|
Disney's already explicitly said they're keeping Deadpool R-rated, at the bare minimum, probably because they've seen the bonkers amount of money Fox made doing that e: like, if Fox did something that worked from a suit perspective, there's not really any reason to assume Disney's gonna mess with it. most of those things were probably explicit reasons for Disney buying Fox in the first place. this sucks on a lot of levels, but there's not really any reason to assume things will be that different than they were.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:In the future and possibly an alternate timeline future. If they wanted Logan to show up in Dark Phoenix they wouldn't even have to explain it. Hugh Jackman is done with the role but that is literally the only reason they couldn't bring him back. They could even do it without 'changing' Logan because it's intentionally set in the future. I think you're now making a comment on comic book movies, not the relative approaches of the two companies. I think you're right, though, that the violence and death of the character are superficial. The actual thing that distinguishes Logan is that it's really loving bleak. It's a future where the heros have absolutely failed, where Professor X was both wrong and became a monster. Where everyone we liked is dead and the world is broken, and there's no time travel to fix it. There's just the hope of improving it for some. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It's very possible that the top five grossing movies this year will all be Disney making over a billion dollars and that is terrifying. It wouldn't be the first time. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2016&p=.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
James Mangold did write a sequel to Logan, but it was about X-23.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:I think you're now making a comment on comic book movies, not the relative approaches of the two companies. No I'm not? Even WITHOUT that they still could have made a sequel. The character Laura is an existing comic character (X-23) who had even taken over as Wolverine. A sequel starring her would be easy and expected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I feel like saying "Disney would never do that" feels weird. I mean outside of Superhero movies, people love to point to Star Wars and they put out Rogue One (where the entire cast is butchered) and The Last Jedi (where the heroic protagonist of the last series becomes a broken old man who sacrifices his life to stop the power-hungry son of Han Solo and Leia who had already murdered his fan-favorite father.) Let's be realistic here. There's No way. There's absolutely nothing spanning decades worth of films that would ever suggest Disney has the balls to produce something like a Logan or a Deadpool. Ever. teagone fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No I'm not? Even WITHOUT that they still could have made a sequel. The character Laura is an existing comic character (X-23) who had even taken over as Wolverine. A sequel starring her would be easy and expected. I made an edit, and I'll copy paste it here. I think you're right, though, that the violence and death of the character are superficial. The actual thing that distinguishes Logan is that it's really loving bleak. It's a future where the heros have absolutely failed, where Professor X was both wrong and became a monster. Where everyone we liked is dead and the world is broken, and there's no time travel to fix it. There's just the hope of improving it for some. Nothing is actually solved, the world isn't saved, it's still hosed at the end. The heroes, moreover, were beaten offscreen in a really banal way (just bred out by big pharma) By the way, a sequel to a bleak film with a latina woman in the lead and no real hope would actually constitute a risk, even if only in a business sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:Disney's already explicitly said they're keeping Deadpool R-rated, at the bare minimum, probably because they've seen the bonkers amount of money Fox made doing that Disney says a lot of things. They said Lord and Miller were making Solo at one point. They said Edgar Wright was gonna make Ant-Man for them. They said Rian Johnson is getting his own Star Wars trilogy (is he still?). I'll believe they'll make another R-rated Deadpool movie when I see it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:43
|
|
|
teagone posted:Let's be realistic here. There's I guess this comes down to the fact that I fundamentally disagree with you that the only movie with 'balls' is an R-rated violent movie. I think the idea that superhero violence need explicit gore to be unconventional is inherently wrong and that isn't just Disney. DC's cinematic universe contains some serious violence while maintaining PG-13 ratings (and TBH I'd argue as effective and/or impactful as Logan's in certain cases.) The idea that to be risky you have to show someone being eviscerated is not something I can agree with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:The idea that to be risky you have to show someone being eviscerated is not something I can agree with. It's risky when you take box office assessment into consideration of how that hard-R rating can potentially affect profits. And Disney is all about profits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
