The Toxic Myth of 'Chosen One' Storytelling in DC's Lanterns (And Why It's Killing Modern Franchises)
There’s a moment in Lanterns Episode 3 that made me groan so loudly my dog left the room. A Guardian casually tells Bernadette Stewart that her family’s DNA holds some mystical, preordained virtue that could make her son John “an excellent candidate” for the Green Lantern Corps. Excuse me? We’re still doing this? The ‘it’s in their genes’ trope has plagued superhero storytelling for decades, and DC’s latest series isn’t just reviving it—it’s weaponizing it. Personally, I think this narrative shortcut reveals a staggering lack of imagination in modern franchise-building. Let’s dissect why.
The Lazy Shortcut of Genetic Destiny
When Lanterns explains John Stewart’s potential by waving a magic wand over his family tree, it’s not just recycling clichés—it’s insulting the audience. This isn’t how heroism works. Real courage isn’t inherited; it’s forged through choice. The show wants us to believe that a Power Ring’s cosmic AI somehow scans for “worthy DNA,” but what does that even mean? If fear is the enemy of the Green Lanterns, why is overcoming fear coded as a hereditary trait? This raises a deeper question: Why do franchises keep reducing human potential to biological determinism?
Compare this to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, which brilliantly argued that heroism belongs to anyone willing to wear the mask. Miles Morales didn’t inherit his powers or his moral compass—he chose to become Spider-Man. That’s storytelling with stakes. By contrast, Lanterns removes agency from the equation. John Stewart’s destiny isn’t earned; it’s pre-approved by a space bureaucrat checking genetic blueprints. What a snooze.
The Unexamined Legacy of Hal Jordan
Here’s what Lanterns gets twisted in knots avoiding: If John Stewart’s power is “in his blood,” what does that say about Hal Jordan? The series killed Hal off in Episode 1, but his ghost looms large. Hal’s feats—like rebuilding Coast City from atomic dust—were the result of raw willpower, not DNA. His ring didn’t compensate for weakness; it amplified his relentless drive. So why does John’s bird construct work better without a ring? The show has a half-baked idea about inherited power but refuses to interrogate what that means for the entire Green Lantern mythos.
What many people don’t realize is that this DNA angle creates more plot holes than it closes. If the Power Ring selects candidates based on genetics, why did it choose Hal Jordan, a reckless test pilot with a history of insubordination? Why not someone from a “worthier” bloodline? The logic collapses under scrutiny. This isn’t world-building; it’s intellectual negligence.
The Bigger Problem: Franchise Fatigue and Creative Bankruptcy
This isn’t just a Lanterns problem—it’s a blockbuster era pandemic. From Anakin Skywalker’s “midichlorians” to Peter Parker’s radioactive spider-bite, Hollywood keeps defaulting to biological explanations because they’re lazy. Audiences deserve better. The real allure of superhero stories has always been their metaphorical power: Batman’s trauma, Wonder Woman’s compassion, Iron Man’s redemption. These aren’t DNA markers; they’re choices. When Lanterns reduces John Stewart to a genetic lottery winner, it strips his journey of meaning.
A detail that I find especially interesting is how this trope mirrors real-world harmful narratives about innate talent vs. hard work. Telling kids they’re “born leaders” or “natural heroes” is dangerously reductive. Fiction shapes culture—so why are we letting studios peddle this pseudoscience?
What DC Could (And Should) Be Doing Differently
Let’s salvage this. If Lanterns wants to make John Stewart a compelling protagonist, it needs to stop fixating on his family tree and start exploring his psyche. Why does he persist when others quit? What does he fear most? How does he define “fearlessness”? The show’s already hinted at his raw power—lean into the psychological complexity. Maybe his father’s trauma made him overcompensate with stoicism. Maybe his “fearless” upbringing created repressed vulnerabilities. That’s a story. DNA is a placeholder for lazy writers.
From my perspective, the Guardians’ selection process should’ve been about moral courage, not genetic profiling. Imagine if the Power Ring chose John Sr. despite his fear—because he admitted it openly. That would’ve set up John Jr.’s journey as a conscious rejection of his father’s shame, not a continuation of some cosmic eugenic fantasy. Now that would tie into the DCU’s themes of redemption and legacy.
Final Thoughts: Kill the ‘Chosen One’ or Let the Genre Die
Here’s the brutal truth: If franchises keep serving this genetic destiny garbage, audiences will revolt. We’re in an era where viewers demand nuance—where Riz Ahmed’s Rogue One hero and Oscar Isaac’s Star Wars anti-chosen-one Poe Dameron became fan favorites. The “born, not made” hero is obsolete. Lanterns had a chance to reinvent Green Lanterns for a post-Spider-Verse world. Instead, it doubled down on a trope that should’ve died with Y2K.
So what’s next? I’m cautiously hopeful. James Gunn’s Superman reboot reportedly focuses on class struggle and media manipulation—fresh, relevant themes. But until writers stop treating DNA as a narrative cheat code, the genre will remain creatively anemic. Let’s stop telling audiences that heroes are born. Let’s start asking why they choose to rise when everything in their biology says to fall.
What if the real Green Lantern power was always the will to defy your own genetic programming? That’s the question Lanterns should’ve asked—and the one that might save the DCU.
