Deadpool Two: Spoilers - No Time Traveling back from this

[Razade]

Didn't see a thread so figured I'd kick things off.


Honestly...really happy with the movie. The story was kinda all over the place and the pacing felt off in places but the humor and the violence was there, the fourth wall breaks and references were there and that's what I wanted out of the movie. Some minor gripes.

Russel and Juggernaught were a good pair, I just wish we got to them a little earlier. The first half of the movie felt a little too long and Russel just kinda came out looking like a little snot. Especially with the douche-y gangster talk. It sounds especially douchey with a New Zealand accent for some reason and even by the end of the movie where we get Russel back to the good side I sorta wanted to punch him in the face.

A small chunk of the movie is set up around forming the X-Force, and it's cute and fun and I love how the whole set up was literally to just kill all of them off in the most graphic and hilarious manner but a part of me wish it was just a little shorter. The twist that Vanisher was Brad Pitt was excellent as was the whole sequence with the X-Force. Domino made it all worth it. Which I guess brings us to the good.

The action was on point and Cable was played well. It's a little weird that it's not brought up that he's Cyclops's son but it really doesn't effect the movie. It was cute that Negasonic has herself a girlfriend and overall the whole movie seems...well and truly trying to hit all points. I sorta missed Negasonic (and her lady) in the movie, they're out for most of it but when they show up they're pretty awesome. Juggernauts "death" was awesome and they had a killer Latin-esque chant going as he beat the crap out of everyone that is well worth the watch and price of admission alone.

Domino was the star of the show though and if they could figure out a way to use her powers to propel an entire movie I'd watch it twice. Seriously strong acting chops on the lady, great comedic timing and just overall a joy to see her on the screen. All the "good luck" cinematography they do for her power was top notch and like the character herself, made the movie so damn good.

All in all, I'd say it was better than the first Deadpool by a slim margin. A sold A-.

[GloatingSwine]

Yeah, went to see it last night and I agree on basically all points.

X-Force themselves were gold, especially Shatterstar being basically a joke about everything Rob Liefeld was in the '90s.

And Domino was winning all over the place. It's no wonder the test audiences' response was basically "Put in more Cable and Domino".

A stronger story than the first one, even if some of the novelty is gone because it's mostly more of the same stuff.

[Ranxerox]

Courtesy announcement: There are mid-credit scenes and they are hilarious, but their is no end credit scene. So you needed wait past the names of grips, stunt people, and animators in order to see one more joke. There isn't one.

[ben-zayb]

So... either a lot of jokes flew over my head or there are just a bit less zingers this time around. That said, more of the jokes landed for me than DP1's did.

We got more shots fired this time, metaphorically and literally. The writers really didn't hold back and gave us more of what we got a taste of the first time: Reynold's career, MCU, DCEU, and X-verse! Poor Hawkeye. And, jeez, that Origins in the mid-credit scene was so cathartic, and was probably what a lot of us wished to see back in 2016. It wouldn't make sense 2 years ago to be part of canon, so I'm glad they were able to arguably incorporate the joke in the actual X-verse continuity.

Domino owned the best scenes in this movie, and the Final Destination thing really worked to showcase her powers. She should definitely carry her own title movie.

Cable had the best action scenes IMO, although I may have expected a little bit more from the fight scenes in general considering Leitch is "one of the guys who killed John Wick's dog".

Speaking of the intro... The sequel easily outdid the original. And here I was worried if how DP2's intro could match the first one without being too derivative or repetitive. Celine Dion's Ashes was great both in the official music video and in this intro.

As for the X-Force, this is a hilarious way to prepare us for a future X-Force film without the added burden of crammed 5+ character introductions a la X-men. Not even a Hawkeye treatment here! We got Domino, Cable, and Firefist well at the forefront of the movie, instead of being absolute backdrop for Deadpool. Bam! You got a team!

If I were to just make one complain, is that Juggs is wasted here, again. Come on, DP! You said you loved the dude and here's what we got? Love the beefed-up CGI more fitting of the Juggernaut moniker than what we got more than a decade ago, but still...

Lastly, not really a complain and I know it's supposed to not be taken seriously, but IMO DP1 being a "romantic movie" worked better than DP2 did being a "family movie". The emotional core of the relationships between Russel/Wade, Ness/Wade, and even Al/Wade worked, but the rest (e.g. Wade/Cable, Wade/CGI-Colossus, Wade/NSTW, Wade/Domino) didn't IMO.

I'm easy to please. This is an A+ for me. Not really an Oscar-worthy piece (but hey, maybe Golden Globes 2019?), however IMO it worked on what it's supposed to do. I'd definitely go for a second viewing.

[Zalabim]

Courtesy announcement: There are mid-credit scenes and they are hilarious, but their is no end credit scene. So you needed wait past the names of grips, stunt people, and animators in order to see one more joke. There isn't one.

It's not a scene, since there's nothing to see, but they do play that one song again, distraction-free this time. That's worth the price of admission on its own, IMO. It's at least worth waiting for.

[chainer1216]

Courtesy announcement: There are mid-credit scenes and they are hilarious, but their is no end credit scene. So you needed wait past the names of grips, stunt people, and animators in order to see one more joke. There isn't one.

though there IS an amazing parody song at the end of the credits.

also i loved shatterstar, i wasn't expecting him to make such a splash.

[Starbuck_II]

Juggernauts "death" was awesome and they had a killer Latin-esque chant going as he beat the crap out of everyone that is well worth the watch and price of admission alone.




He climbs out of the pool at the end.

I guessed Mr. Jugg when I heard his voice. I love his lines, ' "Beep" stuff up is my legal middle name'.

[AliceLost]

I was so frustrated with how quickly Vanessa was shoved in a fridge, which the opening credits acknowledged an awareness of, but the film did nothing to redeem its use of one of the most blatant and by the numbers fridges I have ever seen.
The film wouldn't even let me try to move past it, insisting on reminding us every 15 minutes that Vanessa died so that Wade would have some loosely defined reason to participate in this plot, and then doubling down with Cable's wife and daughter. (Not that that stopped him from abandoning them as soon as they were no longer important to the plot)

Wade and Vanessa have genuinely one of the most interesting relationships and I was looking forward to more scenes of them being functionally dysfunctional together. It was a big disappointment, and not the Green Lantern reference the writers intended to make, I think.

[GloatingSwine]

He climbs out of the pool at the end.

I guessed Mr. Jugg when I heard his voice. I love his lines, ' "Beep" stuff up is my legal middle name'.

It was 50/50 whether it would be Juggy or Sabertooth in the box. Was happy to see an actual size Juggernaut though.

[Kato]

Yeah, I'm really, really happy with the movie. It was basically what I was hoping for and then some.

I'll agree on Mrs Baccarin being sadly underused.. But (!) I think it's a nice nod to Wade's relationship with Death without bringing her in as a character. Wade has someone waiting for him beyond, someone he wants to be with, but it's not time yet.

Also, the nerdier part of me is a bit troubled by some other changes from the comic.. Like Nate apparently not effing with the time-line to stop the apocalypse but his family. Which is fine and ties better to Wade's story but it feels off.
Also.. The Jugg is apparently (still) a mutant in the movie universe? Or at least in mutant prison. Fine.


Otherwise.. I loved it. Domino absolutely stole her scenes, Russel might have been a little too bratty but maybe that was intentional.. The humor was great, the action was good, the mid credit scene got me so bad I couldn't stop laughing..
Okay if I list everything good I'll be here until Monday.

[Some Android]

I has a question: this is a Disney film right? I know Disney bought most of Fox which owned Deadpool and X-Men, and I just want to know for sure if I am right in saying this is Disney's first R rated film.

[Dorath]

I has a question: this is a Disney film right? I know Disney bought most of Fox which owned Deadpool and X-Men, and I just want to know for sure if I am right in saying this is Disney's first R rated film.

The Disney buyout has yet to clear FCC approval, this is all FOX.

[Razade]

He climbs out of the pool at the end.

I guessed Mr. Jugg when I heard his voice. I love his lines, ' "Beep" stuff up is my legal middle name'.

Notice I put air quotes around death. As in, he didn't actually die. Context clues, important stuff.

[Some Android]

The Disney buyout has yet to clear FCC approval, this is all FOX.

Okay. Just asking. Sequel looks great. I loved the first film and can't wait to see this one.

[Dragonus45]

There are very few things in the world that satisfied me more then watching Shatterstar get vaporized by a helicopter rotor.

[Tvtyrant]

The entire collapse of his X-force from trying to land was the very best part of the movie. It caught me so very by surprise because the trailers spoiled none of it (except Mr. Pool hitting the billboard.)

[Zevox]

Saw it, enjoyed it.

Have to say, I thought they might actually kill him off at the end there. Figured maybe Ryan Reynolds had seen how the other Marvel films are never-ending and decided two was enough of this for him, and that Deadpool actually dying and getting to be with Vanessa would be an appropriate end.

Oh well, I won't say no if we get more of these. They may not be the most fantastic things ever made, but damn if they're not fun.

[Traab]

So it knocked infinity war off the number 1 spot with something like 125 million opening weekend. No clue how that will mesh with the han solo film coming out next week I think? But still, not bad at all for a rated r superhero film. I still like the discussion i got into with someone when I talked about how so many film universes tend to have no real end to them, producers just stop making them, but I was really hoping they make the last marvel film "Deadpool Kills The Marvel Universe." Give it a nice hard R rating, and just let ryan renolds go to town wiping out the franchise as a way to mark "Done!" on the setting. I guarantee you it will make a massive profit and be an excellent swan song for the universe when it eventually starts to die out.

[Lacuna Caster]

I was so frustrated with how quickly Vanessa was shoved in a fridge, which the opening credits acknowledged an awareness of, but the film did nothing to redeem its use of one of the most blatant and by the numbers fridges I have ever seen.
I was rather annoyed on that score too, but to be fair she is un-fridged by the end.


...then doubling down with Cable's wife and daughter. (Not that that stopped him from abandoning them as soon as they were no longer important to the plot)
Technically, that was to save Deadpool, though... if the latter has the ability to monkey around with the timestream indefinitely now I guess it's not clear why Cable couldn't just go home?