The main character in Logan literally has knives that can cut anything attached to his hands as his superpower, and a theme that his life is defined by brutal violence and he's almost impossible to kill due to both his mutations and his augmentation. A little blood and guts is good to punctuate that. While Deadpool's whole thing is bloody slapstick, being a parody of Wolverine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
teagone posted:It's risky when you take box office assessment into consideration of how that hard-R rating can potentially affect profits. And Disney is all about profits. To add to this, Disney already has a proven track record when it comes to profitable and critically acclaimed superhero movies. Endgame is easily going to break $2 billion worldwide. The question you should be asking instead is if it's possible for it break $3 billion, that's how good Disney/Marvel are at crafting these mainstream blockbusters. Another question to ask is if Disney/Marvel Studios would ever break that proven formula that generates billions to make something like a Logan or a Deadpool — which clearly would never fit in with the MCU — just for shits and giggles. The answer is no. No they won't. Because why bother when what they've done already works? Why challenge themselves creatively and risk not making more billions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 06:02
|
|
|
Deadpool had everything against it. His film debut was terrible and pretty much universally disliked, outside of some weird rear end in a top hat I know who really liked it and was sad when the actual film didn't continue it, which gave the character basically a non-start. The actor attached was an actor who, at that point, was making flop after flop. He was box office poison. The writers, previous films were all pretty mediocre, and not that high profile except for Zombieland. The film's director was some special effects guy. Add in the fact that it would be a HARD R, full of gore, sex and swear words...it was a recipe for disaster. But Fox took a risk, and the filmmakers had faith that it would work and put their heart and soul into the film, which is why it became a mega hit. Disney doesn't do that. Guardians was always going to make money. Captain Marvel was always going to make money. All the "risks" Disney took were sure fire enough that they would get SOMETHING out of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 06:02
|
|
|
Actually Fox booted out Tom Rothman, that piece of poo poo, who hated deadpool and superhero films, so once he was gone the new person stepped up and was like, yeah gently caress yeah do this weird poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:this sucks on a lot of levels, but there's not really any reason to assume things will be that different than they were. The difference is not that we will lose Deadpool 3, but that the willingness to take risks that led to Deadpool in the first place will be lost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
Man, Shazam was such a fun, enjoyable ride. Anyone that remembers the old Chuck days knows I will support Zachary Levi in anything he does now, but even everyone else in our small-town theater was grinning and on the edge of their seats when he asks his family to hold the staff and call his name. A+ will definitely see again. I'm sure there are faults, but it's just such a drat happy movie, I was glad to be along for the ride.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:It's a great analogy because McDonalds buying up BK doesn't wipe out other burger places. Go to In and Out. Go to to the Mom and Pop Diner on the corner. Disney doesn't hold a monopoly on comic book movies, much less all movies. This I agree with. The issue here is that nobody else is making superhero content that's any good. And you don't have to use established characters to do this, either. I'm only on the first episode, but Umbrella Academy seems promising. Happy was extremely cool and weird. It's not like Disney set fire to a giant stack of scripts or something. Also just a reminder that X2 had Wolverine slicing people left and right, there just wasn't any blood. Is it noticeable? Yes. Just like in Venom. I just think it's weird to be like "well I would have given this movie a better rating if I saw that guy's blood explode" SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
I still can't hear Umbrella Academy without assuming it's Resident Evil's high school AU.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I still can't hear Umbrella Academy without assuming it's Resident Evil's high school AU. I'd watch this. The arc would involve Nerd William Birkin becoming friends with Jock Albert Wesker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 07:31
