Deadpool 2 Deadpool 2 News and Discussion

[-JKR-]

Isn't this Director in talks the same guy who was up for X-Force?

Here's the original quote from Variety:

Leitch, who also directed the Charlize Theron thriller “The Coldest City,” had initially been eyed by 20th Century Fox to helm its long-in-development “X-Force” movie adaptation.

 

[2kt09]

Reported cases

How many First comic IP's were setting up an expanded universe, had sequels happen during a writers strike (or had no scripts at all) and were made by the same Director?

Not really. Jon Favreau was pretty upset about the movie they made him do. Not his fault at all.

Yeah, and he's not the only one. Tim Miller going off his interviews regarding DP2 and what's being reported as why he exited, dodged that bullet.

The point more-so was that IM2 syndrome happens when the studio or producers are adamant on forcing a franchise baiting sequel to the film's & the vision of the director's detriment and yet the director complies. I'm sure both of you are aware how many that is.

When someone else helms the project, they develop an approach on how to make that work in their favor.
That's why the end product shows just how much more refreshingly distinct the sequel is from its predecessor.

 

[-JKR-]

Has nothing to do with the original director staying on, but with the studio making wrong decisions.

And I hope Ryan Reynolds and Fox won't make the same decisions as Marvel Studios did on Iron Man 2. And I don't think they will.

20th Century Fox, apart from the Fantastic Four drama, isn't the micromanaging studio they once were with Tom Rothman at the top.

 

[marvelrobbins]

Well, Ryan Reynolds has said he won't allow anyone else other than Rhett Resse and Paul Wernick write Deadpool as long as he's playing him, so things are gonna get tricky on X-Force.

I think that movie should have more connections to Deadpool, rather than the main-line X-Men movies and hope it'll focus on the early 1990s X-Force line-up.

I have no love for kinberg but people need to accept that Kinberg probally is writing X-force as reported since they were looking at director.if they have same director for Deadpool 2 and X-force you could have deadpool 2 in 2018
and X-force In 2020.

Kinberg Is closest thing to overseer of entire franchise for Fox.The other producer Donner seems to mostly be focusing on the tv shows now.

now post origins even if you don't like final film fox has been letting the directors of indivual films for X related films,FF is ilrelvent here,have a lot of freedom.

With Deadpool 2,New mutants,and X-force and possibly Gambit all in various stages of devolpment it makes sense for Deadpool 2 and X-force to have
different writers.

Kinberg isn't as easy as miller to be replaced.Miller never was offically signed to do deadpool 2.

now maybe what should have happened on Apocalypse will happen on
X-force.Kinberg devolps plot,and writes intial drafts & Deadpool writers
do revisions or polishs script.

The only X related film apart from deadpool films that X-force would have
connection to Is likely Logan if reports are true on X-23 taking wolverine's
place In X-force.

X-force i suspect will be cross between original run In 1990's and the version
including deadpool on team.Cable and domino in Deadpool 2 already hint at
this.

Right now plans for any core X-men characters after Logan save for Xavier being In new mutants is up in the air.Fox seems to be focusing on,ignoring Gambit,on deadpool sequels,New Mutants,and X-Force.

 

[2kt09]

Has nothing to do with the original director staying on, but with the studio making wrong decisions.

Sadly does and rarely does the original director staying on manage to offset those demands with a sequel not worse than the previous flick because of that studio/producer-director schism.
This is in context with setting up toward the team movie which you and Def28 were discussing, but is relevant to the reported difference in approach between the producer(s) and the director.

And I hope Ryan Reynolds and Fox won't make the same decisions as Marvel Studios did on Iron Man 2.

MS did on Ant-Man (salvaged it by getting someone else), MS did on Avengers 2, Sony did on SM3, Sony did on TASM2, WB allegedly did on BvS DoJ, list goes on.

And I don't think they will.

Getting another director is their clean slate.

20th Century Fox, apart from the Fantastic Four drama, isn't the micromanaging studio they once were with Tom Rothman at the top.

