Well, this is right where the rubber hits the road with comic book films, isn't it? The fact is Warner Bros. can't just make movies for devout fans of the comic alone - and by devout fans I mean those who religiously read every issue that comes out. Large as that fanbase probably is, it's nowhere near enough to fund the massive return that a major release requires to not be considered an abject monetary failure. I'll be honest, I've done no devoted GL reading beyond a casual browse across the Wikis to get a small sense of how the hell Hal Jordan and homies turned into the Rainbow Brite Corps. I still admire the character, though, just off his associations with the JL gang back in the Silver Age days, and that's really the major reason I went and watched the film. What I'm sayins is that devoted fans of the character will see the film and pick up all the oblique references and minor character points echoed on film, of course, but you can't necessarily count on the entire moviegoing audience doing so, or (I would argue) even a majority. You've only got two hours or so in which to tell a good story to people who might very well have only a passing familiarity or no familiarity with the character and make the film stand on its own, unlike comics where you can languidly run out a character arc over literally years. In that context, I'd venture it's a lot harder to render certain characters plausible or sympathetic. To me, Blade was arguably the best effort at doing this with a comic book character. When I first saw it I didn't even realise it was based on a comic book character, but the selection of characters, themes, and plotlines was still strong enough to run what was a pretty damn decent story off it. There's also the fact - and it's something I think @Jabba-wocky and I have argued before - that some concepts and some characters are a lot easier to suspend disbelief on in the comic book format than they are on film, and indeed there's only certain villains or concepts that are strong enough to withstand the glare of the silver screen. In the Batman mythos, across all the Batman films anyway, I think there are good reasons --other than recognisability, which plays a part -- for why we haven't seen people like the Mad Hatter or Clayface as Batman's foes in film. I would argue besides being relatively minor members of the Batman villain pantheon, they are very, very difficult to put on a movie screen with a straight face, especially in "reality-based" universes like Nolan's. In a comic it's not quite so hard to do; the very medium of comics means that make the reader fill up with his own imagination the blank spaces in the frames, and you tell your story with still images which the reader then animates in his imagination. Paradoxically, on film, because it's seen as a "realistic" medium, it's that much harder to force the audience to suspend disbelief for the same character.