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Also just a reminder that X2 had Wolverine slicing people left and right, there just wasn't any blood. Is it noticeable? Yes. Just like in Venom. I just think it's weird to be like "well I would have given this movie a better rating if I saw that guy's blood explode" This is missing the point. The level of violence doesn't make a film like Logan or Deadpool "better" than other superhero movies. The point is producing something unconventional is nowhere in Disney's filmmaking blueprints because doing so runs the risk of them not making the kind of money they've become accustomed to, especially in the superhero genre. Why would Disney ever consider producing an X-Men movie in the same vein as Deadpool or Logan (unconventional) when they can make an X-Men movie using their MCU formula (conventional) that statistics suggest will likely make them assloads more money instead? teagone fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
I felt like Deadpool 2 seemed pretty MCU-ish, certainly a step back from 1. I did not find those movies to be as unconventional as you, I guess. Deadpool 1 follows the traditional origin story formula. It would suck if they took out the cursing and blood for future movies but if its cleverly written I think I can overlook it. If the movie's good I won't miss it. I can't imagine saying something like "Well the plot and characters were good, but he didn't say gently caress so I can't recommend it". I've liked movies that didnt have blood or fucks in them, so there is a precedent Honestly I didn't really care for Logan, I dunno, I just didn't like it. I should probably watch it again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 08:01
|
|
|
People keep missing the point despite it getting explained. My goodness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 08:04
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Know what I love? McDonalds cheeseburgers. I also love big macs and sometimes I'll get some chicken nuggets. It's great when they are together too - rare occasions - but it works for the most part. I heard they are buying out Burger King, not a huge loss - I wonder how McDonalds will handle the whopper! Exciting to see what comes out. Away all Goats posted:It's a great analogy because McDonalds buying up BK doesn't wipe out other burger places. Go to In and Out. Go to to the Mom and Pop Diner on the corner. Disney doesn't hold a monopoly on comic book movies, much less all movies. I missed this, but that analogy isn't accurate because McDonald's buying out Burger King doesn't mean McDonald's has ~40% of the fast food industry under its control. I'm pretty sure the McDonald's Corporation would have to buy out several other massive fast food chains under their parent organizations to match that number. Either way, yes, Disney buying out Fox has little to no effect on me seeing a movie by like, Tarantino or Chris Nolan. The point being made is that, while the Disney/Fox merger isn't a legit monopoly, it's basically an oligopoly when the mouse has control of top-shelf franchises in mainstream media that accumulates roughly 40% of the box office market share. That's hosed when you take into consideration the point I've made with regards to Disney's risk averse attitude when it comes to producing content in order to ensure profits. That amount of corporate oversight in the media will likely stifle any kind of creativity which will inevitably lead to, as I've said earlier, the homogenization of pop culture and maaaan that's gonna suck. [edit] But at least you get to see Wolverine in the Avengers now, right? 
teagone fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 08:12
|
|
|
I mean I guess I should be mad that they own so much but I like their content, I'm kind of in a box here. I loved Infinity War, and I don't sympathize at all with the people that made X-Men Apocalypse, a movie I think is garbage. So are you guys gonna start boycotting Marvel/Disney stuff?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 08:25
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:So are you guys gonna start boycotting Marvel/Disney stuff? No, because believe it or not, I actually like most of the MCU movies. I just don't want other things I enjoy to also be like the MCU movies, because while yeah they have some good stories and character moments, they are also the cinematic equivalent of chicken nuggets: specially engineered to appeal to the masses, produced on the cheap for efficiency, and it keeps consumers coming back for more. I don't wanna eat nuggets all the time. There should always be room for something different. teagone fucked around with this message at 08:59 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 08:53
|
|
|
the goal of Disney's superhero (and animation and Star Wars etc etc etc) output is to maximize their audience for all of their films so they can maximize their money. Their goal is to have everyone go and watch all of their films so all of their films can make over a billion dollars. Disney doesn't do pictures aimed at particular audiences (they have stuff like Black Panther and Captain Marvel which are a little more focussed in one direction or the other but the goal is still audience maximization and making that billion, both of which succeeded), so it makes sense that movies like Deadpool and Logan, both of which were decidedly not aimed at audience maximization (by virtue of being rated R), might not ever enter production during Disney rule. Disney is not in the business of making risks. You look at their schedule of movies this year and the most risky film they have is Artemis Fowl, which is still an adaptation of a well-known YA book. All of their films threaten to make that billion dollars, and so they are not risky in any way. So, if more media output is owned by Disney, we're less likely to see risks. You could argue that the combination of increasing their output through the Fox studios and increasing their reach through their upcoming streaming service might encourage them to make more risks because they have different avenues of release and can target audiences more narrowly, but do you really think they're gonna do that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 09:28
