My frustration with deadpool

[Fungal]

This is little bit of a rant here but I just want to hear peoples opinions on this.

Honestly I really liked deadpool in things like ultimate alliance 2 and i thought he was funny and all but his movie is completely different. I feel the plot is awful and all the humor is completely forced and trash. I don't even see how fourth wall breaking is funny to anyone, and I'm the kind of person who laughs my ass off movies like epic movie and the superhero movie (stephen hawking scene especially). I absolutely hate how people think that deadpool is such a great movie (when in reality it's garbage), but hate on other good movies like pacific rim, x-men apocalypse, the hobbit, and ant man. What gets me really mad tho is how people say deadpool is part of the x-men universe... yes there's the mansion and the worst adaptation of colossus but people should realize this is a cannon and not part of the x-men universe. If Fox was to add him into the universe it would be the stupidest decision they could ever make (worse than fantastic 4 reboot). The past 3 x-men movies have been great in so many ways and I think that the wolverine was a pretty solid movie. The X-men movies have great plots, character chemistry/development, acting, and they're just very emotional and entertaining. In First Class we get to see Eric and Charles childhood and we get to see why they really have their completely separate views on humans. In Days of Future Past they're not fighting some evil villain but they're fighting to get their existence in the future. In Apocalypse there's magneto and quicksilver's emotional story, and also the main characters are preventing someone from being pretty much being the all powerful ruler of the world. In deadpool it's just about ryan reynolds getting cancer, then being tortured and saved, then getting payback at the person who did that to him with a lot of dumb jokes in the process.  

[bobhays]

10 minutes ago, Fungal said:

snip

I somewhat agree. I don't think it was garbage but it most definitely wasn't as good as it was hyped up to be. I was actually quite disappointed because I thought it was going to be fantastic. This has been happening with a lot of movies recently. For example, while the performance in Revenant was good, the story didn't really have anything going on. It was slow placed, little action, just kind of boring to be honest.

 

Recently I just saw the Transporter and even though I caught some annoying inconsistencies I enjoyed it more than either of the others because at least there was some plot.

[Fungal]

1 minute ago, bobhays said:

I somewhat agree. I don't think it was garbage but it most definitely wasn't as good as it was hyped up to be. I was actually quite disappointed because I thought it was going to be fantastic. This has been happening with a lot of movies recently. For example, while the performance in Revenant was good, the story didn't really have anything going on. It was slow placed, little action, just kind of boring to be honest.

Yeah I agree with the revenant too. I had average expectations for it and it was an okay movie but it was just way too slow paced for me and I wouldn't really watch it again bc of that. 

[79wjd]

I don't know, but I really liked the Deadpool movie actually  

[Zodiark1593]

Deadpool, I did not take very seriously myself. The excessive 4th wall breaking being a very good reason. 

 

X-men Apocalypse I disliked as there was a lot of plot and character emphasis early on that later got tossed aside and devolved into killing a rather generic villain and an obvious Dues Ex Machina. Superman vs Batman was an even worse offender.

 

I preferred Deadpool and Suicide Squad over the above two as I can go into the movies and not expect anything serious out of it at all. The other movies, you take the plot seriously going in, only to have them rendered completely irrelevant toward the end thanks to Apocalypse /DC's Big Ugly. 

 

Dr. Strange, at least, kept a fairly narrow focus, as strange of a movie as it is. 

[Gale]

Deadpool was never meant to be this deep or clever film. It was just Ryan Reynolds' apology for the previous, garbage, incarnation of Deadpool. He wanted to make sure that, this time, Deadpool was done right, and it was. Regardless of the very basic plot, the film got tons of deserved praise because the source material was respected; it was a love letter to the fans. It turns out that fans really like when you respect what they like, who would have thought, right?

[malon]

Different people different tastes I would say. Personally can't stand xmen, avengers2 or many action hero movie that takes itself to serious but that is because I prefer not having to pay attention in movies like that

[dalekphalm]

10 hours ago, Fungal said:

This is little bit of a rant here but I just want to hear peoples opinions on this.

Honestly I really liked deadpool in things like ultimate alliance 2 and i thought he was funny and all but his movie is completely different. I feel the plot is awful and all the humor is completely forced and trash. I don't even see how fourth wall breaking is funny to anyone, and I'm the kind of person who laughs my ass off movies like epic movie and the superhero movie (stephen hawking scene especially). I absolutely hate how people think that deadpool is such a great movie (when in reality it's garbage), but hate on other good movies like pacific rim, x-men apocalypse, the hobbit, and ant man. What gets me really mad tho is how people say deadpool is part of the x-men universe... yes there's the mansion and the worst adaptation of colossus but people should realize this is a cannon and not part of the x-men universe. If Fox was to add him into the universe it would be the stupidest decision they could ever make (worse than fantastic 4 reboot). The past 3 x-men movies have been great in so many ways and I think that the wolverine was a pretty solid movie. The X-men movies have great plots, character chemistry/development, acting, and they're just very emotional and entertaining. In First Class we get to see Eric and Charles childhood and we get to see why they really have their completely separate views on humans. In Days of Future Past they're not fighting some evil villain but they're fighting to get their existence in the future. In Apocalypse there's magneto and quicksilver's emotional story, and also the main characters are preventing someone from being pretty much being the all powerful ruler of the world. In deadpool it's just about ryan reynolds getting cancer, then being tortured and saved, then getting payback at the person who did that to him with a lot of dumb jokes in the process.  

I very much enjoyed the Deadpool movie - it helped that I'm a Gen X'er, so I was keenly aware of all the little references in the movie to my childhood. While the plot wasn't anything special, it wasn't supposed to be anything special. The 4th wall breaking was done just right, in my opinion.

