Deadpool and Marvel have officially defeated DC, Christopher Nolan and Oppenheimer in one fell swoop

[kobeunderbite]

As I predicted a year ago, every record Oppenheimer set in the Rated-R category now belongs to Marvel and Deadpool. Marvel has completely wiped it from the record books - gone forever.

Spoiler:

FWIW didn't love it, Ryan Reynolds is just nowhere near as funny as he thinks he is and the gratuitous fighting is about 10 years past its time. With that being said the Fox superhero nostalgia played nicely, Chris Evans was a great surprise, nice little sendoff for Blade too, Tatum finally getting to do his Gambit bit. Basically everything about it was good except for Deadpool's potty jokes. But this movie is so successful that we're getting more Deadpool guaranteed. They will obviously pay off that scene they set up with Thor in Secret Wars. Wouldn't surprise me if we get more Jackman too and sooner rather than later.

Is Marvel back? Too soon to tell, but probably not. They have more of a chance than Star Wars because they fired a ton of the woke staff but the next releases, Captain America [Black] and Thunderbolts, look awful.

They badly need the Downey Dr. Doom angle to work, most likely he is a doom bot/red herring for the real doom who will be a surprise, which if done well can work. But if the next Avengers movies don't work it will be time for a hard reset. As Deadpool has underlined these movies are just way too reliant on cameos and crossovers and they are doubling, tripling and quadrupling down. At some point you just need to make a good movie.

[elartman1973]

Only a child obsessed obver such things

[kobeunderbite]

Only a child obsessed obver such things

You're out of touch, and almost out of time

[AtiliusRegulus]

Artman why didn’t you choose a career as a Hollywood set designer?

[Bush4Ever.]

I am a very casual viewer and knower of things Marvel, but it's kind of weird to me how much time and energy they seem to devote to C-level characters and stories, when the comics seem to have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to ultra-powerful characters and developed stories.

I know they can't go "Dragon Ball Z ultimate power level" on everything, but it seems like they are leaving stuff on the table. It also seems like the movies really nerf a lot of the characters with respect to the comics.

[kobeunderbite]

I am a very casual viewer and knower of things Marvel, but it's kind of weird to me how much time and energy they seem to devote to C-level characters and stories, when the comics seem to have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to ultra-powerful characters and developed stories.

I know they can't go "Dragon Ball Z ultimate power level" on everything, but it seems like they are leaving stuff on the table. It also seems like the movies really nerf a lot of the characters with respect to the comics.

Who do you believe is neglected specifically?

-There is a (as of yet unknown) plan to reintegrate the X-Men/FF and their associated characters (in spite of this pause, here we have Wolverine)
-Spider-Man is milked like crazy
-Iron Man, Thor and Captain America all need a breather

Deadpool has worked his way into B+ tier, as have the Guardians of the Galaxy. I think what you see with Marvel focusing on lesser properties recently is one part wokeness and one part an attempt to elevate lesser properties like Deadpool/GotG into household names and genuine brands which adds a ton of value when achieved. Although this attempt failed absolutely spectacularly in the cases of "Shang Chi," Captain Marvel, Eternals, etc.

The most powerful characters can be difficult to translate to the movies which we saw issues with in Captain Marvel and even historically with Superman, it's hard to give them real stakes or make them feel genuinely under threat.

[AlaskaHawks]

I remarked to my wife yesterday how we haven't been to the theater in over 5 years. Haven't seen any trailer that got my interest in that long. Deadpool and wolverine combined as a movie seems super weird but good for them I suppose.

[kobeunderbite]

Deadpool & Wolverine had a nice little homage in the end credits where it was a montage of all of the Fox superhero movies (starting with the first X-Men in the year 2000, or maybe there was some Blade in there, too) with behind the scenes stuff set to "Time of Your Life." This whole movie was a kind of love note to those movies and an official end of the era. Definitely hit home for me, I wouldn't call X-Men 2000 a core memory but that was definitely a watershed experience in terms of moviegoing for myself and many others.