|
|
|
I'm reminded of a conversation I was in recently about Electronic Arts and how they've gotten so bloated and so rote that their products are competing with each other, because they've narrowed the scope so much of what they consider to be a commercially viable product that they're reaching the point of only knowing how to make one thing. The MCU at least sidesteps that a bit by having their various products intended to compliment one another rather than compete, but they're still threatening to reach the point of oversaturation and stagnation that's the result of over-managing products, so afraid of failing to live up to ever-increasing expectations that it eventually becomes impossible to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 10:02
|
|
|
josh04 posted:Fascist Wayne is to Blame, indeed. *Facist
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 10:42
|
|
|
Disney's movie movie making business, if it doubles in size from the Fox merger, still won't be more profitable than their theme park business. Deadpool 3 is chump change compared to Deadpool Mountain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 10:42
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:*Facist *Fashist He is really really against how poor people dress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 10:47
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:*Fashist Just a facist. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 10:49
|
|
|
teagone posted:It's risky when you take box office assessment into consideration of how that hard-R rating can potentially affect profits. And Disney is all about profits. Generally that might be true but when it comes to X-Men films that gets flipped on its head. Deadpool got the highest box office out of all of Fox's 11 X-Men films and Logan performed way better than X-Men: Apocalypse and the other Wolverine solo movies and punched well above its weight if you compare its returns to its production budget. They may have looked like risks in the production stage (but calculated risks, Fox only gave Deadpool a production budget of $58 million) but in hindsight it's pretty clear that these days the R-rated X-Men films are a safer bet than the PG-13 X-Men films.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 11:14
|
|
|
I have no idea what to make of the Joker trailer. It looks like it has potential but also looks like it could be horrible. Thanks, that's my analysis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 12:00
|
|
|
Drowning Pool: Let the Deadpool hit the Pool
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 12:00
|
|
|
People complain about Disney having all the Marvel stuff, but no one complains about WB having all the DC stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 12:16
|
|
|
WB at least seems more confident to have some fun with it, like Batman meeting Scooby-Doo (again) and fighting the Mortal Kombat guys and the Ninja Turtles.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 12:25
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:Just a facist. that sign makes total sense in universe: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 12:28
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Wolverine and Spider-man being in the Avengers was considered dumb, pandering poo poo in the comics. It was for about five seconds until people realised that the comics were actually really good, and it helped revitalize a comic that had gotten super stale. Also, half the heroes in the Marvel universe have been in the Avengers, it was never meant to be the same six characters forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 12:31
|
|
|
teagone posted:No, because believe it or not, I actually like most of the MCU movies. I just don't want other things I enjoy to also be like the MCU movies, because while yeah they have some good stories and character moments, they are also the cinematic equivalent of chicken nuggets: specially engineered to appeal to the masses, produced on the cheap for efficiency, and it keeps consumers coming back for more. I don't wanna eat nuggets all the time. There should always be room for something different. Here's where I think we don't see eye to eye. I legitimately don't understand how you can curse Disney/Marvel for being a monopoly while simultaneously purchasing the products they make.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Here's where I think we don't see eye to eye. I legitimately don't understand how you can curse Disney/Marvel for being a monopoly while simultaneously purchasing the products they make. Some people want variety, but will go for the same thing over and over if that's all that's available.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 13:09
|
|
