And you cite
The Expendables 3 as a GOOD example? That movie was a toned down, tone-deaf and mediocre action flick.
Guys,
Deadpool should be a mix between techno-thriller and action-comedy first, and be approached as such, rather than a superhero, 'comic book pic' or
X-Men movie. And not a poor, pale, toned down imitation of that. But a kick-ass, bare knuckles, hard-hitting tech-thriller-action-comedy.
All the talk about R-rated (action) movies being such a huge risk, and look at what
22 Jump Street and
Lucy have done this year at the box office. And they cost $40-50 million dollars, which is pretty much the budget you'd need for a Deadpool movie.
No f***in' excuses, and no going with whatever the studios want to churn out in a half-assed way. I'm not okay with a PG-13
Deadpool. If that's the direction they want to go in, I'd rather have it sit on a shelf and stay in development hell for a while, until there's some executive with a pair of balls at 20th Century Fox.
I was a happy camper when they announced that the movie would be released in February 2016, but honestly, I've got time. I don't need it as soon as possible. I want them get it
RIGHT. No compromises. And if anything should be compromised, it's the size and scope of the movie. The character is perfectly served with a smaller scaled, yet thrilling and well-done story. No need for crumbling buildings.
P.S.: Hasn't anybody learned anything? For some weird reason, maybe just coincidence, PG-13 movies that should've been R-rated usually end up dissapointing, even at the box office. Look at the
RoboCop remake, the
Total Recall remake,
Terminator Salvation, etc.
Am I saying that a rating is an indicator of quality? No, but by forcing the makers to tone a movie down you're depriving it of its natural tone and feel, and it shows...! Especially on a movie wich is going to be as gun- and weapon-heavy as this.