[Pex]

I know, I know, it's Deadpool, but how Juggernaut finally got it in the end (yes, pun intended) wasn't necessary nor funny. It's proves more and more that the movie "Idiocracy" was a documentary vis-a-vis its movie within the movie.

Am I being prudish? Maybe, but that scene did not work for me. Deadpool being flamboyant was fine, including his lower half regeneration scene. I accept it as being the character. Juggernaut's booty call was not called for.

[Zevox]

I know, I know, it's Deadpool, but how Juggernaut finally got it in the end (yes, pun intended) wasn't necessary nor funny. It's proves more and more that the movie "Idiocracy" was a documentary vis-a-vis its movie within the movie.

Am I being prudish? Maybe, but that scene did not work for me. Deadpool being flamboyant was fine, including his lower half regeneration scene. I accept it as being the character. Juggernaut's booty call was not called for.
To be fair, I kind of agree, I didn't find that particular part to be funny like it was clearly meant to be.
Also can't help thinking that he should just get right back up from that, since IIRC his superpower is literally being physically invincible, and you genuinely need a telepath who can hit him in the mind to stop him. (Kind of thought that was going to turn out to be that Yukio girl's power, but I guess not.)

[Traab]

To be fair, I kind of agree, I didn't find that particular part to be funny like it was clearly meant to be.
Also can't help thinking that he should just get right back up from that, since IIRC his superpower is literally being physically invincible, and you genuinely need a telepath who can hit him in the mind to stop him. (Kind of thought that was going to turn out to be that Yukio girl's power, but I guess not.)

His power is being literally unstoppable while in motion. He can be hurt by a strong enough shot while still, but he will plow through anything in his path while in motion. Its kind of like that one guy cannonball. When flying he is protected by a shield. But in juggys case, he is already seriously durable and strong, it just gets magnified to "unstoppable force" while in motion. The only time he has ever been halted in his tracks was by hulk when he was War and boosted by celestial tech.

[Olinser]

I was highly entertained. Sure occasionally some jokes fell flat but I the vast majority of them hit for me. Realizing Vanisher was actually played by Brad Pitt was AMAZING.

The only really bad part of the movie was Russell. He was such a whiny, arrogant little bastard through the whole movie that I just quite frankly didn't care whether Cable put a bullet in him or not. The backstory was OK, but then the orphanage director was just so BAD of a character (seriously he may have been twirling a giant Evil Mustache while he screamed his ridiculous lines) and Russell was just so thoroughly unlikeable an individual I just didn't care whether he lived or died.

Loved to see Juggernaut finally done decently on screen, although his appearance was way too short for my taste.

Despite Russell's douchebaggery, I'd still highly recommend the movie, it was as good as the first one.

[Elder Tsofu]

I quite liked Russel as a character. He was unlikable but felt quite realistic in his own way. He'd been obviously tortured as a kid, is physically unattractive, a teenager and possesses flamboyant tools to seek "justice". He is also sent to a prison where he is powerless like he'd been before getting who know what treatment from the guards and inmates (after being abandoned by Deadpool). The gangster angle seemed fitting too, there is a lure for people to such groups - but as he was a kid he was just fixated on the idea without knowing what he was really talking about.
That he is also an obvious wanna-be school shooter is also a nice touch for the time we live in, with competing solutions to end the danger (or possibly delay the danger).

[Kato]

I know, I know, it's Deadpool, but how Juggernaut finally got it in the end (yes, pun intended) wasn't necessary nor funny. It's proves more and more that the movie "Idiocracy" was a documentary vis-a-vis its movie within the movie.

Am I being prudish? Maybe, but that scene did not work for me. Deadpool being flamboyant was fine, including his lower half regeneration scene. I accept it as being the character. Juggernaut's booty call was not called for.

Okay, I'll agree with the Juggernaut ending being a bit too dumb for even DP's level of humour. But... I hate it when people even as a joke take this stupid movie serious :smallannoyed: idiocrazy might be entertaining on its own but the number of people who think "oh yeah, that's totally what is happening" is driving me crazy. So please.. Just don't. Considering other scenes in the movie, this is certainly not that much worse. So if you have an issue with "dumb humour", I'm afraid you'll have to complain about plenty other bits.

OK, derailment over. I guess the problem with juggernaut is, like with many other super heroes, his top feats are just way beyond what he should be able to do in a movie. The same goes for anyone else, really (which is why I don't like a huge part of the actual comics) Having him be just another strong, durable guy might be generic, but I think it's way better than him being literally unstoppable.

[Razade]

I know, I know, it's Deadpool, but how Juggernaut finally got it in the end (yes, pun intended) wasn't necessary nor funny. It's proves more and more that the movie "Idiocracy" was a documentary vis-a-vis its movie within the movie.

Am I being prudish? Maybe, but that scene did not work for me. Deadpool being flamboyant was fine, including his lower half regeneration scene. I accept it as being the character. Juggernaut's booty call was not called for.

Yes. You're being prudish.

[Pex]

Okay, I'll agree with the Juggernaut ending being a bit too dumb for even DP's level of humour. But... I hate it when people even as a joke take this stupid movie serious :smallannoyed: idiocrazy might be entertaining on its own but the number of people who think "oh yeah, that's totally what is happening" is driving me crazy. So please.. Just don't. Considering other scenes in the movie, this is certainly not that much worse. So if you have an issue with "dumb humour", I'm afraid you'll have to complain about plenty other bits.

OK, derailment over. I guess the problem with juggernaut is, like with many other super heroes, his top feats are just way beyond what he should be able to do in a movie. The same goes for anyone else, really (which is why I don't like a huge part of the actual comics) Having him be just another strong, durable guy might be generic, but I think it's way better than him being literally unstoppable.

Deadpool is hardly the only offender. I went to see the movie, so I'm not so innocent in the matter either. Idiocracy being a documentary is more than just from this one movie, and it's also from other things that go beyond the movie and scope of this thread or forum.

It was also just a joke. If you don't think it funny that won't stop me from making it.


Yes. You're being prudish.

Blue Text
https://s26.postimg.cc/ec1375ji1/image4.jpg
Blue Text

Anyway, I wonder if Acid Spit guy is an injoke for "Sky High" which had its own Acid Spit guy for a brief scene. Could be just coincidence for acid spit being an easy power to think of.

[LaZodiac]

Anyway, I wonder if Acid Spit guy is an injoke for "Sky High" which had its own Acid Spit guy for a brief scene. Could be just coincidence for acid spit being an easy power to think of.

Like with all of the X Force guys, he is just a real person who exists in the comics. Not an in joke, if anything Sky High was a reference to him since...super hero movie.

But yeah, I quite enjoyed it. Finally, for the first time in a billion X films, we get a proper Juggernaut and a proper Colossus and they FIGHT. And yet the ending to the fight is a little silly but it fits the "sometimes we have to do the wrong thing for the right reason" tone of the film, and I mean how the **** else do you take Juggernaut down except by taking every stop needed to beat him. He's THE JUGGERNAUT, you kinda have to get your hands dirty. Not a big fan of it myself, but I get it. And everything else before hand was grade A gold.

For all of those concerned about Vanessa's fridging, and you should be, the end stinger where Deadpool gets the fixed Slider and fixes all those time problems is canon. Writer's have said so, though also noted the watch is broken because **** time travel as a plot mechanic you need to account for. So don't worry, she's alive.

THAT BEING SAID, I actually liked her death, because it gave us the one aspect of Deadpool that the first movie did not have, that I feel like they could of went with to a much further degree. Finally, this Deadpool, had a reason to BE IN LOVE WITH DEATH ITSELF. My personal idea on this is that, dying plus going into the mutant tube in the first movie would awaken Vanessa's mutant powers to make her literally become Lady Death. Then we could have fun with that, a way to bring her back in a more prominent role while still having the permanence of her death. That being said, with her alive they COULD STILL JUST DO THAT, there's no reason Deadpool can't have a happy ending and ACTUALLY be in a relationship with Death since he actually did something for the greater good.

Also all the people feeling annoyed by Russel's pissy attitude is great because that's the entire point. He's supposed to come off as this annoying pissant brat because hey wait he was abused a lot and he's going to become a mass murderer hey maybe we should do something to help stop these people who've been in bad situations from becoming bad people. Just a hunch. Just a small little hunch. Instead of ignoring it or just killing them needlessly like Cable wanted to. It fits with the theme of the movie. Sometimes we have to actually DO THE EFFORT. Get our hands dirty and do the stuff we'd probably rather not want to, because it'll actually help out.

Also also god I loved Domino. What an amazing casting choice. Give me more Domino please.

My final bit I have to say is that with Shatterstar being in the film, we now officially know what a real ass, live action version of Rob Liefeld's stupid ass H helmet mother****ers would look like. And it looks like a ****ING TOOL and any and all hopes of more Rob Liefeld creations getting live action movies die with this, because no one will ever take those wispy ass manbuns-ponytails and stupid H shaped helmets serious again. God bless your sacrifice, Shatterstar, you've saved us from a Youngbloods movie.

[Mordar]

X-Force themselves were gold, especially Shatterstar being basically a joke about everything Rob Liefeld was in the '90s.

And Domino was winning all over the place. It's no wonder the test audiences' response was basically "Put in more Cable and Domino".


Also also god I loved Domino. What an amazing casting choice. Give me more Domino please.

My final bit I have to say is that with Shatterstar being in the film, we now officially know what a real ass, live action version of Rob Liefeld's stupid ass H helmet mother****ers would look like. And it looks like a ****ING TOOL and any and all hopes of more Rob Liefeld creations getting live action movies die with this, because no one will ever take those wispy ass manbuns-ponytails and stupid H shaped helmets serious again. God bless your sacrifice, Shatterstar, you've saved us from a Youngbloods movie.

Yeah, stupid talentless hack Rob Liefeld and the dumb decisions Marvel made allowing him to crap all over everything. And what better place to finally put that out there officially than a movie called Deadpool that everyone seems to love, and use two other characters that seem to be getting rave reviews (at least one rave and the other positive) in Domino and Cable. They are *way* better characters then anything that pandering manchild could come up with. The guy that made them popular enough to be long running and mega-successful characters could certainly teach Liefeld a thing or two...including maybe how to draw feet and to not include eight million pouches on every character along with their six foot long guns that must weigh about 240 pounds.

I don't get it. Liefeld is probably my fourth favorite of the original Image creators (and I didn't know anything about Valentino or Larsen at the time), so certainly not a huge fan of his, but the derisive hate (not calling out GloatingSwine and LaZodiac here...they just have the triggering comments on this thread) he gets seems a bit much. Is it that we are to believe (a) Liefeld just got lucky with DP, Cable and Domino, (b) it was really all Fabian and Louise that had all the good ideas and Liefeld was coat-tailing, or (c) the Liefeld success driving a big spike in Marvel sales and merchandising and leading eventually to the creation of Image, driving something of a revolution in creator-owned production among mainstream comics was strictly a result of his deal with some nefarious other-worldly power requiring the ceding of souls and sacrifice of kittens? Or is this just like MTV ripping Vanilla Ice after having Ice Ice Baby in every-hour rotation for months?

On the whole I thought DP2 was much better than DP1 (and I liked DP1). While the more-gore thing might have suggested they were going for shock value, that settled down quickly and a lot of the jokes/quips were more developed and landed better, in my opinion. Even the blatant callbacks and cheap riffs on DP1 were good. All of the leads looked good, and the attention to detail seemed pretty solid. I particularly liked the little touches like the duct tape.

More fun than Avengers, but not as impressive.

- M

[LaZodiac]

Yeah, stupid talentless hack Rob Liefeld and the dumb decisions Marvel made allowing him to crap all over everything. And what better place to finally put that out there officially than a movie called Deadpool that everyone seems to love, and use two other characters that seem to be getting rave reviews (at least one rave and the other positive) in Domino and Cable. They are *way* better characters then anything that pandering manchild could come up with. The guy that made them popular enough to be long running and mega-successful characters could certainly teach Liefeld a thing or two...including maybe how to draw feet and to not include eight million pouches on every character along with their six foot long guns that must weigh about 240 pounds.

I don't get it. Liefeld is probably my fourth favorite of the original Image creators (and I didn't know anything about Valentino or Larsen at the time), so certainly not a huge fan of his, but the derisive hate (not calling out GloatingSwine and LaZodiac here...they just have the triggering comments on this thread) he gets seems a bit much. Is it that we are to believe (a) Liefeld just got lucky with DP, Cable and Domino, (b) it was really all Fabian and Louise that had all the good ideas and Liefeld was coat-tailing, or (c) the Liefeld success driving a big spike in Marvel sales and merchandising and leading eventually to the creation of Image, driving something of a revolution in creator-owned production among mainstream comics was strictly a result of his deal with some nefarious other-worldly power requiring the ceding of souls and sacrifice of kittens? Or is this just like MTV ripping Vanilla Ice after having Ice Ice Baby in every-hour rotation for months?

On the whole I thought DP2 was much better than DP1 (and I liked DP1). While the more-gore thing might have suggested they were going for shock value, that settled down quickly and a lot of the jokes/quips were more developed and landed better, in my opinion. Even the blatant callbacks and cheap riffs on DP1 were good. All of the leads looked good, and the attention to detail seemed pretty solid. I particularly liked the little touches like the duct tape.

More fun than Avengers, but not as impressive.

- M

The thing you misunderstand is that Rob Liefeld is in fact actually a hack, and while he did CREATE these characters, he is not the person who made them popular in the way that they are now. People liked Deadpool and Cable and probably Dominio when Rob made them, but it wasn't until writers who were actually good got a hold of them that people LOVED them. Deadpool's mannerisms that we know of in this movie and in most of his comic books is NOT the creation of Rob, who just wanted to make a rip off of Deathstroke the Terminator. Cable is basically just a generic garbage character until good writers got a hold of him. As the movie itself said, Domino is a lazily written character by a man who cannot draw feet. But other authors have made them good, this movie just a continuation of that.

I am not in any way diminishing the success Rob had. Image comics is an amazing thing to have done. Rob standing up for the creators and helping create a place for them is really cool and good. Rob himself cannot draw his way out of a paper bag and sure as hell couldn't write himself out.

[AliceLost]

I was rather annoyed on that score too, but to be fair she is un-fridged by the end.


Technically, that was to save Deadpool, though... if the latter has the ability to monkey around with the timestream indefinitely now I guess it's not clear why Cable couldn't just go home?

Un-fridging her may once again set up the potential for her to do something in a subsequent film, but it does nothing for me to improve this one. She still did nothing and existed only as a casualty to further Wade's story.

Cable's last use of his device bugged me because he had a clear way to save Deadpool if he wanted to: just take off the collar. He chose not to because he was respecting Wade's desire to die, so...why couldn't he just make a decision and stick to it? Save Wade, remove his collar, go home to family; or respect Wade's wishes, go home to family. It would have been trivially easy to have his device otherwise damaged to keep him here for future films. The decision he made just hilighted to me how meaningless his wife and daughter were to him once they weren't driving the plot.

[Lacuna Caster]

For all of those concerned about Vanessa's fridging, and you should be, the end stinger where Deadpool gets the fixed Slider and fixes all those time problems is canon. Writer's have said so, though also noted the watch is broken because **** time travel as a plot mechanic you need to account for. So don't worry, she's alive.

...My personal idea on this is that, dying plus going into the mutant tube in the first movie would awaken Vanessa's mutant powers to make her literally become Lady Death.
Ahh, now that would be interesting. (Are they actually planning to tie her in with Thanos at any point?)


Also all the people feeling annoyed by Russel's pissy attitude is great because that's the entire point. He's supposed to come off as this annoying pissant brat because hey wait he was abused a lot and he's going to become a mass murderer hey maybe we should do something to help stop these people who've been in bad situations from becoming bad people. Just a hunch. Just a small little hunch. Instead of ignoring it or just killing them needlessly like Cable wanted to. It fits with the theme of the movie. Sometimes we have to actually DO THE EFFORT. Get our hands dirty and do the stuff we'd probably rather not want to, because it'll actually help out.
Wouldn't... killing a teenager normally be considered 'dirtier' than... not doing that?

I was actually... surprised by how sympathetic the movie is to Cable's position and/or the man himself. MovieBob's review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVsv5o1fFXE) gave me impression the film just existed to **** all over him, but aside from being quite impressive in a fight and doing an eventual heel-face turn, when he actually tries to shoot Russell it's arguably defensive- not just as a theoretical projection, but right there, in the moment.

[Lacuna Caster]

Cable's last use of his device bugged me because he had a clear way to save Deadpool if he wanted to: just take off the collar. He chose not to because he was respecting Wade's desire to die, so...why couldn't he just make a decision and stick to it?.
...Yeah, that's a good point. I guess the psychological effect might have been the tipping point, though I'm not sure I'd credit Cable with that much insight? (I mean, in principle, Wade could just put on the collar and shoot himself whenever he wants, so...)

I don't have any real argument about Vanessa's role or the shortcomings thereof, I just, uh, really like Morena Baccarin and like to see her getting work.

[LaZodiac]

Ahh, now that would be interesting. (Are they actually planning to tie her in with Thanos at any point?)

Wouldn't... killing a teenager normally be considered 'dirtier' than... not doing that?

I was actually... surprised by how sympathetic the movie is to Cable's position and/or the man himself. MovieBob's review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVsv5o1fFXE) gave me impression the film just existed to **** all over him, but aside from being quite impressive in a fight and doing an eventual heel-face turn, when he actually tries to shoot Russell it's arguably defensive- not just as a theoretical projection, but right there, in the moment.


...Yeah, that's a good point. I guess the psychological effect might have been the tipping point, though I'm not sure I'd credit Cable with that much insight? (I mean, in principle, Wade could just put on the collar and shoot himself whenever he wants, so...)

I don't have any real argument about Vanessa's role or the shortcomings thereof, I just, uh, really like Morena Baccarin and like to see her getting work.

No it's all symbolism that I noticed that I hope they go more literal with. Having Vanessa become powered is something I wanted from film 1 and having her die and become the literal manifestation of Death itself could be super rad.

Which is easier? Just killing an individual or trying to help that individual become a better person and, through that, deepening your understanding of people so you can help others. It's an interesting contrast and one I like, because yes murdering a child before he's done any crimes is a pretty good way of getting your hands incredibly filthy, but it's also effortless. The contrast between "hard work" and "dirty work" intercepts at odd angles and it's part of the themes of the movie. They actually filmed a scene of Deadpool's montage where he goes back to kill Baby Hitler, and they removed it almost certainly for the reason that it doesn't exactly gel with the themes that you're not evil until you've done evil. That everyone can be redeemed, if you put in the effort and if you reach them soon enough. Some people, Dopinder and the Warden, cannot be saved. So you let Dopinder kill the Warden because he deserved to die and Dopinder needed to get it out of his system he'll be fine he's an adult. But you save Peter from dying and you save Russel from being killed because they aren't bad yet.

It's not 100% clean a message, the idea that you shouldn't kill people unless they're actually monsters and also kids shouldn't kill people but adults can definitely go murder the pedophile that hurt them as closure for it, but then it's Deadpool. We're not going to get a clean message, we're gonna get one that tells us to do our best to help out the people who deserve being helped, and if not kill horrible people at least not send them a rope if they're falling off a cliff, to use a metaphor.

[Mordar]

The thing you misunderstand is that Rob Liefeld is in fact actually a hack, and while he did CREATE these characters, he is not the person who made them popular in the way that they are now. People liked Deadpool and Cable and probably Dominio when Rob made them, but it wasn't until writers who were actually good got a hold of them that people LOVED them. Deadpool's mannerisms that we know of in this movie and in most of his comic books is NOT the creation of Rob, who just wanted to make a rip off of Deathstroke the Terminator. Cable is basically just a generic garbage character until good writers got a hold of him. As the movie itself said, Domino is a lazily written character by a man who cannot draw feet. But other authors have made them good, this movie just a continuation of that.

I am not in any way diminishing the success Rob had. Image comics is an amazing thing to have done. Rob standing up for the creators and helping create a place for them is really cool and good. Rob himself cannot draw his way out of a paper bag and sure as hell couldn't write himself out.

