17
Why ‘Deadpool & Wolverine’ Is the Year’s Most Depressing Success Story (variety.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/movies@lemm.ee
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For all its self-deprecating quippery, the crossover superhero smash represents corporate brand synergy at its most ruthless

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 33 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I think the real shade should be thrown at all of the other terrible sequels and spinoffs that we keep seeing. This one was lucky because it was two beloved characters acted by two people who basically got to make the movie they wanted and were actually given the money to do so.

Give the unique stories a shot, the risky ones, and we'd probably be seeing much better movies, but they're too terrified of doing that

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Can you imagine if a studio made twenty films costing 30 million dollars each, instead of one film costing 600 million......

    They might even get lucky and start a new IP franchise, they could take creative risks!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Vince Vaughn shared an interesting take related to this in his Interview on Hot Ones today. He mentioned how creative directors like John Hughes made movies about people and life events that were universally relatable, instead of worrying about making movies based on IPs or that would launch a franchise. I've heard and read many ppl talk about Hollywood's current reluctance to make smaller budget movies, instead preferring mega blockbusters, but it was refreshing to think back to beloved movies like The Breakfast Club or Pretty In Pink and to realize movies like them can be successful because they have compelling characters and emotionally-evocative storytelling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Interesting take, especially considering the movies he's chosen to make.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    Hard to say no to a paycheck. And it’s not his fault that the only comedies getting greenlit these days seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel. To be fair he was in Rudy and Swingers. So he has been in some respectable movies in the past when Hollywood was willing to take risks. When you’re beholden to your shareholders you have to continue to demonstrate growth and why risk it on a $5m movie that people may not care about when you can mass market an already successful IP that you know people will go see, because they say the first 3.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent