you have no idea what you are talking about, martin campbell is a great director, the script was generic. James Gunn and Kenneth Branagh above him? never@ marvel hires directors on a cheap budget. script/story is everything. who the hell ever heard of the guys who did captain america: winter soldier, before its success? the story is what people flocked to theaters for. DC has no idea what they've been doing with their movies.

Given the budget for this, I can't see a veteran like Campbell scuppering it because he disliked the lead. An iconic director might get away with that, but not a figure like Martin Campbell.
Best films ever:
Snakes on a Plane
Snakes on a Train
Snakes in a Drain
Snakes on Mark Twain

Kenneth
Branagh.

Everything on OA looks ok, on Earth it has a tv movie quality too the shots and settings. Nothing at all like any of Martin Campbell's other movies.

But even cinematography, storyboarding, lighting, composition, choice of shots were all really, really bad. Just look at the action sequences in Casino Royale and Green Lantern.
Look at Ang Lee's
Hulk
, his first venture into vfx heavy film. His drama and action aesthetics are still there despite many people didn't like that film.
I would think the collapsing building chase with Eva Green drowning was way harder to pull off than any vfx sequences. All those shots had to be designed and stitched together flawlessly to make it seem real.
I get that Clint Eastwood or Wes Anderson won't be the guy for
Star Trek
or
The Fifth Element
. But it would at least carry their fingerprints. We won't go, "Who directed this crap?" But we'd go, "Oh, no wonder this space opera is so different." Like when we look at
Aliens
and
Mission Impossible
franchises, we can see each director's style. If we look at Marc Foster's action sequences, it's always a huge mess, no matter which film. Etc, etc.
I was wondering if this was a case of David Fincher's
Alien
fiasco where the director was treated as a hired hand to get what the studios wanted and things fell apart as the project moved forward. Or maybe a lot of action were slapped on after thoughts by the studio as the director focused only on the drama on his final cut which pissed of the studio. Or maybe the second unit director or storyboarding department or editor should take a lot of credit for
Casino Royale
.
All in all, very, very shocked to find out this is from the guy who did
Casino Royale
.

what happened?
Martin was out of his depths he had never done anything in sfx heavy genre before bond films are realistic and grounded spy movies
some directors can adapt like james gunn(GOTG) and Kevin branagh(Thor) both never did space spectacles before and did great
but martin just didn't it is very hard to jump from grounded realistic driven films to a space opera with aliens
it is like asking clint eastwood to direct star trek 3

Exactly! I couldn't have said it better myself (well, I did on a different thread, but that's besides the point).
Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night.

This Green Lantern is not a bad movie. Flawed yes, bad no. Direction is strong.
This guy should direct a Green Hornet movie when that is rebooted.

I followed production when it was being made, it was all over the internet. There are still a few articles here and there you can find, I think there is some info about it even in the trivia section on the GL IMDB page.
Ron beep Swanson is the greatest thing that ever happened to television.

Campbell disliked Reynolds? where did you get that from?

He directed my two favorite Bond films, GoldenEye and Casino Royale. He knows how to direct one hell of a Bond film, but doesn't know how to do a film like this.
I've heard there were a plethora of problems. To name a few Apparently Martin Campbell disliked Ryan Reynolds from the get go and made life hell for him on set. There were script problems, constant budget issues and the studio kept getting involved in the shoot (the same thing that ruined both Spider-Man franchises.)
Ron beep Swanson is the greatest thing that ever happened to television.