I hear you (to some extent)...like I said, he was my fourth favorite out of the seven creators that spawned Image and I didn't know anything about 2 of the others. That being said, I was an avid collector during the late 80s and early 90s and I know just how hot the X-properties that Liefeld was running were, and that the three characters (really, more Cable and DP with Domino as an add-on) had a ton of buzz. In fact, after Wolverine and Punisher they were probably the most talked-about Marvel characters at the time. And there is a lot of the original feel of the characters present in the current incarnation. So I think he deserves a little more credit on that side of the ledger.

I look forward to the Teen Titans movie just to hear the kids rip about Slade being a copy (already see a bit of it in the trailer). Yup, DP is definitely a Slade/Wolverine hybrid and one of the few "copies" where the popularity of the copy surpassed that of the original.

- M

[LaZodiac]

Popularity doesn't equal quality, but I'll grant you that at the time Rob Liefeld and his certain brand of overmuscled underfooted gunhavers was definitely a refreshing take on the genre. To a point. A point that Rob and friends slammed into almost immediately.

You know that brings up a side point I'd like to bring up. This film didn't go for any easy jokes, I think? It didn't reference "I'm the Juggernaut bitch!" for one, and that's really good of em. It let us have a better look at Juggernaut as a result, and it didn't needlessly bring us back to X3 and how terrible that film was.

[Lacuna Caster]

The contrast between "hard work" and "dirty work" intercepts at odd angles and it's part of the themes of the movie. They actually filmed a scene of Deadpool's montage where he goes back to kill Baby Hitler, and they removed it almost certainly for the reason that it doesn't exactly gel with the themes that you're not evil until you've done evil.
But Green Lantern hadn't actually been made yet. I am confused!


It's not 100% clean a message, the idea that you shouldn't kill people unless they're actually monsters and also kids shouldn't kill people but adults can definitely go murder the pedophile that hurt them as closure for it, but then it's Deadpool. We're not going to get a clean message, we're gonna get one that tells us to do our best to help out the people who deserve being helped, and if not kill horrible people at least not send them a rope if they're falling off a cliff, to use a metaphor.
Yeah... I was somewhat disturbed by the total dismissal of the moral value of the lives of the warden and all the hospital staff. I mean, some of them might only have been hired last week.

Fun fact- I connected with Peter on LinkedIn and had a conversation about bees. The marketing team are certainly committed, I'll give 'em that much.

[Traab]

Popularity doesn't equal quality, but I'll grant you that at the time Rob Liefeld and his certain brand of overmuscled underfooted gunhavers was definitely a refreshing take on the genre. To a point. A point that Rob and friends slammed into almost immediately.

You know that brings up a side point I'd like to bring up. This film didn't go for any easy jokes, I think? It didn't reference "I'm the Juggernaut bitch!" for one, and that's really good of em. It let us have a better look at Juggernaut as a result, and it didn't needlessly bring us back to X3 and how terrible that film was.

I hate that argument. If popularity doesnt equal quality on something so subjective as good comics/music/tv/movies/books, then what DOES? There are things that can be objectively described as being high quality. A building for example. Its expertly built, everything is plumb and true. etc etc etc, you would say its a high quality building. But when you get into subjective subjects like entertainment, there are only so may objective qualities you can work with to determine if its good. And popular opinion seems to be the biggest one. You can break it down into categories an try to decide if its quality that way I suppose, but isnt the most important metric to entertainment how many people it entertains?

[LaZodiac]

But Green Lantern hadn't actually been made yet. I am confused!


Yeah... I was somewhat disturbed by the total dismissal of the moral value of the lives of the warden and all the hospital staff. I mean, some of them might only have been hired last week.

Fun fact- I connected with Peter on LinkedIn and had a conversation about bees. The marketing team are certainly committed, I'll give 'em that much.

Eeeh I think they made it clear that anyone working there was definitely into it. They've got the torture stuff right front and center, if you're working there you're part of the problem.

Give the man his allotment of self deprication, given I think he has a writer's credit on Green Lantern too.


I hate that argument. If popularity doesnt equal quality on something so subjective as good comics/music/tv/movies/books, then what DOES? There are things that can be objectively described as being high quality. A building for example. Its expertly built, everything is plumb and true. etc etc etc, you would say its a high quality building. But when you get into subjective subjects like entertainment, there are only so may objective qualities you can work with to determine if its good. And popular opinion seems to be the biggest one. You can break it down into categories an try to decide if its quality that way I suppose, but isnt the most important metric to entertainment how many people it entertains?

It means that a lot of people like it. You still need to look into it indepthly to see WHY people like it, however. Popularity is not an instant note that it is good. The Twilight movies where really popular because they provided something that not a lot of women get in their media, REGARDLESS of quality. The Orville is popular because it's the first Sci Fi show of that style to be on air in decades, again, REGARDLESS of quality.

I disagree that the most important metric of entertainment is that it entertains many people. A lot of people hate the Speed Racer movie, and John Carter Of Mars, and both of those are fantastic films that are also incredibly niche and otherwise disliked for making the general populace feel bad and confused. For me, they hold more worth than Twilight. Many people liking a thing does not mean it is good, again, it just means many people liked it. I don't see what is wrong with this. There's always going to be objective things to look at with media as a whole, but to say "a lot of people liked it" is objective is a fools game. A lot of people liked it, for subjective reasons, ergo it is objectively good since it entertained people? This is flawed, immediately, and part of why objectivity is not the end all be all. Something can be shot objectively perfectly, and still be a ****ty film. Just look at the Star Wars prequels, which are shot beautifully for the most part. But man, shame about everything else huh.

[Mordar]

Popularity doesn't equal quality, but I'll grant you that at the time Rob Liefeld and his certain brand of overmuscled underfooted gunhavers was definitely a refreshing take on the genre. To a point. A point that Rob and friends slammed into almost immediately.


I hate that argument. If popularity doesnt equal quality on something so subjective as good comics/music/tv/movies/books, then what DOES? There are things that can be objectively described as being high quality. A building for example. Its expertly built, everything is plumb and true. etc etc etc, you would say its a high quality building. But when you get into subjective subjects like entertainment, there are only so may objective qualities you can work with to determine if its good. And popular opinion seems to be the biggest one. You can break it down into categories an try to decide if its quality that way I suppose, but isnt the most important metric to entertainment how many people it entertains?


It means that a lot of people like it. You still need to look into it indepthly to see WHY people like it, however. Popularity is not an instant note that it is good. The Twilight movies where really popular because they provided something that not a lot of women get in their media, REGARDLESS of quality. The Orville is popular because it's the first Sci Fi show of that style to be on air in decades, again, REGARDLESS of quality.

I disagree that the most important metric of entertainment is that it entertains many people. A lot of people hate the Speed Racer movie, and John Carter Of Mars, and both of those are fantastic films that are also incredibly niche and otherwise disliked for making the general populace feel bad and confused. For me, they hold more worth than Twilight. Many people liking a thing does not mean it is good, again, it just means many people liked it. I don't see what is wrong with this. There's always going to be objective things to look at with media as a whole, but to say "a lot of people liked it" is objective is a fools game. A lot of people liked it, for subjective reasons, ergo it is objectively good since it entertained people? This is flawed, immediately, and part of why objectivity is not the end all be all. Something can be shot objectively perfectly, and still be a ****ty film. Just look at the Star Wars prequels, which are shot beautifully for the most part. But man, shame about everything else huh.

I do think this is a really interesting topic...I absolutely remember that Liefeld had hate even in that pre-social media, everyone online era. There was a vocal group that suggested Liefeld was to comics as comics were to "real" sci-fi/fantasy/genre fiction (e.g. fodder for the unwashed masses). But how can we objectively measure the quality of the art/writing beyond evidence of engagement (popularity, sales) which is muddied by promotion/advertising and in the case of comics, the springboard of existing characters and titles, among other things?

I think it is fair to say that Liefeld was a very successful writer/artist who attracted a number of customers to his books and kept sales figures high on those books. He was emulated by some, derided by some, and made a lasting impact on the industry (along with Jim Lee, Silvestri, McFarlane and the other Image trailblazers). I think it is fair to say that his work didn't have the staying power of Claremont, Buscema, Barry Windsor Smith or many of the other non-god tier writers and artists, but clearly captured the industry/customer base for a time.

Liefeld's products succeeded in their mission (like Stephanie Meyer's books and films). John Carter of Mars (my wife and I LOVED it...so sad there will be no more, ditto the new Tarzan) did not succeed in its mission. Their missions were the same - sell units, get people to see and enjoy so they want to come back again. Those are objective truths, none of which I am particularly happy about. So as commercially viable popular entertainment vessels, one did a good job, the other didn't. But how do we avoid falling into a "no true Scotsman" mistake here? Liefeld was a successful superhero comic creator/producer, in a niche industry. We can't "blame" his success on hordes of teenage girls(' moms) who think Robert Pattinson is dreamy, so there must be something there. Lots of other titles had advertising pushes, established popular characters as springboards and financial backing. Why didn't they do as well?

We know it is possible from something to be "good", objectively or otherwise, in one place and time and not later (see Model T automobile). Is this the case here? What are the standards we are using? How do they evolve? There are probably thousands (tens of thousands?) of artists that have the same skill level of Rembrandt in this day and age. Does that cheapen Rembrandt? Frank Sinatra wouldn't have had a prayer at getting a major record deal now. Does that mean he wasn't good? We see tons of similar arguments in sports...MJ or LeBron? Goose Gossage or Mariano Rivera?...where time and place become equally important. But for them, we can at least have some objective numbers. Shooting percentage. Strikeouts. Blown saves. All we have for popular media is sales and opinion. X-Force had 5 of the top 20 sales spots in 1991 (including the number one spot), not bad considering only 7 issues were released that year and variants of Xmen #1 took up 5 slots.

Isn't it funny how "appeal to authority" and "appeal to the people" are both "logical fallacies"?

Coming back on topic...

I'm a little surprised so many people are put off by Vanessa dying. She's actually a girl in the refrigerator in DP1. In DP2 she's a motivator. Not much different. Should she have a bigger role and why?

