Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

Green Lantern was a huge was a huge waste of potential but I'd argue that Thor: The Dark World was far worse. All the latter had to do was improve on the film that preceded it. Instead, it was worse in every conceivable way. To add insult to injury it was a comedy (and a lame one at that). Someone in another thread had mentioned that Thor 2 felt like an episode of Doctor Who. I'm inclined to agree (despite my love of Doctor Who) and feel that the tone and story would have been far more acceptable coming from that show.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

I haven't seen The Dark World yet (I'm still waiting on the DVD), but what is wrong with it being a comedy?

The first Thor had a lot of comedy, which I loved. My two favorite scenes in the movie were Thor in the restaurant smashing glasses like in a medieval tavern and Thor in the pet store asking for a horse.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

The sequel needed more pop culture references. :mad:

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

There were comedic moments, just as in the first movie, but the sequel definitely wasn't a comedy. In tone, it was a darker film than the first.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

"Review-proof" is a very specific term, referring to a movie (or franchise) that gets poor reviews but a big audience turn out. It does not apply to the MCU films:

Iron Man: 93% fresh
Iron Man 2: 73% fresh
Thor: 77% fresh
Captain America: 79% fresh
The Avengers: 92% fresh
Iron Man 3: 78% fresh
Thor Dark World: 65% fresh

Thor Dark World is the worst reviewed of the set, but it's still way above Green Lantern (26% rotten).

An example of a review-proof franchise would be Transformers:

Transformers: 57% rotten
Transformers 2: 20% rotten
Transformers 3: 36% rotten

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

Transformers (I) was way better than Thor Dark World. No way Thor Dark World should be 65% fresh.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

Cool story, bro. :lol:

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

You missed:
The Incredible Hulk: 67% fresh

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

The humorous moments added levity to the first and were quite enjoyable. They tried to ramp it up in the sequel to being almost non-stop. The climax during the finale was one silly gag after another. To make matters worse, the gags all sucked.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

I'd argue the one gag that worked was the Kat Dennings bit where Mjolnir passes her worked. That was pretty much the only one that worked for me. Man...Thor 2 was not funny for all the gags they put in. It was a very disjointed film. I enjoyed it but it was good then bad then good again and then more bad followed by even more bad.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

I have to agree. The "mew mew" bit was the only genuinely funny gag in the whole movie. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in another thread, it didn't make me laugh as it almost immediately made me wish I was watching Thor instead of Thor: The Dark World. I don't watch Game of Thrones so I have no point of reference regarding the directorial skills (or lack thereof) of the director of the sequel so I am only left to assume that the briefly publicized studio interference was far more detrimental than previously feared. However, the problems seem to already exist in the script itself, given its horrid contrivances and monumental coincidences that drag the whole thing down even without the terrible stabs at humor.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

You guys thought that Mjolnir/Kat Dennings gag was funny? I thought it was abominably unfunny callback to an abominably unfunny gag from the first movie.

That said, I loved Thor: The Dark World better than the first movie (which was half fantastic [everything in Asgard or not on Earth], half fucking terrible [everything on Earth]) and infinitely more than Green Lantern.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

Yeah. I liked Kat Dennings saying "mew mew". It was cute and funny to me in the first movie. And almost cute/funny in the sequel. Unfortunately, the sequel was as atrocious as Iron Man 2 and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. To each his own. :shrug:

I only liked two things about Thor: The Dark World: Tom Hiddleston and Idris Elba. They were the only actors that seemed to remember how to act (even Anthony Hopkins was phoning it in) and the movie came alive whenever they were onscreen. Sadly, their screentime was severely limited (particularly Elba's).

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

Iron Man 2 was a couple of years before The Avengers, not after, so it was leading into it, not coming off it.

But I agree it is one of the lesser Marvel movies because the tone in it is all wrong, like Jon Favreau was trying to do a mash-up of a superhero movie with Swingers.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

Hiddeleston was definitely my favorite part. I'd rather see a Loki movie than Thor 3.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

As I was watching Thor 2, I felt like I was watching a silly movie version of Portal.

The Green Lantern felt like a bad 90s comic book movie made before Hollywood had a decent grip on comic book movies. It had a very generic feel to it. I understand their reasoning but I think making the Green Lantern suit in all CGI was a mistake.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

I was talking about Thor 2. Uh... Guess I didn't segue into that better.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

Because of Thor Kat Dennings got 2 Broke Girls, according to an interview so thanks Marvel.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

I agree with you. The Transformers sequels are terrible, but the first does have some replay value. Thor 2 has zero replay value. I watched it once and will never watch it again. Same as Iron Man 3, which is also junk. Hopefully Captain America 2 can improve Phase II, which so far has sucked badly.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

The problem with a superhero like Thor or Capt. America is they really aren't that interesting like Tony Stark, I'm hoping Ant-Man and GotG are better.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

Completely and utterly wrong. Thor is a pretty limited character, but there have been hundreds of interesting stories starring Captain America. A man out of time trying to adjust to the modern world can make for the necessary emotional grit that audiences now require.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

Cap lends himself to war movies, spy thrillers, and general super hero thrills. Hardly limited at all.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

Loki is in Thor: The Dark World.
Loki is not in Green Lantern.

And there you have it.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

Thor 2 is a sequel both to a successful first film and an even more successful ensemble film. Also, even if you didn't like it, it didn't suck wild monkey balls like Green Lantern did.

Also, Iron Man 3 is the best Iron Man film hands down.

Re: Green Lantern vs Thor 2: Why was Thor 2 more successful?
 

Only in this you and I agree. ;)