The 'workshop' as Francis called it used torture to coax a mutant reaction out of people, if the reaction was desirable they would be subdued with a collar and sold to the highest bidder. There was no big baddie with an agenda, it was just a bunch of mutants dealing in designer slavery.

I'm sorry you were put off by the language but I for many found it refreshing that at least one of over a dozen Marvel movies tried to set itself in our recognisable world full of flawed adults and not the Christian-friendly dimension where Iron Man and Bumble Bee live :)

@krashd said:

The 'workshop' as Francis called it used torture to coax a mutant reaction out of people, if the reaction was desirable they would be subdued with a collar and sold to the highest bidder. There was no big baddie with an agenda, it was just a bunch of mutants dealing in designer slavery.

Ah. Ok. Original, I suppose, though hardly compelling (to me, anyway).

I'm sorry you were put off by the language but I for many found it refreshing that at least one of over a dozen Marvel movies tried to set itself in our recognisable world full of flawed adults and not the Christian-friendly dimension where Iron Man and Bumble Bee live :)

I don't particularly have a problem with foul language. Pulp Fiction is among my favourite movies all time, and Casino/Goodfellas are also up there. These three movies alone may account for 45% of all curse dialog in the history of film.

I just found the swearing in Deadpool had no, I dunno, craft. It seemed like they were aware that they were bucking comic movie status quo and got carried away.

it was an ok movie for young teens who want to be "edgy" so to speak... i get the appeal...

what i dont understand is the critics and commentators reacting like it is some form of transgressive filmmaking...

I just wish they took it further... something like the original Robocop movie for example... actually satirical, with real voilence and memorable dialogue "I'd buy that for a dollar"!

I thought it was entertaining enough.

Yeah, the movie does act like it was the first to break the 4th wall, I'm guessing the director had never seen a Mel Brooks movie. Hell, it wasn't even the first Marvel-universe movie to do it, Howard the Duck did it in 1986.

Yeah, I keep wondering if Wilson had some kind of an anxiety issue, because he simply would not shut up! He just had this continuous flow of words coming from him, and yes, some of them were profane. It was amusing enough, but didn't add anything.

@krashd said:

Yeah, the movie does act like it was the first to break the 4th wall, I'm guessing the director had never seen a Mel Brooks movie. Hell, it wasn't even the first Marvel-universe movie to do it, Howard the Duck did it in 1986.

I preferred Howard. I lasted 20 mins on this one before bailing.

Deadpool certainly made a crap ton of money - and that, unfortunately, may be all the producers are concerned about.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Deadpool certainly made a crap ton of money - and that, unfortunately, may be all the producers are concerned about.

The film had a very well known production history and was stuck in development hell for an extremely long time. This was the case because Fox didn't want to make it, had no idea what to do with it and thought it would be box office poison.

They only made it because director Tim Miller and Ryan Reynolds made test footage that was strategically "leaked". The public went mental for it so the studio greenlit the film with a tiny budget and creative control in the hands of the filmmakers. They basically said "We don't have a clue about this, go away and do what you want." They clearly did not expect it to make money at all. They allowed for an R rating during a time when R ratings were box office poison.

Like it or hate it, Deadpool is a fantastic achievement in getting a film audiences actually want out of a studio deluded into pouring money into sanitized films it thinks people want. The fact that it looks so expensive is a stunning achievement given the budget. It's true to the source material and is well loved precisely because it bucked studio trends.

You're statement, the way you intend it, rings true 99% of the time. But Deadpool is one of the last films it is applicable to. A film that audiences and the creative team had to fight to get made.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Deadpool certainly made a crap ton of money - and that, unfortunately, may be all the producers are concerned about.

The film had a very well known production history and was stuck in development hell for an extremely long time. This was the case because Fox didn't want to make it, had no idea what to do with it and thought it would be box office poison.

They only made it because director Tim Miller and Ryan Reynolds made test footage that was strategically "leaked". The public went mental for it so the studio greenlit the film with a tiny budget and creative control in the hands of the filmmakers. They basically said "We don't have a clue about this, go away and do what you want." They clearly did not expect it to make money at all. They allowed for an R rating during a time when R ratings were box office poison.

Like it or hate it, Deadpool is a fantastic achievement in getting a film audiences actually want out of a studio deluded into pouring money into sanitized films it thinks people want. The fact that it looks so expensive is a stunning achievement given the budget. It's true to the source material and is well loved precisely because it bucked studio trends.

You're statement, the way you intend it, rings true 99% of the time. But Deadpool is one of the last films it is applicable to. A film that audiences and the creative team had to fight to get made.

Insider insight, I dig it. Cool!

When it comes to the business side of movies:

• a lot of great movies did not make a lot of money

• a lot of not-so-great movies made lots of money

• art challenges audiences before they knew they wanted to be challenged, so "giving audiences what they want" is less likely to be art and more likely to be just entertainment, which isn't wrong, just a difference about which people should be aware.

As for Ryan Reynolds, I'm not a fan of his shtick. I've seen him actually act, though, and wish he'd do that more often than trying to be the funny guy all the time - especially since I don't find him funny.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Ok, so, this Marvel movie has swearing in it. Terrific. Does it really add substantially to the story? To be honest, it got annoying almost to distraction real fast.

Yes, it lent an air of realism since there are people who actually talk like that, and somehow find that it's impossible to speak a sentence without peppering every couple of words with an expletive.

But that alone doesn't make the story itself anything more than it is. And what it is, is...I'm not even sure.

I think I missed what the motive was for taking people with a terminal illness and doing what they did to them. Where they got their funding? Etc. I suppose I should attempt to watch it again and try to pay closer attention, but I'll have to dig down deep to decide the effort would be worthwhile.

It is just stupid, that's all... no, it is a pile of trash... what a horrible piece of work