The bare butt Juggernaut...yeah, not particularly valuable.

Also surprised by the cocaine bit. What did that add? (Other than paying off the joke from DP1).

- M

[LaZodiac]

I do think this is a really interesting topic...I absolutely remember that Liefeld had hate even in that pre-social media, everyone online era. There was a vocal group that suggested Liefeld was to comics as comics were to "real" sci-fi/fantasy/genre fiction (e.g. fodder for the unwashed masses). But how can we objectively measure the quality of the art/writing beyond evidence of engagement (popularity, sales) which is muddied by promotion/advertising and in the case of comics, the springboard of existing characters and titles, among other things?

I think it is fair to say that Liefeld was a very successful writer/artist who attracted a number of customers to his books and kept sales figures high on those books. He was emulated by some, derided by some, and made a lasting impact on the industry (along with Jim Lee, Silvestri, McFarlane and the other Image trailblazers). I think it is fair to say that his work didn't have the staying power of Claremont, Buscema, Barry Windsor Smith or many of the other non-god tier writers and artists, but clearly captured the industry/customer base for a time.

Liefeld's products succeeded in their mission (like Stephanie Meyer's books and films). John Carter of Mars (my wife and I LOVED it...so sad there will be no more, ditto the new Tarzan) did not succeed in its mission. Their missions were the same - sell units, get people to see and enjoy so they want to come back again. Those are objective truths, none of which I am particularly happy about. So as commercially viable popular entertainment vessels, one did a good job, the other didn't. But how do we avoid falling into a "no true Scotsman" mistake here? Liefeld was a successful superhero comic creator/producer, in a niche industry. We can't "blame" his success on hordes of teenage girls(' moms) who think Robert Pattinson is dreamy, so there must be something there. Lots of other titles had advertising pushes, established popular characters as springboards and financial backing. Why didn't they do as well?

We know it is possible from something to be "good", objectively or otherwise, in one place and time and not later (see Model T automobile). Is this the case here? What are the standards we are using? How do they evolve? There are probably thousands (tens of thousands?) of artists that have the same skill level of Rembrandt in this day and age. Does that cheapen Rembrandt? Frank Sinatra wouldn't have had a prayer at getting a major record deal now. Does that mean he wasn't good? We see tons of similar arguments in sports...MJ or LeBron? Goose Gossage or Mariano Rivera?...where time and place become equally important. But for them, we can at least have some objective numbers. Shooting percentage. Strikeouts. Blown saves. All we have for popular media is sales and opinion. X-Force had 5 of the top 20 sales spots in 1991 (including the number one spot), not bad considering only 7 issues were released that year and variants of Xmen #1 took up 5 slots.

Isn't it funny how "appeal to authority" and "appeal to the people" are both "logical fallacies"?

Coming back on topic...

I'm a little surprised so many people are put off by Vanessa dying. She's actually a girl in the refrigerator in DP1. In DP2 she's a motivator. Not much different. Should she have a bigger role and why?

The bare butt Juggernaut...yeah, not particularly valuable.

Also surprised by the cocaine bit. What did that add? (Other than paying off the joke from DP1).

- M

She was The Princess in Deadpool 1. Women in Refridgerators specifically refers to them dying. Being in a literal fridge doesn't make her one of those, unless she was killed and chopped up like Kyle Rainer's girlfriend.

Probably another thing to show that Wade's completely off the deep end.

[Some Android]

So I don't want to derail the thread too much but has anyone seen this video? I just thought I'd share this because Adult Swim is still using ATHF to promote stuff despite that showing being cancelled for multiple years now.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j2V6JdkVBc

I might have to dress up Carl dressed up as Deadpool this year for Halloween.:smallwink:

[AliceLost]

Coming back on topic...

I'm a little surprised so many people are put off by Vanessa dying. She's actually a girl in the refrigerator in DP1. In DP2 she's a motivator. Not much different. Should she have a bigger role and why?

I'm surprised by your surprise. Women in refrigerators is a trope that's usually considered offputting. It's defined as being killed to provide motivation for another (male) character: she wasn't fridged in DP1 but she was certainly sidelined and damseled and it was frustrating because a) it's Morena Baccarin and she's awesome and b) her character was interesting and her relationship with Wade is incredibly refreshing and fun to watch. She's one of the only superhero love interests who doesn't add tension to the relationship, and could simply be supportive of his job.

Her role in DP2 didn't really need to be bigger than it was (I would have enjoyed seeing more of her, but I won't argue that it was necessary), but it would have been miles better to have her remain alive, in a relationship with Wade, and his narrative motivated by...literally anything other than her death. It's Deadpool. Coming up with reasons for him to do stuff isn't exactly hard, he's not the most complexly motivated character Marvel has.

[LaZodiac]

I'm surprised by your surprise. Women in refrigerators is a trope that's usually considered offputting. It's defined as being killed to provide motivation for another (male) character: she wasn't fridged in DP1 but she was certainly sidelined and damseled and it was frustrating because a) it's Morena Baccarin and she's awesome and b) her character was interesting and her relationship with Wade is incredibly refreshing and fun to watch. She's one of the only superhero love interests who doesn't add tension to the relationship, and could simply be supportive of his job.

Her role in DP2 didn't really need to be bigger than it was (I would have enjoyed seeing more of her, but I won't argue that it was necessary), but it would have been miles better to have her remain alive, in a relationship with Wade, and his narrative motivated by...literally anything other than her death. It's Deadpool. Coming up with reasons for him to do stuff isn't exactly hard, he's not the most complexly motivated character Marvel has.

The perfect solution to this: Have her get hurt, have her say in defiance "yeah there was no way they were gonna fridge me babe" and then have him go on a now comedically over the top revenge spree for her just being hospitalized for a few days. Maybe have him sort of spiral out of control because she got hurt because of what COULD of happened.

She better get an action roll in the third one though. Weasel's gonna be gone because TJ Miller's a ****ing psychopath so there'll be a slot open.

[Dragonus45]

I'm surprised by your surprise. Women in refrigerators is a trope that's usually considered offputting. It's defined as being killed to provide motivation for another (male) character: she wasn't fridged in DP1 but she was certainly sidelined and damseled and it was frustrating because a) it's Morena Baccarin and she's awesome and b) her character was interesting and her relationship with Wade is incredibly refreshing and fun to watch. She's one of the only superhero love interests who doesn't add tension to the relationship, and could simply be supportive of his job.

Her role in DP2 didn't really need to be bigger than it was (I would have enjoyed seeing more of her, but I won't argue that it was necessary), but it would have been miles better to have her remain alive, in a relationship with Wade, and his narrative motivated by...literally anything other than her death. It's Deadpool. Coming up with reasons for him to do stuff isn't exactly hard, he's not the most complexly motivated character Marvel has.

The plot needed her to die so died. And if it wasn’t even a little off putting it wouldn’t be as effective of a writing tool as it is. Bet let’s nt overtstate the importance of a character getting offed at the start of a movie.

[LaZodiac]

The plot needed her to die so died. And if it wasn’t even a little off putting it wouldn’t be as effective of a writing tool as it is. Bet let’s nt overtstate the importance of a character getting offed at the start of a movie.

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the trope and why it's usually considered bad. There's nothing wrong with a character dying to start off a film for motive. But it happens so often to girlfriends/wives, especially in super hero stuff, that it's trite and kind of super sexist. Again, it's named after the time Kyle Rainer's girlfriend was chopped up into pieces and shoved into the fridge for no reason beyond "we wanted to give the story shock value".

[AliceLost]

The plot needed her to die so died. And if it wasn’t even a little off putting it wouldn’t be as effective of a writing tool as it is. Bet let’s nt overtstate the importance of a character getting offed at the start of a movie.

I think you misunderstand how plots are made. They aren't born fully formed into the world, they require crafting and writing. I'd say the plot of this film needed very little, save that it have Deadpool in it. It's not as thought it would have been impossible for the writers to tell a different story.

But even if you wanted to stay as close to this script as you could, instead of having Vanessa die, she could have been left alive, and watching Wade's first interaction with Russell on tv (which could happen for nearly any reason because again...Deadpool). Have him care less and return home only for her express a desire to see him be a better man if they're going to have a child together, and encourage him to go back and make things right with Russell. The rest of the film would basically be the same, and if anything, give Deadpool a better motivation because he would be working to improve himself and satisfy an actual real person he has a relationship with, rather than an abstract death vision that may well entirely be in his head. Morena Baccarin doesn't even need to be in the film more, she can just have a couple of real actual scenes with dialogue, rather than simply sitting wistfully on a sofa.

This isn't the best idea, it's only something I came up with in a few minutes at work, and it still shows how unnecessary her death and sidlining was to this plot, never mind literally any other plot that could have been written. I don't think a character getting offed at the start of a film is that important, lots of good films don't use that device and it's tired and overplayed, even when it's not being used as an excuse to completely sideline any female characters from any engagement in the narrative.

[ben-zayb]

The Doylist reason for the cliched fridge would be that Morena Baccarin may no longer (want to) be around for Deadpool 3 or X-Force. Ignoring the midcredita scene and treating those as noncanon would be a way to keep her dead.

Personally, I prefer Cable also killed Weasel upon provocation for the very same reason, but that would make his teamup with DP's gang a little harder than what was done.

[AliceLost]

The Doylist reason for the cliched fridge would be that Morena Baccarin may no longer (want to) be around for Deadpool 3 or X-Force. Ignoring the midcredita scene and treating those as noncanon would be a way to keep her dead.

Personally, I prefer Cable also killed Weasel upon provocation for the very same reason, but that would make his teamup with DP's gang a little harder than what was done.

While Morena Baccarin can't exactly be completely candid with her opinions of a film she's "starring" in and probably still doing publicity for, she has expressed disappointment over the way her character was treated in this film, and a willingness to return, so I don't believe there were meta reasons.

The writers have responded to these criticisms, saying they had "never heard of fridging" before. They pretty much felt that they made up the idea of killing a woman too motivate a man because he had "everything taken away from him" on the spot.

