equally important, is the demonstration that stick figures can serve as a novel and useful tool in the study of attractiveness
Say, do you like checking out awesome art? If you don't, you probably shouldn't follow this link.
Today's topic is why Thor is better then the Green Lantern. Now, by Thor and the Green Lantern, I don't mean the superheroes, but rather the recent major motion pictures, and by better, I mean "made money." Superficially the two are very similar. They both represent b-list superheroes from the two major comic publishers, with comparable fan bases. They were made with comparable talent and budgets, advertising campaigns, and were released at roughly the same time. So why was one a success, and one a flop? It may just be that Chris Hemsworth is less annoying then Ryan Reynolds, but I'm not sure. I believe it comes down to something fairly subjective but simple. That the producers of Thor took the subject matter seriously. It's a trap that comedies, fantasies and children's films fall into all the time, the fact that the end product is silly, nonsensical or funny doesn't mean that producing them is. Audiences are also good at spotting both passion and laziness, even if they're not consciously aware of it. That's why so often the homages of fans better capture the spirit of an original work then a large corporate venture. With all the meandering babble I've done providing exhortation to D.C. comics, let's take a look at a fan project with heart.
That's the golden nugget that seems to be so confusing and alien to most producers these days. If you don't really care, and are just going through the motions to get more product out, the best you could hope for is if people don't pay too much attention to what you've done.
Being uninspired, disengaged or apathetic will make your drama or action film dull, but it is a death kiss if you're producing a comedy or sci-fi/fantasy piece. The galling thing is that everyone in show business used to understand that dieing is easy, but comedy is hard.