A true cinema core memory would probably be Spider-Man 1, as I was more of a Spider-Man guy as a kid, and that movie had added post-9/11 significance, like Fellowship of the Ring.

[CleveTown™]

oppenheimer was so overrated

[kobeunderbite]

oppenheimer was so overrated

A lot of people pretend to like "Oppenheimer" because it's a dense, dialogue-heavy film that deals with historical themes. They believe that by showing appreciation for it, they can appear more intellectual or cultured. We've certainly witnessed our fair share of this on our humble message board.

[AlaskaHawks]

oppenheimer was so overrated

A lot of people pretend to like "Oppenheimer" because it's a dense, dialogue-heavy film that deals with historical themes. They believe that by showing appreciation for it, they can appear more intellectual or cultured. We've certainly witnessed our fair share of this on our humble message board.

Just curious, is supporting cartoon movies "cultured"? We see a lot of that here as well.

[kobeunderbite]

oppenheimer was so overrated

A lot of people pretend to like "Oppenheimer" because it's a dense, dialogue-heavy film that deals with historical themes. They believe that by showing appreciation for it, they can appear more intellectual or cultured. We've certainly witnessed our fair share of this on our humble message board.

Just curious, is supporting cartoon movies "cultured"? We see a lot of that here as well.

Absolutely it is. Anime and cartoons are a rich genre brimming with intrigue and layers of depth the likes of which 'Oppenheimer' never approaches. However I don't understand anime's relevance in the context of a conversation about a superhero movie overtaking 'Oppenheimer.'

[rileymartin]

I am no connoisseur of movies, and my superhero movie experience is pretty much limited to the Christopher Reeves Superman movies.
But, my question is, how much of the success is attributed to the actor himself. For instance, you guys talk as if Deadpool is a trivial character in the grand scheme of things, but maybe the success is simply because of Ryan Reynolds…I have seen a few of his movies that i feel like normally would be pretty gay, but I ended up liking them because he was a compelling character for the role he played…

[kobeunderbite]

I am no connoisseur of movies, and my superhero movie experience is pretty much limited to the Christopher Reeves Superman movies.
But, my question is, how much of the success is attributed to the actor himself. For instance, you guys talk as if Deadpool is a trivial character in the grand scheme of things, but maybe the success is simply because of Ryan Reynolds…I have seen a few of his movies that i feel like normally would be pretty gay, but I ended up liking them because he was a compelling character for the role he played…

That's not really a thing anymore, outside of very specific instances, like Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible. There has been a gradual shift from individual actors being the central draw for films to a focus on franchises, brands, and intellectual properties. Historically, Hollywood movie stars could drive a film's success, however in recent years, the industry has increasingly relied on well-known brands, franchise universes (like Marvel or Star Wars), and high-concept blockbusters to attract audiences. This shift has massively diminished the prominence of individual actors. There is a lot of literature on this including acknowledgement of the Pitt/DiCaprio/Cruise generation as the last of a dying breed.

This specific case is not dissimilar to Downey as Iron Man. Ryan Reynolds deserves a lot of credit for bringing Deadpool to life in a mainstream sense, but if it was Chris Pratt or even Glenn Howerton in the Deadpool costume from the start, the franchise would be more or less the same.

[rileymartin]

So then you feel that any experienced actor could enjoy the same success?
Again, I don’t watch a ton of movies, but it still feels like the big name actors are still the draw…But then again , maybe you alluded to that with your dying breed reference. So then the next step is, movie studios won’t be shelling out stupid money for big names anymore?

[kobeunderbite]

So then you feel that any experienced actor could enjoy the same success?
Again, I don’t watch a ton of movies, but it still feels like the big name actors are still the draw…But then again , maybe you alluded to that with your dying breed reference. So then the next step is, movie studios won’t be shelling out stupid money for big names anymore?