[Lacuna Caster]

The perfect solution to this: Have her get hurt, have her say in defiance "yeah there was no way they were gonna fridge me babe" and then have him go on a now comedically over the top revenge spree for her just being hospitalized for a few days. Maybe have him sort of spiral out of control because she got hurt because of what COULD of happened.
That sounds pretty hilarious.

It would be harder to write DP with a conscious deathwish, though I guess the movie doesn't exactly stick to that with perfect consistency? Hmm.


While Morena Baccarin can't exactly be completely candid with her opinions of a film she's "starring" in and probably still doing publicity for, she has expressed disappointment over the way her character was treated in this film, and a willingness to return, so I don't believe there were meta reasons.

The writers have responded to these criticisms, saying they had "never heard of fridging" before.
Really? Wow. You'd think given the furore over the avengers toy line (https://www.polygon.com/2015/5/7/8566429/avengers-disney-black-widow-toys) they'd be a little more clued about this.

For my own part, I also thought that Jane Foster, Sif, Pepper Pots and Wasp were kind of unfairly minimised, so this isn't exactly unusual.

[Dragonus45]

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the trope and why it's usually considered bad. There's nothing wrong with a character dying to start off a film for motive. But it happens so often to girlfriends/wives, especially in super hero stuff, that it's trite and kind of super sexist. Again, it's named after the time Kyle Rainer's girlfriend was chopped up into pieces and shoved into the fridge for no reason beyond "we wanted to give the story shock value".
No I understand why you think to bad. It’s just not. It isn’t sexist, it isn’t an issue. It worked perfectly fine in the movie. There is no issue.


I think you misunderstand how plots are made. They aren't born fully formed into the world, they require crafting and writing. I'd say the plot of this film needed very little, save that it have Deadpool in it. It's not as thought it would have been impossible for the writers to tell a different story.

But even if you wanted to stay as close to this script as you could, instead of having Vanessa die, she could have been left alive, and watching Wade's first interaction with Russell on tv (which could happen for nearly any reason because again...Deadpool). Have him care less and return home only for her express a desire to see him be a better man if they're going to have a child together, and encourage him to go back and make things right with Russell. The rest of the film would basically be the same, and if anything, give Deadpool a better motivation because he would be working to improve himself and satisfy an actual real person he has a relationship with, rather than an abstract death vision that may well entirely be in his head. Morena Baccarin doesn't even need to be in the film more, she can just have a couple of real actual scenes with dialogue, rather than simply sitting wistfully on a sofa.

This isn't the best idea, it's only something I came up with in a few minutes at work, and it still shows how unnecessary her death and sidlining was to this plot, never mind literally any other plot that could have been written. I don't think a character getting offed at the start of a film is that important, lots of good films don't use that device and it's tired and overplayed, even when it's not being used as an excuse to completely sideline any female characters from any engagement in the narrative.

All of that sounds like not this movie. In fact it sounds like a totally different movie. This movie needed her to die however. It was very necessary.

[LaZodiac]

No I understand why you think to bad. It’s just not. It isn’t sexist, it isn’t an issue. It worked perfectly fine in the movie. There is no issue.

All of that sounds like not this movie. In fact it sounds like a totally different movie. This movie needed her to die however. It was very necessary.

It is, actually. Even if they didn't intend it to be, which I fully believe they did not. These guys seem good, and they'll do better on the next film. But mistakes happen.

[Dragonus45]

It is, actually. Even if they didn't intend it to be, which I fully believe they did not. These guys seem good, and they'll do better on the next film. But mistakes happen.

What mistake? Writing an amazing script that is making all the money and improved on the first movie in every way? Yea how dare they.

[Z3ro]

But mistakes happen.

Was it though? For me what matters is the execution, just like all tropes. The payoff at the end, "is this heaven? It is now" was amazing. I literally cried in the theater. DP2 made me cry with emotion for the characters, that's how much it hit me. I don't see how you could have had the same payoff without having her dead.

[HMS Invincible]

What mistake? Writing an amazing script that is making all the money and improved on the first movie in every way? Yea how dare they.

Cliches still work, but writers shouldn't always follow them. You can motivate heroes without killing women who date the main character. I highly doubt you would even notice if the motivation changed at all.
There's a lot of statistics that I'm sure you'll casually ignore, but the short version is this:
You live in a bubble. Male hero stories about fridge women need to the spotlight with other storylines.

[Dragonus45]

Cliches still work, but writers shouldn't always follow them. You can motivate heroes without killing women who date the main character. I highly doubt you would even notice if the motivation changed at all.
There's a lot of statistics that I'm sure you'll casually ignore, but the short version is this:
You live in a bubble. Male hero stories about fridge women need to the spotlight with other storylines.

Cliches are cliches because they work. Execution is the only thing matters. Yes there are plenty of ways to motivate a charater, they chose the one that worked best for the movie they made. And the long version is that it doesn’t matter because there is no cultural significance to any of those statistics. Other then reaffirming that people value their romantic partners making them excellent levers with which to manipulate the audience.

[Reddish Mage]

The plot needed her to die so died. And if it wasn’t even a little off putting it wouldn’t be as effective of a writing tool as it is. Bet let’s nt overtstate the importance of a character getting offed at the start of a movie.

How many superheroes have we seen with stable relationships and active, supportive partners? Their are not many, but they tend to be in some of the most successful movies.

They decided to do a movie where Deadpool would be motivated to become (quite literally) self-destructive by having his girlfriend died among all the alternative plots for all the alternative movies they could have made.

The result? Deadpool 2 is lagging expectations (https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/05/22/no-deadpool-2-opening-isnt-a-sign-of-superhero-fatigue/#109ffc2f4023) slightly. Now this could be for any number of reasons (this is the third big Superhero movie to run in...has it been a month since Black Panther?), but running a tired plot device so that Deadpool can get lost, get found (again) by our the budget X-men (who are awesome), immediately get lost again, redeemed, and then undo all the deaths in the credits...On the balance that may have ended up as actually being a pretty safe script filled with the action cliches.

Maybe that had something to do with it.

[Z3ro]

Now this could be for any number of reasons (this is the third big Superhero movie to run in...has it been a month since Black Panther?), but running a tired plot device so that Deadpool can get lost, get found (again) by our the budget X-men (who are awesome), immediately get lost again, redeemed, and then undo all the deaths in the credits...On the balance that may have ended up as actually being a pretty safe script filled with the action cliches.

Maybe that had something to do with it.

I think this is the reason:


To recap, Deadpool opened on a holiday weekend with no real competition for its target demographics. Deadpool 2 opened in the shadow of Avengers: Infinity War on a regular three-day weekend. Those differences resulted in Deadpool 2 finishing $7 million short of Deadpool's domestic opening, but $16 million higher than Deadpool's overall worldwide opening.

[AliceLost]

As always, the discussion here seems to be divided between people saying "I witness this frequently and I'm tired of it continually happening and it upsets me", and people saying "It doesn't upset me personally so it's not an issue".

If the character you're interested and invested in keeps surviving the opening moments of the film and having an active role in the narrative, of course you're going to be less bothered by tropes that do that to other people.


That sounds pretty hilarious.

It would be harder to write DP with a conscious deathwish, though I guess the movie doesn't exactly stick to that with perfect consistency? Hmm.


Really? Wow. You'd think given the furore over the avengers toy line (https://www.polygon.com/2015/5/7/8566429/avengers-disney-black-widow-toys) they'd be a little more clued about this.

For my own part, I also thought that Jane Foster, Sif, Pepper Pots and Wasp were kind of unfairly minimised, so this isn't exactly unusual.

Yeah, for writers of such a self-aware franchise, I don't even know if I believe them, but I think it's a pretty blatant demonstration of what happens when you don't have women involved in the creative process. Apparently they had an early draft where Vanessa broke up with him, and then someone suggested he'd be even more compelling with "everything taken away from him", so they very much thought of Vanessa as a plot object to be taken away, and then given back, to Wade. Nobody seemed to really think of her as a character.

And I totally agree with you about the other women in Marvel films (and media in general). How long have we been waiting on the promise of a Black Widow film? That only makes my frustration worse every time they continue to do this, though, and this example was so painfully by the numbers it really stood out to me.

[Dragonus45]

As always, the discussion here seems to be divided between people saying "I witness this frequently and I'm tired of it continually happening and it upsets me", and people saying "It doesn't upset me personally so it's not an issue".

Alternative, just because it bothers you doesn't make it an issue.



Yeah, for writers of such a self-aware franchise, I don't even know if I believe them, but I think it's a pretty blatant demonstration of what happens when you don't have women involved in the creative process. Apparently they had an early draft where Vanessa broke up with him, and then someone suggested he'd be even more compelling with "everything taken away from him", so they very much thought of Vanessa as a plot object to be taken away, and then given back, to Wade. Nobody seemed to really think of her as a character.

And I totally agree with you about the other women in Marvel films (and media in general). How long have we been waiting on the promise of a Black Widow film? That only makes my frustration worse every time they continue to do this, though, and this example was so painfully by the numbers it really stood out to me.

Uh, what does the gender of the writers have to do with anything? This is a very sexist idea that somehow the gender makeup of the writing staff somehow has anything to do with its quality. And yes, it was in fact much more compelling to have her die then have her break up with him. Them breaking up for no reason after the last movie would have been boring and undercut the good parts of the first movie.

Also we are as likely to get a Black Widow movie as we are to get a Hawkeye solo movie. Which is never, they are both very much side characters who couldn't carry their own franchise.

[Mordar]

How many superheroes have we seen with stable relationships and active, supportive partners? Their are not many, but they tend to be in some of the most successful movies.

I am not sure this is a valuable part of a superhero movie. A comic book or series, certainly. But not an action spectacle. Every non-action character in action spectacles is fair game for motivation by death, aren't they? I think that it probably the crux of my response to Vanessa's death...it is an expected part of these kinds of movies that anyone not-the-hero can be used as leverage.


As always, the discussion here seems to be divided between people saying "I witness this frequently and I'm tired of it continually happening and it upsets me", and people saying "It doesn't upset me personally so it's not an issue".

If the character you're interested and invested in keeps surviving the opening moments of the film and having an active role in the narrative, of course you're going to be less bothered by tropes that do that to other people.