Apparently, even Fantastic 4 could be traced back to Rothman and either before or after he left, they realized the kind of movie they would be putting out.

 

[-JKR-]

You're take on studio politics and filmmaking is kinda confusing, and you can't mix all those cases together and see a pattern. Even with studio meddling and troubled productions, there are plenty of variables, different reasons and outcomes.
Having a new director on board is not a clean slate for the studio. Ryan Reynolds is still producing, with Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick writing (they're also on board as EP).
On this one, Tim Miller is leaving because he didn't see eye to eye with Reynolds (and it appears that they had a difficult relationship on the first one, as well, but were able to go beyond that and get the film done anyway), not the studio. Fox is on good terms with Miller, and is working with him on the cyberpunk thriller Influx.

 

[2kt09]

Your take on studio politics and filmmaking is kinda confusing, and you can't mix all those cases together and see a pattern. Even with studio meddling and troubled productions, there are plenty of variables, different reasons and outcomes.

By this logic, why do you even bother bringing up IM2 since Def28 refuted how dissimilar that is to what transpired here with just one variable and we all know there are plenty more.
I'm sticking to similar variables that have led to similar outcomes because to you and I those are major contributors to how a worse sequel occurs, but I noticed if the same director stays on board that is also a strong contributor.

Having a new director on board is not a clean slate for the studio. Ryan Reynolds is still producing, with Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick writing (they're also on board as EP).

Essentially is. Whatever beef Miller and Reynolds had is intended to not be there with a fresh filmmaker on board, this "yes man" or rather the guy who's willing to put out a good-great product alongside what those EP's, that creative brain trust, have in mind.

Tim Miller is the only one leaving, because of the differences with Reynolds, not the studio. Fox is on good terms with Miller, and is working with him on the cyberpunk thriller Influx.

2-for-1, as Def28 says the studio could potentially be mandating some X-Force tie-ins and maybe believes the opposite of Miller as far as the sequel having a tighter budget and not doubling or tripling down.
Could this "Iron Man 2 syndrome" still happen with a new director? Yes.
Is it as likely? No.

 

[-JKR-]

By this logic, why do you even bother bringing up IM2 since Def28 refuted how dissimilar that is to what transpired here with just one variable and we all know there are plenty more.
I'm sticking to similar variables that have led to similar outcomes because to you and I those are major contributors to how a worse sequel occurs, but I noticed if the same director stays on board that is also a strong contributor.


Essentially is. Whatever beef Miller and Reynolds had is intended to not be there with a fresh filmmaker on board, this "yes man" or rather the guy who's willing to put out a good-great product alongside what those EP's, that creative brain trust, have in mind.

2-for-1, as Def28 says the studio could potentially be mandating some X-Force tie-ins and maybe believes the opposite of Miller as far as the sequel having a tighter budget and not doubling or tripling down.
Could this "Iron Man 2 syndrome" still happen with a new director? Yes.
Is it as likely? No.

Iron Man 2's main problem is that the storylines and characters leading to The Avengers were put in to begin with, taking away from what should've been the main storyline. Nick Fury even solves Tony Stark's biggest problem, which is a major cop-out for the story.

The Iron Man 2 syndrome isn't that they didn't get a 'yes man,' it's that they favored teases for upcoming films over a solid story, rushed the film into production and even had trouble getting the script done, as they were racing against time before the writers' strike hit.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Maybe the other stories necessitated cutting out the interesting parts of the original plan, but the father-son dynamic in Iron Man 2 dragged to me. Black Widow, by contrast, was fun.

 

[2kt09]

Iron Man 2's main problem is that the storylines and characters leading to The Avengers were put in to begin with, taking away from what should've been the main storyline. Nick Fury even solves Tony Stark's biggest problem, which is a major cop-out for the story.

Yes, refer back to the films I mentioned. The only example that seemingly rectified that kind of creative difference was Ant-Man because they found another director albeit really late.

