I disagree, doublenoughtspy. I don´t see why it´s okay for Campbell to trash another film - just because continuation authors have done so.
Film criticism is allowed, is it not? Regardless of whether or not I agree with it, I would rather have his honest opinion, in words he
chose, rather than some corporate-speak designed to offend no one.
Also, I respect Campbell´s or anyone´s opinion about QOS. But the way he uttered that opinion IMO was just bad form. If he were a great director who has lots of masterpieces under his belt, I would not have posted in this thread. But Campbell is IMO hit and miss, and GREEN LANTERN proves that. Granted, he did not say that GREEN LANTERN is better than QOS - but at least Campbell gave the impression that he did the great CR and Forster just did a lousy film. That is arrogant and pointless - but IMO he wanted to remind the press that he did a great film (even if GREEN LANTERN wasn´t of high quality). He could have said that he himself did not like QOS or, even better, he could have pointed out exactly what he did not like. But just dismissing it as "lousy" is not enough for me but the equivalent of someone saying "sucks".
It was a press junket for Green Lantern, not a Bond retrospective.
I think we are falling victim to some political correctness here. Why would he have to qualify his statements that "he himself did not like QOS"? He called it lousy, does he have to qualify that it is his opinion? Would it have been better had he said "In my opinion, which I hope will not offend anyone, and I apologize in advance if it does, the film was not to my personal liking."
Campbell's track record is completely irrelevant. Whether he directed Citizen Kane or was the 3rd assistant janitor on a pørn film - he is allowed to state an opinion. As you point out, at no time did he say "QOS is nowhere near as good as Green Lantern", nor did he say "The film didn't live up to my masterpieces."
Now you say that his words imply that, but I certainly don't see that. So once again, it boils down to opinion.
Listen, I completely understand that he could have been more diplomatic. Forster probably isn't pleased. But as a film historian, when I interview people, I want an honest answer, not one designed to prevent people's feelings from being hurt.