Deadpool Deadpool Box Office Prediction Thread

[DarthSkywalker]

I really like the film, but I wouldn't call it super lean. I felt like it needed another action beat during the second tail end of the second act.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Just so I am clear, with the same cast and creative, this movie would have been weaker with a higher budget?

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Yeah, let's not be going off on the MCU for not giving creators any freedom. Guardians of the Galaxy was very much a James Gunn movie and by all accounts the sequel is that and then some. Iron Man 3 was also very much Iron Man as brought to you by Shane Black.

Par for the course with certain posters on here. "Give credit where credit is due" only if it applies Fox, which has no vision for CBM's. It's mostly luck with Deadpool. Great passion and street smarts talent got it done, not those unimaginative bean counters. Singer, Vaughn, Miller did it in spite of.

 

[DieSmiling]

Quoted for the truth. The Blade and Hellboy movies are proof that you don't need a huge budget to make a great looking superhero movie with cool and good looking special effects and action scenes.

None of those movies even cracked $100m domestic. The studios don't care if superhero tentpoles are well received if they aren't hits.

 

[Mjölnir]

I would argue that it did succeed because it was a very short and lean film. It wasn't bloated with unnecessary characters or crazy subplots, it was very simplistic. The lower budget gave them the freedom to do what they wanted. Of course, you can have low budget films that aren't good, but I don't think this film would've succeeded had Fox not given them free reign that came about as a result of a lower budget.

Yes, the low budget is a significant reason for that the movie is as it is. Both in terms of studio meddling plus what kind of creative decisions you need to make when you can't just spend on whatever you want.

It of course could have been great with a big budget as well, but it would not have been like this movie.

 

[jmc]

Just so I am clear, with the same cast and creative, this movie would have been weaker with a higher budget?

Not necessarily weaker. Sometimes the problem with too much money is that it gives too much wiggle room. That can lead to indecisiveness and mistakes and nothing but endless alterations. As someone who works in the creative industry who's experienced similar things sometimes smaller budgets produce better results because it forces the creative teams to have to plan things properly.

 

[DieSmiling]

This is why I think all these which comic character is a-list discussions doesn't mean much when it comes to movies. We have seen lesser known characters like deadpool, ant-man, blade and guardians of the galaxy be more successful than some of the bigger name characters like green lantern and the fantastic four.

I mean Green Lantern and Fantastic Four grossed a good deal more than any Blade movie, and weren't that far behind Ant-Man...

I agree though that Iron Man and Guardians are good examples of fairly unpopular propreties that became huge hits based on the quality of the film. Really, I think it's more important to be "adaptable" in a way that works for 21st century audiences than it is to be "well known."

 

[DieSmiling]

Not necessarily weaker. Sometimes the problem with too much money is that it gives too much wiggle room. That can lead to indecisiveness and mistakes and nothing but endless alterations. As someone who works in the creative industry who's experienced similar things sometimes smaller budgets produce better results because it forces the creative teams to have to plan things properly.

And prevents things from getting bloated for the sake of being bloated (which often plagues higher budget sequels.)

 

[Sithborg]

Par for the course with certain posters on here. "Give credit where credit is due" only if it applies Fox, which has no vision for CBM's. It's mostly luck with Deadpool. Great passion and street smarts talent got it done, not those unimaginative bean counters. Singer, Vaughn, Miller did it in spite of.

The marketing team is responsible for this opening day. For a non-sequel, the marketing is what is needed to build interest. The quality of the movie is what will carry the movie through the rest of the way.

I don't see it as luck. I see it as a response to a very good marketing campaign.

 

[MadVillainy]

Just reiterating I'm so happy to be proven wrong. Ive been reading the reports and it's all gravy.

Cant wait to watch it tomorrow

 

[-JKR-]

Par for the course with certain posters on here. "Give credit where credit is due" only if it applies Fox, which has no vision for CBM's. It's mostly luck with Deadpool. Great passion and street smarts talent got it done, not those unimaginative bean counters. Singer, Vaughn, Miller did it in spite of.

