wearetheborg

Both involve similar villains, some thrown in comedy. I enjoyed (or disliked) both movies the same. Why was Thor 2 so much more successful? The one major difference was that in Thor the lead acted more "majestic" while in Green Lantern the lead was more...boyish.

E Unit

Ryan Reynolds, lousy story is what sunk Green Lantern. Thor 2 already had a very successful Thor and Avengers movies before it.

redrum

Green Lantern was awful and Thor 2 wasn't

Solid Snake

It's going to be hard to knock down the Marvel brand now. GL was a mediocre and uninspired piece of shit. Best thing about it was Mark Strong.

Mike86

This seems like a really random comparison other than they're both superhero movies. Green Lantern was a steaming pile of shit and Thor: The Dark World wasn't is pretty much my answer. I know some out there insist that Thor: The Dark World is a bad movie but I really thought it was decent.

Mr. Cinema

I thought Thor 2 was pretty much garbage. The plot was razor thin, the villain was lousy, and it features one of the all-time annoying performances in the history of film courtesy of Kat Dennings.

OldBoy

high posts are fun!

wearetheborg

Werent stories for both similar? An amorphous power that the villain uses to conquer the universe. Final battleground earth. Alien world and tech.

Why So Blu?

This.

Daytripper

This.

Troy Stiffler

Green Lantern was mostly a turd. The only aspect I enjoyed was pondering the concept of being able to visualize and make all of those projections functional in an instant.

It reminded me of those superhero movies from the 90's that couldn't quite get it right (The Shadow, The Phantom).

Thor 2 was a movie with very few dull moments, and maybe five good moments. The first one could have been a dud, but wasn't. Now, with all of the posturing behind Thor with the MCU, the sequel sold all the tickets it could.

robin2099

Easy. Thor 2 was part of the MCU, and the second sequel in the public's eyes to the Avengers. It also came out in a less busy time of year, and on the heels of IM3, which made a ton of money.

Green Lantern did nothing right from the start. The initial trailer wasn't well received, the special effects were underwhelming, the studio interfered, the studio was more concerned with selling toys than about what made GL a cool character.

wearetheborg

Were the special effects in Thor 2 better? The effects seemed fine to me in GL

Solid Snake

Yes, they were. Sony Imageworks. They're a very hit and miss studio. Not sure where to begin on the fail they had on that one.

Lara Means

Thor 2 was very entertaining. Green Lantern took a dump on the fans by casting Ryan "Typecast" Reynolds.

Preterite

Yup.

The Valeyard

Green Lantern is my favorite superhero (next to the Rocketeer). I got T-Shirts, toys, comics, etc. If it's got a GL logo on it, I probably own it. Green Lantern is awesome.

The GL movie is an absolute piece of shit. It deserved to tank.

resinrats

Thor 2 was successful because people know who Thor is now. After Thor 1 & Avengers, the average public is willing to see a movie based on him. Besides comic fans, Green Lantern wasn't known by most of the public.

Plus GL - DC, Thor - Marvel. Of course DC will loose since Batman or Superman isn't in it.

PhantomStranger

I suspect if Green Lantern had been part of Marvel phase thirty or whatever, it would have done better at the box office. Marvel has cultivated some sort of movie brand in which their movies are largely review-proof.

I see most of them as mindless fun with largely generic elements outside of the known superheroes. I have no idea why they generate so much loyalty for as patchy as they have been. I guess the idea of a connected movie universe conquers all.

brayzie

The reason why Thor 2 was successful and Green Lantern wasn't is because Thor 2 is a sequel to a successful film.

The first Thor had great special effects, and more importantly, a great ensemble cast. Chris Hemsworth made a great Thor, and Tom Hiddleston made an even greater Loki. Then you had Anthony Hopkins being very believable as the elder god Odin, and Idris Elba as Heimdall who was pretty bad ass in his few scenes.
It also had a great story: Thor's pride and ego, fall from grace, and redemption. Loki's evil plan rooted in a rationalization that audiences could at least sympathize with.
People returned to see more of that.

Green Lantern did NOT have great special effects. The lantern constructs came across as goofy. And the only good performance was given by Mark Strong as Sinestro and he didn't have that many scenes. The story wasn't that good either.

gmanca

Green Lantern was a movie made by people who were chasing dollars first and foremost as opposed to Marvel trying to balance material and money.

When they introduce Oa it is such a cheap and simple shot compared to how Asgard was shown in Thor, swooping throughout the structures and different landscapes while seeing its society moving about.

PenguinJoe

I haven't seen Thor 2 yet but telling me it's similar to Green Lantern doesn't really make me want to see it now until it hits FX or FXX.

Thrush

The Marvel movies have one major thing going for them. Warts and all, they are fun above all else. GL was not fun, it was a mess. It would have been just as big of a mess if it was under the Marvel banner.

Solid Snake

Aside from the wanted end result of the villain and a weak script there's not much to compare the plots. Thor 2 isn't anywhere near GL level of bad quality. Though i havent seen GL since it was out in theaters. It's a weaker film than the original but still entertaining. I'd rank it maybe at IM2 or below it. Considering that I rank IM2 as one of the lesser Marvel films. It's "alright" but good god did they go for the wrong thing for a certain character coming off of The Avengers.

Dr. DVD

This can almost be answered by some of the conclusions drawn in the DC vs. Marvel movie thread. One of which is that, especially in the MCU, the characters and properties are treated with respect. Marvel created them, and Marvel studios feels the need to keep its representations in other mediums worthwhile. DC, on the other hand, is just a property owned by Warner Bros. It's isn't a source rich with stories and characters as much as an outlet by which to sell toys and showcase stars in flashy parts. At least that's my take.