 

Colossus was a difficult character. They didn't have the budget to make him look much more impressive then he was, and they decided to change his character to bit a bit more like the comics (Colossus in the X-Men CU is just some young American teen, basically).

 

Whether you want to believe it or not, it IS X-Men CU Canon (Also, it's Canon, not Cannon - the first is something that's "legit" in-universe, the other is a big thing that goes bang). Now of course, X-Men CU Canon is fucked up right now anyway, so it really wouldn't matter much whether it was or was not, with the amount of different timelines going on.

 

Now, your claim that people hate "Pacific Rim, X-Men Apocalypse, The Hobbit, and Ant Man" is really absurd. Doubly so since you're mixing some very excellent films with some rather bland ones.

 

First off: Pacific Rim is amazing. It was well received by the Public, made boat loads of money, and did pretty well with the critics too. It's just the right combination of fucking stupid and fucking awesome to transcend into fucking amazing.

 

X-Men Apocalypse IS NOT a good movie. I wouldn't quite say it's a bad movie though. It's a movie that was almost kickass. It had some FANTASTIC scenes and character development, but the ending was a little flat.

 

The Hobbit was a Goddamn mess. Some parts of it was great, other parts were just way too fucking long and bloated. Unnecessary plot lines (Although contrary to popular opinion, I'm 100% on board with Orlando Bloom's Legolas being in the film - I mean, it makes perfect sense. Legolas as a character wasn't invented until after Tolkien wrote The Hobbit, and the Elf King is his Father - if he had wrote the Hobbit now, Legolas would have been in it).

 

Ant Man was another well received movie. I don't know anyone who hates it or thinks it's terrible. It's not perfect, certainly, but it's very refreshing and is overall a well balanced movie.

[Fungal]

9 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

First off: Pacific Rim is amazing. It was well received by the Public, made boat loads of money, and did pretty well with the critics too. It's just the right combination of fucking stupid and fucking awesome to transcend into fucking amazing.

 

I think the same but people just complain that there are way too many plot holes in it which to them makes it a bad movie, even tho there really aren't. People just ask why they don't nuke them or just use the op sword all the time. All of this is explained in the intro but i guess people just don't pay attention to that 

[Fungal]

9 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

The Hobbit was a Goddamn mess. Some parts of it was great, other parts were just way too fucking long and bloated. Unnecessary plot lines (Although contrary to popular opinion, I'm 100% on board with Orlando Bloom's Legolas being in the film - I mean, it makes perfect sense. Legolas as a character wasn't invented until after Tolkien wrote The Hobbit, and the Elf King is his Father - if he had wrote the Hobbit now, Legolas would have been in it).

 

As for the hobbit I thought they were good movies. I agree some things were unnecessary it was still a good movie. I never read any of the books but in my opinion I mostly prefer movies/shows to be based off their books but to add in a bit more and add some twists in it like how the walking dead does, but doesn't completely change the whole plot.

[dalekphalm]

4 hours ago, Fungal said:

I think the same but people just complain that there are way too many plot holes in it which to them makes it a bad movie, even tho there really aren't. People just ask why they don't nuke them or just use the op sword all the time. All of this is explained in the intro but i guess people just don't pay attention to that 

Indeed both of those "plot holes" were answered in the prologue. You can't nuke the portal, because it's being created and sustained from the other side, and the protective barrier would just deflect the blast. You can't nuke the Kaiju's because of collatoral damage. They DID nuke the first Kaiju I believe - and they basically levelled a US city (San fran? don't recall) in the process.

 

And the sword is risky because the Kaiju blood is extremely toxic to humans - this point they could have explained better in the movie though. It was only one quick off-handed comment that was easily missed. The Plasma weapons cauterize the wounds and prevent excessive bleeding, and concussive force (eg: punching, etc) can destroy internal organs without necessarily causing massive bleeding.

 

They did a prequel comic that explained all this stuff a lot better though.

 

The movie isn't a classic nor in the best of all time, but it's a damn good popcorn action flick that holds up surprisingly well to scrutiny.

 

4 hours ago, Fungal said:

As for the hobbit I thought they were good movies. I agree some things were unnecessary it was still a good movie. I never read any of the books but in my opinion I mostly prefer movies/shows to be based off their books but to add in a bit more and add some twists in it like how the walking dead does, but doesn't completely change the whole plot.

I suggest reading it. It's considered an "easy" read, and in my opinion is a better book compared to Lord of the Rings.

 

I personally like watching the movie first, then reading the book, when a film is based off of a novel. This allows me to fully enjoy the film without having preconceived notions about how characters should look or act, and then I can read the book after and enjoy the more in-depth nature of a novel.

[Yamoto42]

On 11/16/2016 at 1:07 AM, Gale said:

Deadpool was done right

This.  Very this.

 

23 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

The Hobbit was a Goddamn mess

Also very much this.

 

On 11/16/2016 at 0:43 AM, Zodiark1593 said:

 

Deadpool, I did not take very seriously myself.

 

If you take Deadpool seriously, you're gonna have a bad time.

[MrDynamicMan]

On 16/11/2016 at 8:07 AM, Gale said:

Deadpool was never meant to be this deep or clever film. It was just Ryan Reynolds' apology for the previous, garbage, incarnation of Deadpool. He wanted to make sure that, this time, Deadpool was done right, and it was. Regardless of the very basic plot, the film got tons of deserved praise because the source material was respected; it was a love letter to the fans. It turns out that fans really like when you respect what they like, who would have thought, right?

^^^^

This. Deadpool is meant, more than anything, to be a no holds bar superhero comedy. Sure, plot and character isn't as good, but it isn't supposed to be. It's like comparing pizza and pasta. Same ingredients, but executed differently. Both appealing, but in different ways.