Fox deserves the credit for greenlighting the movie, hiring Tim Miller, Ryan Reynolds, Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick and allowing them to make their movie as intended. Not every studio would've signed off on an R-rated mainstream superhero property. You have to give them props for this, and for the awesome marketing campaign they put together once they realized this really is something special. Studios aren't supposed to have a vision (not every studio has to work like Marvel Studios), filmmakers do.

 

[los pollos]

Just so I am clear, with the same cast and creative, this movie would have been weaker with a higher budget?

There is a key difference between having a $60M budget like deadpool had and the budget size of what 90% of superhero blockbusters have is more than just the money to do more stuff. You(The creative crew) lose a lot of autonomy because your corporate masters sweat bullets every time throw huge swathes of money on a project, especially ones as unproven as Deadpool were, so they can't help themselves but butt in and force changes they think are for the better and will yield the biggest returns. You don't hear about this when it comes to MCU as much because they usually work this out with their creatives beforehand, but situations like with Edgar Wright leaving Ant-Man, and Whedon talking about his troubles with Age of Ultron do prove that it's not all roses and rainbows even with the biggest franchises.

 

[Blade X]

The way I see it is this. The writers and director make a film, and what it comes out as, it comes out as. The Matrix is a very good example. It was rated-R for one single moment. If they had decided to cut it, they would have had a pg-13 rating, but that wasn't their vision.

What single scene earned THE MATRIX an R rating?

Hold to the vision of the creative. And if the studio doesn't believe in the creative, why did they give them the job in the first place?

Or if the creators don't want to abide by the studio's ratings guideline for the movie, then those creators shouldn't take the assignment.

 

[Blade X]

I said this last week before the release. People will take their kids to see this. Teens will see the heck out of this. R-rated movies that make a lot of money don't make it just on adults, they never have. Kids and teens saw the Matrix.

This is very true. Despite the R rating, there are many (NOT ALL) parents who will take their kids to see R rated sci-fi/fantasy/superhero action movies because (a) those genres appeal to young kids and (b) most parents aren't aware of how "R rated" the content of those movies might be. Like I have said before, not every R rated movie deserves the R rating and could have easily gotten a PG-13 rating with a few edits and cuts.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Fox deserves the credit for greenlighting the movie, hiring Tim Miller, Ryan Reynolds, Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick and allowing them to make their movie as intended. Not every studio would've signed off on an R-rated mainstream superhero property. You have to give them props for this, and for the awesome marketing campaign they put together once they realized this really is something special. Studios aren't supposed to have a vision (not every studio has to work like Marvel Studios), filmmakers do.

Best marketing campaign ever for Deadpool, I've said it multiple times, props.

Of course directors have a vision, but the inference that Marvel Studios doesn't allow directors to have any is bogus. They've had issues with creative in the past, LIKE EVERY OTHER STUDIO, but my point is they've had a vision and respect for their characters (and bigger universe) right from the start, which is where they differ from others. Obviously helps if there is synergy from top to bottom.

It's a good thing that Fox won't try and put Deadpool into a larger cinematic X-universe in future films. We don't need his uniqueness bogged down by bloated corporate concepts.......

 

[JP]

Best marketing campaign ever for Deadpool, I've said it multiple times, props.

Of course directors have a vision, but the inference that Marvel Studios doesn't allow directors to have any is bogus. They've had issues with creative in the past, LIKE EVERY OTHER STUDIO, but my point is they've had a vision and respect for their characters (and bigger universe) right from the start, which is where they differ from others. Obviously helps if there is synergy from top to bottom.

It's a good thing that Fox won't try and put Deadpool into a larger cinematic X-universe in future films. We don't need his uniqueness bogged down by bloated corporate concepts.......

So, if a movie is good it's all because of the creative team and nothing to do with the studio, and if it's bad, it's nothing to do with the creative team and all to do with the studio?

