was instantly recognized by the deputy and treated harshly. Why? There was no reason for him to be recognized as anything other than a civilian and why the hostility?

Then John finds Hal in the bleachers and we are told it’s been six hours since the scene in Mexico. Now I’m doing math. okay, Nebraska high school football game. Friday night, starts around seven in the evening perhaps. Three-hour game takes us to ten. Celebration on the field and murders shortly thereafter. It should be perhaps four in the morning. The lighting doesn’t look four in the morning to me and John getting there in six hours is a stretch.

Hal tells John that John will learn why Hal has been sitting in the bleachers for six hours doing nothing when the local law enforcement leader comes to talk. We do not learn anything. I’m looking around, wait, weren’t we supposed to be given information about why Hal is sitting in the bleachers, not exposition on the crime?

John goes on the field and now I’m really losing immersion. It’s six hours after the game, after the shooting, and the players are still walking around on the field in full uniform with their helmets on. Not a chance. They’d have taken off the pads and helmets long ago. I know, not a big thing but it takes me out of immersion. Where is state law enforcement, the FBI? It’s been six hours and only a few local officers are on the scene of a mass shooting?

John’s presence triggers the bad guy to run for some reason. Why? No clue. The local law enforcement, claims she is watching this guy. okay, didn’t he just shoot four people on a crowded football field well lit by stadium lights? No one saw him shooting? Can identify him? He’s just standing there while the police keep an eye on him to see if he does anything suspicious? I’m supposed to believe this? I’m rolling my eyes.

He runs off the field and not one local officer gives chase, only John. Again, what gives? The guy runs into the school bursting through door after door. Do writers not care? Schools are locked up at night, even in rural areas. Chains across the doors. John catches the guy who is immediately put in handcuffs and dragged off. No, the cops would have him there on the ground for quite a while, search him, etc.

Just a quick side-note about the villain. Instead of a white shirt, how about give him a bright yellow shirt or shoes as a bit of fan service? It’s not that hard. It’s really not.

The Bar and More Lost Immersion

A mass shooting just took place in a rural town and the local watering hole, huge by the way, is completely filled with people drinking and having fun? And, I’ll mention again, by the timeline it should be morning at this point. I’m shaking my head in disbelief. Most people would be home with their families, the traumatized students, players, cheerleaders, teachers. No one is even talking about the shooting, about the famous Green Lantern being in town.

The Courtroom Loss of Immersion

Hal is the world-famous Green Lantern. The treatment he got was played for humor, I guess, but it just didn’t work for me. I thought the way they introduced the lawyer as the husband to the police chief was clumsy but I see what they were trying to do. Nothing too egregious here but the scene seemed in authentic and again, no one even talking about the mass shooting, just the barroom fight.

The Ranch Loss of Immersion

The ranch is filled with so much nonsense. All the security guards openly carrying assault rifles. Dozens of them. It’s just unbelievable. The Hollywood depiction of rural people is just plain insulting. I’m a city boy myself but I know plenty of rural folk, I went to college in Idaho. If it makes rural folk feel any better, the portrayal of urbanites is generally just as insulting and lazy.

John and Hal are invited for dinner and the evil rich dude is preparing the ribs. And by preparing, I mean handling raw meat and touching everything else in the kitchen. Does he season the ribs? Rub them? No. This guy gets a zero in barbecue. Also, if they are invited to dinner why is he doing the prep work right now, should have been done hours ago. Low and slow. Rub. Why isn’t he making the sauce? I know I’m being nit-picky here but I’m telling you, I lose immersion about things like this.

John advises the kid on how to throw a football and this really annoyed me. Just imagine says John and the kid is suddenly throwing darts. How about a quick lesson in body posture, arm position, throwing motion. I used to play a little football myself; John could say to give some authenticity to the scene.

The grill is a basic barrel grill and we don’t see meat cooking at all. Just a few pieces of corn that looked fairly uncooked to me. The guy is super rich and this is his grilling station? It’s embarrassing. Tongs, equipment, trays?

No dinner table scene, dialog, character development? Just them leaving and the bad guy saying there is nothing better than eating off someone else’s grill? What a terrible line. I understand it’s meant to imply that he knows John had sex with the bad guy’s wife, grandma, but it seemed so in authentic. There’s nothing better than eating from your grill. You made it. That’s what someone would say. The line just jarred me.

Speaking of grandma. The age of grandpa and grandma really gave me loss of immersion. I’m sure it can be explained but ….

Also, John just got badly beaten and he looks unscathed to me. He’s not Superman, he’s the Green Lantern.

Police Station Loss of Immersion

That interrogation room. Don’t get me started. It’s a rural police station, yes, but that’s ludicrous. It was someone’s unfinished basement.

Conclusion

I’m probably forgetting a few moments where I had loss of immersion but I hope I’ve made my point. Pay attention to details, immerse me and you’ve got a great chance at entertaining me. Lanterns fell short.

Tom Liberman