Once a guy like Ryan Reynolds or Robert Downey is typecast as Deadpool or Iron Man, they do get the huge money, because that's who the audiences expect to see. Especially with these movies which have rolling and interconnected stories and plots, it would be very challenging and confusing to recast on the fly. This is why Marvel and Star Wars now lock young actors in with 7+ movie deals, so the costs don't scale too exorbitantly. Downey Jr. will reportedly get over $100 million to return as Doctor Doom.

My point is more so that Iron Man 1 or Deadpool 1 would have gone just fine with a dozen or more other guys in the suits. The main actor has basically never made or killed a superhero movie, unless we're counting "Joker" which was most certainly made by Phoenix's performance. People are going to see the brand, not the actors.

[rileymartin]

So then you feel that any experienced actor could enjoy the same success?
Again, I don’t watch a ton of movies, but it still feels like the big name actors are still the draw…But then again , maybe you alluded to that with your dying breed reference. So then the next step is, movie studios won’t be shelling out stupid money for big names anymore?

Once a guy like Ryan Reynolds or Robert Downey is typecast as Deadpool or Iron Man, they do get the huge money, because that's who the audiences expect to see. Especially with these movies which have rolling and interconnected stories and plots, it would be very challenging and confusing to recast on the fly. This is why Marvel and Star Wars now lock young actors in with 7+ movie deals, so the costs don't scale too exorbitantly. Downey Jr. will reportedly get over $100 million to return as Doctor Doom.

My point is more so that Iron Man 1 or Deadpool 1 would have gone just fine with a dozen or more other guys in the suits. The main actor has basically never made or killed a superhero movie, unless we're counting "Joker" which was most certainly made by Phoenix's performance. People are going to see the brand, not the actors.

Fair enough…Sounds like a major shift in the industry.

Do you think that this shift has opened the door for television and streaming services. We see big name actors in these formats now, and the movie industry is inadvertently fueling it?

[Robceltsfan]

I am no connoisseur of movies, and my superhero movie experience is pretty much limited to the Christopher Reeves Superman movies.
But, my question is, how much of the success is attributed to the actor himself. For instance, you guys talk as if Deadpool is a trivial character in the grand scheme of things, but maybe the success is simply because of Ryan Reynolds…I have seen a few of his movies that i feel like normally would be pretty gay, but I ended up liking them because he was a compelling character for the role he played…

The Ryan Reynolds theory was disproven in Green Lantern.

[kobeunderbite]

So then you feel that any experienced actor could enjoy the same success?
Again, I don’t watch a ton of movies, but it still feels like the big name actors are still the draw…But then again , maybe you alluded to that with your dying breed reference. So then the next step is, movie studios won’t be shelling out stupid money for big names anymore?

Once a guy like Ryan Reynolds or Robert Downey is typecast as Deadpool or Iron Man, they do get the huge money, because that's who the audiences expect to see. Especially with these movies which have rolling and interconnected stories and plots, it would be very challenging and confusing to recast on the fly. This is why Marvel and Star Wars now lock young actors in with 7+ movie deals, so the costs don't scale too exorbitantly. Downey Jr. will reportedly get over $100 million to return as Doctor Doom.

My point is more so that Iron Man 1 or Deadpool 1 would have gone just fine with a dozen or more other guys in the suits. The main actor has basically never made or killed a superhero movie, unless we're counting "Joker" which was most certainly made by Phoenix's performance. People are going to see the brand, not the actors.

Fair enough…Sounds like a major shift in the industry.

Do you think that this shift has opened the door for television and streaming services. We see big name actors in these formats now, and the movie industry is inadvertently fueling it?

Yes I think the movie industry's decline, driven by changing viewer habits and the convenience of home entertainment, pushed audiences toward streaming services. In turn, the accessibility of streaming further pulled people away from theaters. It seems each trend reinforces the other. And streaming services now generate the kind of revenue where they can easily pay A-list talent to work with them, deepening the cycle.

There is still a need for movie theaters but mid range or moderately successful movies are pretty dead, it's all or nothing now with franchise blockbusters or indies.

[zombiesonics]

Already dethroned. Oppenheimer wins.