 

[Moridin]

Yeah I know all of this, but a quick cameo and acknowledgements wouldn't effect any of this in my eyes.

I wouldn't want an R rated Star Wars, and that's different anyway as it wasn't adapted from another medium.

The MCU movies are, and there are plenty of Marvel characters that would need an R Rated movie. If they don't change that's up to them, but for me it would only help them make more money.

Of their currently slated films? Not really. Marvel arent changing anything in that regard, nor do they need to, they'll make bank anyway.

 

[Blade X]

Yeah, I just don't see how Fox could be that stupid when they can just sit back and watch the money come in.

To be fair, there's no guarantee that a DP sequel will do nearly as well as the first movie. TED had a $50M budget and had a domestic gross of $218M. TED 2 had a budget of $68M and grossed $81M. Just saying.

 

[Blade X]

This is why I think all these which comic character is a-list discussions doesn't mean much when it comes to movies. We have seen lesser known characters like deadpool, ant-man, blade and guardians of the galaxy be more successful than some of the bigger name characters like green lantern and the fantastic four.

Quoted for both the truth and because I have been saying the exact same thing for many years.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

So, if a movie is good it's all because of the creative team and nothing to do with the studio, and if it's bad, it's nothing to do with the creative team and all to do with the studio?

Of course not. Another poster biasly speculated why this property couldn't work at another studio based on ideas I disagree with. The track record of both studios is the main reason why I would give Fox less credit then some are. You obviously disagree. I give Fox some credit, but a lot of this was just a happy accident which will hopefully open their eyes for the better.

 

[Mjölnir]

Fox deserves the credit for greenlighting the movie, hiring Tim Miller, Ryan Reynolds, Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick and allowing them to make their movie as intended. Not every studio would've signed off on an R-rated mainstream superhero property. You have to give them props for this, and for the awesome marketing campaign they put together once they realized this really is something special. Studios aren't supposed to have a vision (not every studio has to work like Marvel Studios), filmmakers do.

This is not true. Most of the time the studio has a movie they want to make and hires a director that can make what they want into reality. At least when it comes to the big budget movies. A movie is the producer's movie. He's the director's boss on the production.

The idea of the free, creative director is an exaggerated dream among many fans. It's very rare the the director has free hands. When it comes to superhero movies I'd say that maybe Nolan had pretty much free hands, but no one else.

Of course it doesn't mean that the studio has to heavily interfere in all stages of production. You mention Marvel Studios but James Gunn said he pretty much got to make everything the way he wanted, just because the studio approved of what he was doing. He wasn't just given the freedom to make his movie and then come to the studio with it though, they were checking to see if changes needed to be done, as is the norm.

With Deadpool it was a project that was being sold to the studio and since the budget was so low they were under less scrutiny. Of course much of that also lies in that the project was green lit due to fan response, so they kind of knew that it was working. Without that the issue wasn't even that they would have to have more scrutiny but rather that the studio wasn't even making the movie.

 

[Blade X]

I love the first two Blades and Hellboy. The reason why they had low budget is their box offices. The reason why Hellboy 3 hasn't been made is the box office.

My point was/is that those movies had a lot of great and cool looking action scenes and special effects without having a huge budget. FYI, the low budgets for the first BLADE and HELLBOY movies had nothing to do with their box office.

 

[Blade X]

None of those movies even cracked $100m domestic. The studios don't care if superhero tentpoles are well received if they aren't hits.

Very true. However, that wasn't my point. My point was/is that those movies had GREAT/COOL LOOKING ACTION/FIGHT SCENES AND SPECIAL EFFECTS on a lower budget.

 

[samsnee]

I was wrong about the box office. Completely wrong.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

To be fair, there's no guarantee that a DP sequel will do nearly as well as the first movie. TED had a $50M budget and had a domestic gross of $218M. TED 2 had a budget of $68M and grossed $81M. Just saying.

TED and Deadpool are two different things. I don't get your comparison at all.