Yeah, for writers of such a self-aware franchise, I don't even know if I believe them, but I think it's a pretty blatant demonstration of what happens when you don't have women involved in the creative process. Apparently they had an early draft where Vanessa broke up with him, and then someone suggested he'd be even more compelling with "everything taken away from him", so they very much thought of Vanessa as a plot object to be taken away, and then given back, to Wade. Nobody seemed to really think of her as a character.

And I totally agree with you about the other women in Marvel films (and media in general). How long have we been waiting on the promise of a Black Widow film? That only makes my frustration worse every time they continue to do this, though, and this example was so painfully by the numbers it really stood out to me.

Does the veteran cop/teacher/old friend getting popped in the first 15 minutes of a bijillion action spectacles generate the same reaction for you? The role of Vanessa in the first movie seemed to exist just to provide DP with a sense of loss, and then a point of leverage. Same as any of the older cops/teachers/friends/senseis. The gender of the leverage is secondary, but I am aware that 99.9% of the romantic interest points of leverage are adult female and probably 80% of the other points of leverage are adult male (the rest being probably 19% sons/daughters and 1% adult females).

Because it was clear she was a leverage character I was never invested in Vanessa, just like Bambi's mom or Simba's dad. That she returned in DP2 in the exact same role didn't surprise me either and I frankly didn't even have time to consider it before they did the gift swap which was *exactly* the same as any cop other than Murtaugh saying "Twelve days to retirement". I think maybe this is the start of the "by the numbers" you've said above, and perhaps even more why I discounted it.

I guess if I felt more strongly about the Morena Baccarin I'd be more disappointed.

Shifting gears slightly...how would you have replaced her death with another motivator that would have provided the same "willing to die just to prove to Firefist that he cares" element? Or is that just not a tenable story otherwise? The dominoes (pardon the pun) are set up and seem to require that first kick. Does the "leaving him because he couldn't be a good father" trick work, or is that just as bad for other proscribed gender role reasons? ASIDE: It totally undercuts the heroic value of the sacrifice that DP wanted to be dead anyway, but that's another discussion.

Re: Trope names: Didn't woman in the refrigerator used to have a broader connotation as well...kidnapped and kept in the fridge to motivate the "hero"? Or was that one named something else and just happened to share the fridge?

Re: Black Widow movie: They can't use "we don't make movies about 3rd tier characters" as an excuse any more, but now they can probably say "Red Sparrow already came out." At least DC destroyed the idea that a female-led action spectacle can't possibly succeed (a lesson Ripley taught them in 1986 but they were probably too slow to get it).

- M

[AliceLost]

Re: Trope names: Didn't woman in the refrigerator used to have a broader connotation as well...kidnapped and kept in the fridge to motivate the "hero"? Or was that one named something else and just happened to share the fridge?

- M

I think you might be muddling tropes: women getting kidnapped as motivation is also totally a trope, but I've never encountered fridging to refer to anything other than death. The trope namer was a woman who was butchered and her pieces fit into a fridge.

[Olinser]

I am not sure this is a valuable part of a superhero movie. A comic book or series, certainly. But not an action spectacle. Every non-action character in action spectacles is fair game for motivation by death, aren't they? I think that it probably the crux of my response to Vanessa's death...it is an expected part of these kinds of movies that anyone not-the-hero can be used as leverage.



Does the veteran cop/teacher/old friend getting popped in the first 15 minutes of a bijillion action spectacles generate the same reaction for you? The role of Vanessa in the first movie seemed to exist just to provide DP with a sense of loss, and then a point of leverage. Same as any of the older cops/teachers/friends/senseis. The gender of the leverage is secondary, but I am aware that 99.9% of the romantic interest points of leverage are adult female and probably 80% of the other points of leverage are adult male (the rest being probably 19% sons/daughters and 1% adult females).

Because it was clear she was a leverage character I was never invested in Vanessa, just like Bambi's mom or Simba's dad. That she returned in DP2 in the exact same role didn't surprise me either and I frankly didn't even have time to consider it before they did the gift swap which was *exactly* the same as any cop other than Murtaugh saying "Twelve days to retirement". I think maybe this is the start of the "by the numbers" you've said above, and perhaps even more why I discounted it.

I guess if I felt more strongly about the Morena Baccarin I'd be more disappointed.

Shifting gears slightly...how would you have replaced her death with another motivator that would have provided the same "willing to die just to prove to Firefist that he cares" element? Or is that just not a tenable story otherwise? The dominoes (pardon the pun) are set up and seem to require that first kick. Does the "leaving him because he couldn't be a good father" trick work, or is that just as bad for other proscribed gender role reasons? ASIDE: It totally undercuts the heroic value of the sacrifice that DP wanted to be dead anyway, but that's another discussion.

Re: Trope names: Didn't woman in the refrigerator used to have a broader connotation as well...kidnapped and kept in the fridge to motivate the "hero"? Or was that one named something else and just happened to share the fridge?

Re: Black Widow movie: They can't use "we don't make movies about 3rd tier characters" as an excuse any more, but now they can probably say "Red Sparrow already came out." At least DC destroyed the idea that a female-led action spectacle can't possibly succeed (a lesson Ripley taught them in 1986 but they were probably too slow to get it).

- M

Honestly I was actually expecting Deadpool to headshot the dude himself and give a 4th wall breaking speech about how Russell needed to be better than he was.

[LaZodiac]

Uh...concerning Blackwidow solo film, we're GETTING that. So you can shove that attitude.

[Dragonus45]

Uh...concerning Blackwidow solo film, we're GETTING that. So you can shove that attitude.

And I stand by the statement, it will probably turn out fine since marvel are miracle workers but it doesn’t change the fact that there andozen better female comics characters to carry a movie then her.

[Reddish Mage]

I am not sure this is a valuable part of a superhero movie. A comic book or series, certainly. But not an action spectacle. Every non-action character in action spectacles is fair game for motivation by death, aren't they? I think that it probably the crux of my response to Vanessa's death...it is an expected part of these kinds of movies that anyone not-the-hero can be used as leverage.

- M

9 times out of 10 its the girlfriend and its an especially common trope in comic books. I think there's plenty of powerful emotional reasons to make its the girl and not another character. It shouldn't be written off as "any non-action character is fair game." That is a fundamental failure to understand why the girlfriend is chosen and the criticism of the practice.

The criticism is, if you look across a broad swath of media in the superhero realm, you'll find these plots dominating to the point of cliche. The feminist criticism is that this relegates the women's role to...well being dead. There's an obvious lack of appreciation for women's voices in repeatedly writing such plots.

Also, your reaction to this criticism is a fine as a gut reaction. Vanessa's death is obviously pivotal to the movie. However, there is a question as to whether superhero media ought to be male-dominated to the extent it has, and whether its desirable that female-victim cliches get repeated as often as they have. Perhaps the most discussed visible symptom of the trend is "fridging."

I think Deadpool 2, while being awesome in its jokes, and characters, does suffer from being basically a collection of thin plot cliches that don't feel properly motivated.

Also notable: Deadpool 1 has the damsel plot. Also, the actress originally slated to be Vanessa (Olivia Munn) turned down the job to play Psylocke in X-men Apocalypse. That character, of course, gets hit with an entirely different set of criticism.

Somehow I've just managed to hit three targets of feminist criticisms from looking at one character in Deadpool. Its rather amazing how easy it is to find.

[Dragonus45]

9 times out of 10 its the girlfriend and its an especially common trope in comic books. I think there's plenty of powerful emotional reasons to make its the girl and not another character. It shouldn't be written off as "any non-action character is fair game." That is a fundamental failure to understand why the girlfriend is chosen and the criticism of the practice.



The reason the girlfriend is chosen is easy. You need it to be someone close to the protagonist in question and half of them already have parents who are already to dead to kill off a second time, and in general for long running stories of a serial nature like comic books it opens the door to redoing romance plot lines and introducing new love interests is easier then it is to introduce a new brother or sister. It is also emotionally resonant because people can look at their own significant others and think about how much it would hurt if anything happened to them. On top of all that you have the reality that any time women suffer violence in media it is always going to provoke a stronger gut reaction then a similar situation involving any dead male character. That bit is pretty much hardwired in and ties a great deal into the general value seen in women compared to male disposability as a survival mechanism for pre industrial societies. Similar to why rescuing kidnapped princesses and the like is also a powerful default motivator, it is always a more powerful lever for the audience. You have to spend a bunch more time building some emotional connection if you use someone else whereas you just state, "this person is in a "relationship with the main character" and you have tons of prepackaged emotional weight only enhanced by the entire first movie being about that relationship to begin with. Make up sexist motives all you want but the blunt truth is that it gets written because when executed well it works every time, and when executed poorly it sucks like anything else with poor execution. But it is in no way some kind of deep societal issue.

[Reddish Mage]

Make up sexist motives all you want but the blunt truth is that it gets written because when executed well it works every time, and when executed poorly it sucks like anything else with poor execution. But it is in no way some kind of deep societal issue.

It wasn’t. The reasons cited were my “powerful emotional reasons to choose the girl” in response to “anyone is fair game (it’s just happens to be the girlfriend).”

At the very least killing the girlfriend to get an emotional charge on the cheap and easy is symptomatic of being cliches and using lazy recycled writing.

Also, when the cliche is so common that being a girlfriend in an entire genre equates to being a victim...that might just be suggestive of a deep issue.

[Dragonus45]

It wasn’t. The reasons cited were my “powerful emotional reasons to choose the girl” in response to “anyone is fair game (it’s just happens to be the girlfriend).”

At the very least killing the girlfriend to get an emotional charge on the cheap and easy is symptomatic of being cliches and using lazy recycled writing.

Also, when the cliche is so common that being a girlfriend in an entire genre equates to being a victim...that might just be suggestive of a deep issue.

Well I do agree that the habits of people not understanding why use of story elements made a story good and just repeating it ad nauseam is a problem. (See the entirety of the 90s from people not understanding what made the good dark hero stuff good and just writing darkness for its own sake for a totally engendered example of the phenomena in comic books.) It's a tale as old as serialized story telling and also-rans with poor execution on solid concepts are never going away and hardly rise to the level of problem that people want to make it out to be.

