I don't know if Green Lantern was a failure or not. I don't even know how we should measure such a thing, not in the context of the conversation that's coming up. I do know, however, that I was disappointed in the film… but, also, that there were things I really liked about it.
Essentially, the film was very bad on paper but, for the most part, fairly well visualised. Scenes were badly conceived, but this bad conception was then executed with polish and professionalism.
Jeff Robinov, president of the Warner Bros. film group, has shared his interpretation of the film with Hero Complex, by way of describing what he thinks a sequel will need to be:
To go forward we need to make it a little edgier and darker with more emphasis on action… And we have to find a way to balance the time the movie spends in space versus on Earth.
Edgier? Darker? I'm not sure what that means, exactly, and I'm even less sure why anybody would want to impose these things on Green Lantern. Maybe they just mean "less cheeseballs" and "less naffness."
There's an outline for a second film already, but that was written by Greg Berlanti, Michael Green and Marc Guggenheim, all perpetrators of the original. As a result, Warner Bros. are said to be looking to overhaul their draft, if not replace it outright. I vote for replace it outright.
Meanwhile, director Martin Campbell has a first-refusal deal on the sequel, so if he wants to pick up the megaphone again, he can. If the studio wants to make a scapegoat out of him and get somebody new, it could cost them. I suggest they think about getting a good quality screenplay before they start taking shots at the poor soul who tried to make sense of the last one.