Discussion in 'Deadpool' started by TheSpectacular, Feb 8, 2016.
It is the law of the new. Only the new person is worthy, toss out the previous champ. See how fans have turned on Whedon and Nolan.
...and Sam Raimi.
I will never get it.
Love the action, the villains, but barely cared for any of the characters. I think the Spider-Man Movies are the only Movies, where I don't care the slightest about the protagonist and his love interest. They were just so bland and uninteresting. I'd trust Raimi with a Sinister Six Movie, but I wouldn't want him to helm another Spider-Man Movie.
That's up to everyone. I cared about the characters in the first two films. What I meant, though, is how lots of fans turned onto Raimi after the disappointing 3rd one, and esp. when Marc Webb's version came around.
I get preferences. But suddenly turning onto something you used to enjoy just because there's "a new kid in town" I will never get. I still loved the Tim Burton Batman films, even after Christopher Nolan did his trilogy.
And I still love the Dark Knight trilogy and Christian Bale in the role even while looking forward to Ben Affleck's take. But mostly, people are quick to point out what was so immensely wrong with something they loved when something new's on the table. And I don't get it.
Having said that. I'm more interested to see more Deadpool films from Tim Miller. And maybe what he could do with X-Force, or something completely different, rather than have him on an X-Men film. I'm all for variety. The moment you hand over all these different titles to the same filmmaker you lose that. And mostly, don't distract Miller from Deadpool when it comes to comic book adaptations!
P.S.: I think Singer deserves some trust after X-Men: Days of Future Past. I never really liked X2 that much (I've always prefered the original) and wasn't too happy about Matthew Vaughn leaving. And even I thought he did a great job with the last one. And isn't Fox pretty much planning a new take on the franchise with Josh Boone's New Mutants anyway?
It's pretty telling how Fox's most successful Marvel property to date looks and feels like a real Marvel movie (lighter tone, embracing the source material) compared to their usual approach.
The early Superman and Raimi Spiderman films are a lighter tone and embrace the source material too. Those films are also influential.
Yep. And the lighter tone obviously derives from the source material. Not to mention that the first draft (which had the same) tone of the script was finished in early 2010, before Marvel Studios really blew up with The Avengers.
This is simply Ryan Reynolds, Tim Miller and Rhett Reese being passionate about the character, and wanting to deliver a big screen adaptation which stays true to the source material.
And with Miller being a huge comic book geek, he also made sure Colossus would be dramatically different than how he was portrayed in previous films.
Undoubtedly. I've always said the MCU was most heavily influenced by the Raimi films.
My comment was that Fox finally deviated from their formula and they were rewarded for it. Hopefully that's a sign of things to come.
The Fox formula? I really doubt the current Fox regime is asking filmmakers to tone down comic book influences (that was more of a Tom Rothman thing, who has luckily left the studio in 2012).
They're simply on the path Bryan Singer created in 2000 with his take on the X-Men.
And in case you're about to bring up the Fantastic Four reboot. They trusted Josh Trank's take on the property, considering he had delivered a pretty big hit with Chronicle, and it backfired. As simple as that. I'd bet my money that there has never been a mandate from the studio to make the film unlike the source material.
You'd lose money. The version of Fantastic Four they produced CUT the more comic book inspired elements of the original script. They had no interest in making a version of Fantastic Four that had Moloids, Galactus, or Ben Grimm in a trench coat when he went out in public. Fantastic Four was a colossal screwup on all levels, not just Trank.
They asked for budget trims, which they also did on Deadpool. I don't think theirs was an attempt to make it unlike the comics, but to streamline the story and bring down the budget. They still were behind Trank's film, until they realized they didn't like the film and had it heavily reshot (and that massive damage control that late in the game probably wasn't a great decision). Reese & Wernick cut several characters and two action scenes from the script and Deadpool still turned out great.
Fox wanted a dark and gritty Fantastic Four just as much as Trank. You're buying into the idea that it was all Trank's fault. He's an idiot that blew it throughout the whole process, but Fox bought into it because it's what they had pushed for. Hell, they specifically wanted a less loyal Fantastic Four back when Peyton Reed was supposed to do a Fantastic Four movie years ago. You're simply incorrect about Fox not making a push for a Fantastic Four that departed heavily from the source material.
I wouldn't go so far as to say there are studio mandates demanding they deviate from the comics but the undeniable fact that the majority of their films keep the source material at arms length is exactly what I'm talking about.
Deadpools massive success is due to a variety of factors but pleasing the fans and making the movie resemble the damn books it's based on are undoubtedly a part of that. Like I said, hopefully the rest of their future slate will follow that example.
And Eddies correct in saying that Fox intentionally sought out a FF adaption that wasn't anything like the source material.