The Iron Man 2 syndrome isn't that they didn't get a 'yes man,' it's that they favored teases for upcoming films over a solid story, rushed the film into production and even had trouble getting the script done, as they were racing against time before the writers' strike hit.

The 'yes man' happens after the studio/producers realize how much worse the franchise could be if they maintain this liability, this "creative difference". The "yes man" finds a way to make those demands work. In certain cases they recoup the troubled production if they haven't already replaced the previous filmmaker(s) before production is underway.
You can push the production back, have the script done, and still get those contrivances IM2 is known for because the director wasn't seeing eye-eye with the producers or studio.

Racing against time before a writers' strike is a bit too anecdotal.

 

[-JKR-]

Maybe the other stories necessitated cutting out the interesting parts of the original plan, but the father-son dynamic in Iron Man 2 dragged to me. Black Widow, by contrast, was fun.

I liked Black Widow and especially her interaction with Happy Hogan.

To me the father-son dynamic dragged mostly because it doesn't really go anywhere. The biggest problem is Fury, who just shows up out of nowhere, telling Stark about his father and where to look for a cure. It's a huge cop-out and simply bad storytelling.

And even the Avengers subplot doesn't really go anywhere, as Tony is told that he's not a team player. Everything is just there.

The way they tried to cram the bigger universe is as ham-fisted as Stan Lee trying to put the Thing action figure into the Batmobile on his Simpsons appearance.

It's forced. It's bad. And it reeks of heavy studio interference over a solid plot for the sequel.

Yes, refer back to the films I mentioned. The only example that seemingly rectified that kind of creative difference was Ant-Man because they found another director albeit really late.

The solution isn't finding a 'yes man,' but not making dumb decisions.

As for your examples:

- Except for the Thor subplot, I liked Avengers: Age of Ultron better than the first one
- On Spider-Man 3, Sam Raimi was well into pre-production and had already put together a script with his brother Ivan featuring the Sandman, Vulture and Harry Osborn as villains. The studio and producer Avi Arad forced him to Venom in there 'for the fans' last minute, with a release date already set in stone. Do you think getting a 'yes man' on board under the same conditions would've helped? I wouldn't be so sure.
- X-Men: The Last Stand. Bryan Singer went off to do Superman Returns, but was still planning to direct the third installment in the X-Men franchise. The studio decided that they wouldn't wait for him, and instead went on with Matthew Vaughn at the helm. Unfortunately he decided that he didn't have enough time to make the film he envisioned, so him and the studio parted the ways. In comes 'yes man' Brett Ratner, and it worked so well!
- The development and production on the Amazing Spider-Man franchise has always been a mess. In that case it wasn't so much about Marc Webb and Sony clashing, but about Webb getting pushed around to begin with and not having any chance to put his stamp on them, because the studio execs and producers would go back and forth about what they thought the films should be. To this day no one involved knows who the hell that 'mystery man' (played by Michael Massee, may he R.I.P.) was supposed to be, and where they would've gone with him.
- Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (which I like in it's Ultimate Cut, BTW, except for a couple of things). Not much clashing going on, actually. The film was just cut for runtime reasons. The backlash, however, led to the studio getting cold feet taking away Suicide Squad from David Ayer, and having the trailer company cut the theatrical version. Which no, shouldn't have happened.

So, I don't really see the pattern you see here, I'm sorry. And creative back and forth is actually a good thing. You should watch the Twelve Monkeys making of. Lots of Terry Gilliam clashing with the producers and studio in there.

On a side note, I've actually directed (literally) a couple of music videos for friends of mine. And there's always a point where you don't see eye to eye, or you argue about what you think would be the best way to do it. That's just how things are. But in the end we knew we had to get the job done, and we did. I didn't leave, mid-way. And they didn't just do it themselves or call someone else, mid-way. And they were pretty happy about the end results (and even second-guessed some of their own ideas, thinking that they should've listened to me on a few things). Ironically (since we're talking about Deadpool 2), when it came to our third collaboration, I just didn't like how things were building up and decided I didn't want to do it.