Fant4stic was a much different scenario. One that I don't think Fox was ever fully confident in. It was made clearly because they were on a time schedule.
Which was back when Tom Rothman was still at Fox.
And yeah, the studio was probably looking for a more serious take on the franchise after Tim Story's films.
And yeah - they liked Trank's idea for a darker and more realistic Fantastic Four and stood behind it. And to be honest, I always thought his take on it sounded quite promising. That doesn't mean that they specifically set out to make a film that would upset comic book fans, because that's "the Fox way."
Not all studios operate like Marvel Studios, where there's a head honcho who'll worry about the bigger picture, nor do they have to. We probably would've never had this R-rated iteration of Deadpool otherwise, which features a different Colossus.
They believed in Josh Trank's take on it and went with it. They're all to blame if the film didn't pan out. But to think there was a 'no comic book costumes, no comic book elements' is just ridiculous. Especially when you consider that even X-Men: First Class back in 2011 had more comic-accurate costumes (the much desired colors!).
The takes on the characters pretty much vary with the filmmakers in charge.
At least we can all agree that 20th Century Fox made a great move by allowing Tim Miller & Co. to make Deadpool as they intended to.
Which they have since unfortunately ditched. Best costumes in any X-men movie by far. Only Deadpools is better.
It's much simpler. Bryan Singer came on board and, like it or not, brought his vision for the characters. If Matthew Vaughn had stayed on board, the film (incl. the costumes) would've probably looked different.
I don't see your point. All I'm saying is that Deadpool has injected much needed life into the X-men franchise by embracing the source material as opposed to shying away from it.
And that I agree with.
My point is that not all studios operate like Marvel Studios, nor do they need to. Too many people see it as just one thing. As "the Fox films," when it's very clear that the tone and style of the films is very much informed by their filmmakers and the creative team involved.
For example, Matthew Vaughn comes in and introduces the yellow and blue suits. Then Bryan Singer takes the helm, and opts for black suits.
Am I excited about future X-Men films being more faithful to the source material? Of course!
I agreed with the Fox hate when Tom Rothman was on board and the studio was pretty much putting out c**p after c**p, even outside of comic book adaptations, and every blockbuster (except for James Cameron's, Steven Spielberg's or Baz Luhrman's) or commercial film used to be dumbed down trash for the most part.
But the studio has gotten much better, and has been taking chances. And Deadpool was one of them. And once they pulled the trigger on that, they did it 100%. So instead of constantly trashing the studio, complaing about this "Fox way" and talking about how rights should revert to Marvel (which is stuff I've really heard too often now) why don't we just sit back and see what the future has in store? Especially now that Deadpool can be seen as a great turning point.
I did a video on Deadpool and how it may effect the future of Superhero films.
Actually it was Singer. He confirmed it in an interview where being asked whether we'll see the colored costumes in Apocalypse. I think we will
Saw Deadpool-think it was Fox's best Marvel movie ever and the most faithful in tone.
This movie is clearly leaving the backdoor open for this to exist in the MCU.
This was foul-mouthed, bloody and crude AF and the MCU decidedly isn't those things. And it featured characters Marvel leased away and can't use not to mention Marvel reboots all properties it gets back so even if they got access to Deadpool it'd be a new different version thus the door is non-existent on this being part of the MCU.
As for sneaking in a helicarrier that was just the movie being meta, I didn't even notice tbh, I thought it was a standard aircraft carrier until it was pointed out to me.
And besides other than Colossus, NSTW and Deadpool himself, visually the movie doesn't have anything comicky about it.
Since colourful and faithful costumes goes back to the seventies, long before Marvel joined the genre, and the whole approach to the movie wasn't to make money and hit demographics but solely to make a small budget entertaining movie this wasn't copying Marvel at all.
I just knew at some point with Deadpools success some people instead of celebrating would use it as an excuse to bash the X-Men franchise.
Have Singer's X-Men movies been perfect? Nope. But they've played a HUGE part in comic book movies. Without those movies, we wouldn't have gotten Deadpool at all. And while I don't think X2 holds up quite as well as a comic book adaptation anymore ... I still think it is a really good movie. Before the X-Men movies, comic book fans had a LOT to complain about in terms of the quality of the films coming out in the late 90's. Batman & Robin? Spawn? Steel? lulz.
Fanboys make me roll my eyes sometimes. Of all people, I can't believe that so many fanboys have turned on Whedon, Nolan, and Raimi ... Especially Nolan (he was in "God" status among fanboys only 5 years ago).
I have my reservations about Nolan as a director overall, but he did Batman proud with The Dark Knight Trilogy (especially The Dark Knight; it's Nolan's best film, in my opinion). And the things that Joss Whedon did for Marvel? And what Raimi did for Spider-Man? Come on. These directors are GOLD to me when it comes to comic book movies.