 

[2kt09]

The solution isn't finding a 'yes man,' but not making dumb decisions.

I haven't used 'yes man' in the derogatory sense and dumb decisions is way too broad if you're trying to make the case for why DP2 could be IM2.
This is where other comparable cases come into play.

As for your examples:
- Except for the Thor subplot, I liked Avengers: Age of Ultron better than the first one

What I'm bringing up here is that Whedon had a lot more to work with and said it himself that a lot more pressure was there this time around for this to not just be another outing for the Avengers. His sequel teases on the whole do not work nearly as well as this being another outing for the Avengers.

- On Spider-Man 3, Sam Raimi was well into pre-production and had already put together a script with his brother Ivan featuring the Sandman, Vulture and Harry Osborn as villains. The studio and producer Avi Arad forced him to Venom in there 'for the fans' last minute, with a release date already set in stone. Do you think getting a 'yes man' on board under the same conditions would've helped? I wouldn't be so sure.

Well, a 'yes man' likely wouldn't give every conceivable middle finger to the Venom subplot. Who knows maybe that 'yes man' could have merged those 3 barely related subplots more seamlessly.

X-Men: The Last Stand. Bryan Singer went off to do Superman Returns, but was still planning to direct the third installment in the X-Men franchise. The studio decided that they wouldn't wait for him, and instead went on with Matthew Vaughn at the helm. Unfortunately he decided that he didn't have enough time to make the film he envisioned, so him and the studio parted the ways. In comes 'yes man' Brett Ratner, and it worked so well!

Didn't even reference TLS because Tom Rothman who screwed Gavin Hood over even as he wanted to leave Origins Wolverine <= worked so well!
I'm guessing you left out Ant-Man because we're in agreement?
As a whole in today's blockbuster climate, a new director keeps the franchise fresh, especially in the case of heavy-hitting franchises.

The development and production on the Amazing Spider-Man franchise has always been a mess. In that case it wasn't so much about Marc Webb and Sony clashing, but about Webb getting pushed around to begin with and not having any chance to put his stamp on them, because the studio execs and producers would go back and forth about what they thought the films should be. To this day no one involved knows who the hell that 'mystery man' (played by Michael Massee, may he R.I.P.) was supposed to be, and where they would've gone with him.

TASM2, especially, because Marc Webb pulled a Josh Trank when the final cut was released.

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (which I like in it's Ultimate Cut, BTW, except for a couple of things). Not much clashing going on, actually. The film was just cut for runtime reasons. The backlash, however, led to the studio getting cold feet taking away Suicide Squad from David Ayer, and having the trailer company cut the theatrical version. Which no, shouldn't have happened

Another movie that can't do sequel teases well and kept them in anyways in both the theatrical and ultimate cuts. I mention alleged because it wasn't Dawn of Justice at one point, I'm guessing before they pushed it back.

So, I don't really see the pattern you see here, I'm sorry. And creative back and forth is actually a good thing. You should watch the Twelve Monkeys making of. Lots of Terry Gilliam clashing with the producers and studio in there.

The pattern being studios or producers cramming sequel tie-ins or cramming in more of the IP's lore than the director is willing (which you detest). In today's market, this works best if you get someone who is willing.

 

[-JKR-]

I left out Ant-Man because I ended up really enjoying the film (mostly thanks to the script's freshness and it being a stand-alone story, having its own, real stakes, instead of being about the 'bigger universe'), even though I hated Falcon's cameo in it (the scene took me out of the story and really feels like foreign body). I'm still not happy about Edgar Wright getting the boot, though. This was his baby, and he pretty much conceived the story that ended up on the big screen (which is why I'm curious and a little worried about the next movie, which won't have the luxury of having an Edgar Wright-Joe Cornish penned script as a blueprint). And I'm sure his take would've been even more ambitious and insane.

It wasn't good BECAUSE Edgar Wright left. It ended up being good IN SPITE of him leaving.

I still find your argumentation a little confused and confusing, though. I'm sorry. I really don't see the pattern you're seeing. They're all quite different situations. And there's no such pattern as, when **** hits the fan, 'it's better to get rid of the original director' for a higher quality sequel.

 

[2kt09]

I left out Ant-Man because I ended up really enjoying the film (mostly thanks to the script's freshness and it being a stand-alone story, having its own, real stakes, instead of being about the 'bigger universe'), even though I hated Falcon's cameo in it (the scene took me out of the story and really feels like foreign body). I'm still not happy about Edgar Wright getting the boot, though. This was his baby, and he pretty much conceived the story that ended up on the big screen (which is why I'm curious and a little worried about the next movie, which won't have the luxury of having an Edgar Wright-Joe Cornish penned script as a blueprint). And I'm sure his take would've been even more ambitious and insane.

It wasn't good BECAUSE Edgar Wright left. It ended up being good IN SPITE of him leaving.

My opinion of the movie aside, a significant portion including the screenplay of Ant-Man was obviously by people other than Wright and Cornish. So, the blueprint might have remained, but the actual plan in motion made that schematic barely recognizable.

I still find your argumentation a little confused and confusing, though. I'm sorry. I really don't see the pattern you're seeing. They're all quite different situations. And there's no such pattern as, when **** hits the fan, 'it's better to get rid of the original director' for a higher quality sequel.

When **** hits the fan, and there's just no way to bridge the gap between two conflicting parties, and the show must go on, time to shift gears in the hope that the sequel is just as good if not better.
In most cases these days, a new director comes in anyways to add a fresh spin to the franchise.

 

[-JKR-]

In fact, that's what happened.
Tim Miller and Ryan Reynolds couldn't see eye to eye, so they parted ways on the project. It's unfortunate, but it can happen and has happened in this case.
That still doesn't mean that there's a so called Iron Man 2 syndrome which can be traced back to what happens when the original director returns.

 

[chamber-music]

Genesis (Tyler Dayspring), Stryfe, T-Ray, Black Box or Slayback.

 

[2kt09]

That still doesn't mean that there's a so called Iron Man 2 syndrome which can be traced back to what happens when the original director returns.

When the original director chooses to remain under what they perceive as unfavorable circumstances and is incapable of ironing out the kinks.

 

[-JKR-]

Which was not the problem on Iron Man 2, but bad studio decisions and a rushed schedule. But of course it's the director's fault for staying on board, eh?

 

[2kt09]

Which was not the problem on Iron Man 2, but bad studio decisions and a rushed schedule.

Haven't you noticed how prevalent those decisions have become?
They're also decreasing the time between sequels, so those schedules are getting rushed as is.

But of course it's the director's fault for staying on board, eh?

I would have more respect for Favreau if he did what Wright did.

 

[-JKR-]

Nope.

 

[TheVileOne]

Haven't you noticed how prevalent those decisions have become?
They're also decreasing the time between sequels, so those schedules are getting rushed as is.


I would have more respect for Favreau if he did what Wright did.

Thor 3 is coming out about 4 years after the last one.

 

[-JKR-]

And Die Hard 2 came out two years after the original - in 1990!

 

[2kt09]

Thor 3 is coming out about 4 years after the last one.

Can't wait. New inspired director at the helm.

And Die Hard 2 came out two years after the original - in 1990!

Never watched. I am noticing a different director took that on.

 

[-JKR-]

And it wasn't nearly as good as John McTiernan's original.
Fortunately, McTiernan returned for the much better third installment Die Hard with a Vengeance (the original remains untouchable, though - BEST ACTION MOVIE EVER!).

 

[2kt09]

And it wasn't nearly as good as John McTiernan's original.

Again, I wouldn't personally know.
Apparently McTiernan came back and the aggregated consensus seems to be not even as good as the one that came before.