[Mordar]

9 times out of 10 its the girlfriend and its an especially common trope in comic books. I think there's plenty of powerful emotional reasons to make its the girl and not another character. It shouldn't be written off as "any non-action character is fair game." That is a fundamental failure to understand why the girlfriend is chosen and the criticism of the practice.

The criticism is, if you look across a broad swath of media in the superhero realm, you'll find these plots dominating to the point of cliche. The feminist criticism is that this relegates the women's role to...well being dead. There's an obvious lack of appreciation for women's voices in repeatedly writing such plots.

Also, your reaction to this criticism is a fine as a gut reaction. Vanessa's death is obviously pivotal to the movie. However, there is a question as to whether superhero media ought to be male-dominated to the extent it has, and whether its desirable that female-victim cliches get repeated as often as they have. Perhaps the most discussed visible symptom of the trend is "fridging."

I do not believe I have fundamentally misunderstood at all. The biggest, easiest person-lever on a character is going to be the significant other, with the child coming in a close number two. Next is parent/caregiver/teacher/sibling, and then probably pet. Producers likely think "We need someone who has a huge emotional connection to the protagionist and don't have time to spend on why Jeremy the Neighbor is a great lever on Joe Hero, so let's give him a girlfriend and just use that". The significant other is a known and established to all audiences, it is absurdly easy to use and that's why it is done.

As I see it, the heart of the issue is the near-uniformity in the gender of Joe Hero, and that in our current culture it necessitates that the significant other be female.

I don't know that we want to further digress into the disproportionate share of Joe Heroes, particularly Joe Superheroes as male. We have the supers legacy we have, dating literally to the 1930s, and we're not going to see anyone spending $300M on a movie about a character that doesn't have a couple decades of track record. That's not a good thing, but it is a thing. And it is why I was rooting for and very happy with (at least all of the non-Themyscira portions of) Wonder Woman, and why I would much rather a Batgirl movie than a Black Widow movie.

The use of close characters in action spectacles as levers is, as you say, cliche, even de rigueur...and it being the wife/girlfriend or the older cop mentor is the stereotype. To the point of it being a joke on the level of wearing a red shirt in Star Trek if you're not James Doohan. That was my point about non-action character, particularly in a spectacle of DP's nature.


I think Deadpool 2, while being awesome in its jokes, and characters, does suffer from being basically a collection of thin plot cliches that don't feel properly motivated.

Also notable: Deadpool 1 has the damsel plot. Also, the actress originally slated to be Vanessa (Olivia Munn) turned down the job to play Psylocke in X-men Apocalypse. That character, of course, gets hit with an entirely different set of criticism.

Somehow I've just managed to hit three targets of feminist criticisms from looking at one character in Deadpool. Its rather amazing how easy it is to find.

I think you're even missing that the characters are cliches (or more to the point just didn't include it). DP2 is a trope wrapped in a cliche surrounded by genre conceits. Don't forget the other casual sexism on display - Vanessa has to come to DP to be kissed, Vanessa is responsible for the birth control, the female heroes are sent off/choose to go off and take care of the kids. Kinda pervasive.

- M

[huttj509]

I feel Deadpool 2 does do something different with Vanessa's death than would normally be expected, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was on purpose (though whether it succeeded or not is up for debate).

Deadpool's reaction is not what one would normally expect to see in an action/comedy movie. Cable plays it straight. Family dead, seek revenge. Tortured dark grrr gloomy anger kill glare. Deadpool, while he chases the guy, when he catches him? He gives him a hug (and then attempted mutual death by car). Deadpool's motivated, not by revenge for Vanessa's death, but by looking for how to move on. Who he is without her. This is common in a Drama, but not in an Action/Comedy.

[LaZodiac]

I feel Deadpool 2 does do something different with Vanessa's death than would normally be expected, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was on purpose (though whether it succeeded or not is up for debate).

Deadpool's reaction is not what one would normally expect to see in an action/comedy movie. Cable plays it straight. Family dead, seek revenge. Tortured dark grrr gloomy anger kill glare. Deadpool, while he chases the guy, when he catches him? He gives him a hug (and then attempted mutual death by car). Deadpool's motivated, not by revenge for Vanessa's death, but by looking for how to move on. Who he is without her. This is common in a Drama, but not in an Action/Comedy.

Still comes off as kinda bleghy.

Like here's the big thing here. I think they executed this all REALLY well. Still wish they could of done it a better way due to the unfortunate implications of it all, at the end of the day. But like i said, I did LOVE it for what it brought to the table, giving this iteration of Deadpool his reason for being in love with Death.

[Zalabim]

To be fair, I kind of agree, I didn't find that particular part to be funny like it was clearly meant to be.
Also can't help thinking that he should just get right back up from that, since IIRC his superpower is literally being physically invincible, and you genuinely need a telepath who can hit him in the mind to stop him. (Kind of thought that was going to turn out to be that Yukio girl's power, but I guess not.)

I think he could just get right back up after that, being so resilient and all, but the kinds of attacks he was subjected to probably constitute mental attacks in the first place. Basically, the X-men/X-force were fighting so dirty that it wasn't fun for him anymore. So he chose to stay down until they left.

[Reddish Mage]

I think you're even missing that the characters are cliches (or more to the point just didn't include it). DP2 is a trope wrapped in a cliche surrounded by genre conceits. Don't forget the other casual sexism on display - Vanessa has to come to DP to be kissed, Vanessa is responsible for the birth control, the female heroes are sent off/choose to go off and take care of the kids. Kinda pervasive.

Again I think you don't get the critique and this statement shows it. This is about a particular, especially tired, plot device that has especially significant unfortunate implications, not critiquing sexism in general or rumaging for gender cliches.

DP2 isn't as good as the first movie mainly due to the overuse of cliches. It is otherwise very well executed.

I've mentioned generally the problem of cliche's but what's the significance of pointing them all out if we are talking about a particular one? You seem to want to avoid discussing fridging specifically to point out all these other shinies. I am talking about one exceptionally tired trope AND a trope that, having effectively removed the feminine element from comics since the 80's, has unfortunate implications.

On the whole I don't think DP2 is anywhere near the apex of misogyny and is even ground breaking. It contains significant female participation, and the first superhero lesbian couple on screen.

More on point, Venessa herself reappears to Deadpool throughout the story, so she isn't even written out of the story as a character.


Deadpool's motivated, not by revenge for Vanessa's death, but by looking for how to move on. Who he is without her. This is common in a Drama, but not in an Action/Comedy.

I don't think the need to move on is that uncommon even in comicbooks. However, dropping the revenge element is pretty significant. Deadpool announces he killed every single one responsible for Vanessa's death minutes after the scene. It adds something that his adventures are not ther result of a revenge cliche.

[Kato]

Deadpool's motivated, not by revenge for Vanessa's death, but by looking for how to move on. Who he is without her. This is common in a Drama, but not in an Action/Comedy.

As was said, yeah, he's not motivated by revenge, or... At least not for long. But his very first instinct is to get revenge, but then he has nobody left to blame except himself, causing him to be deeply depressed. Which is when he decides he hasn't lost her if he kills himself. Which of course doesn't work. Which leads to him misunderstanding (?) her about earning her back (or his death) by fixing himself / doing good. Of course in the end he has to accept that she's dead and he is alive.
So.. Wait.. Did wade just go through anger, depression, denial, bargaining and acceptance over the course of the movie...? :smalltongue:

[Reddish Mage]

As was said, yeah, he's not motivated by revenge, or... At least not for long. But his very first instinct is to get revenge, but then he has nobody left to blame except himself, causing him to be deeply depressed. Which is when he decides he hasn't lost her if he kills himself. Which of course doesn't work. Which leads to him misunderstanding (?) her about earning her back (or his death) by fixing himself / doing good. Of course in the end he has to accept that she's dead and he is alive.
So.. Wait.. Did wade just go through anger, depression, denial, bargaining and acceptance over the course of the movie...? :smalltongue:

The order is denial guilt anger (includes bargaining) sadness and acceptance

Then there’s that extra step following acceptance where you reverse everything with a time machine so it never happened.

[The Glyphstone]

The order is denial guilt anger (includes bargaining) sadness and acceptance

Then there’s that extra step following acceptance where you reverse everything with a time machine so it never happened.

Which of course undermines the entire point of learning a lesson in the first place, but that's more fitting for Deadpool than any sort of character growth would be.

[Razade]

Pretty sure the end mid credit roll stuff was a joke. I don't think Deadpool actually went and saved his lady or anything. I mean. It has him going back to another movie to kill himself and him going and killing his actor. Pretty sure it was all just typical fourth wall breaking humor.

[LaZodiac]

Pretty sure the end mid credit roll stuff was a joke. I don't think Deadpool actually went and saved his lady or anything. I mean. It has him going back to another movie to kill himself and him going and killing his actor. Pretty sure it was all just typical fourth wall breaking humor.

The writers said it's canon.

[Razade]

The writers said it's canon.

[citation needed]

[LaZodiac]

[citation needed]

Okay y'ah big baby I'll look it up for you.

Here's the AMA they did on Reddit, linked directly to that specific question just for you. (https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/8keylr/we_are_rhett_reese_and_paul_wernick_cowriters_and/dz747dz/)

[Reddish Mage]

I think the time travel being fourth all breaking and canon is perfectly consistent with the character.

Also, I agree with Glyphstone. The act undermines the entire point of the movie its perfect for Deadpool to do it.

Of course I'm not a big fan of the point to begin with (see above), but the cliche grief narrative is undermined in a great way. Deadpool brings Vanessa back, but all that character growth and the new allience with the X-men remains.

This says something profound about the character growth through death, as it turns out the death ends up being no longer necessary.

Also it opens the door for Deadpool to be in the next X-men movie. I'm sure the latter is what interests people more.

[Razade]

Okay y'ah big baby I'll look it up for you.

Hey, if you want to go to name calling because I asked you to back up an assertion have at it. I'm sorry I don't have the time or care to fact check you whenever you feel like you don't need to provide evidence for something you said.


Here's the AMA they did on Reddit, linked directly to that specific question just for you. (https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/8keylr/we_are_rhett_reese_and_paul_wernick_cowriters_and/dz747dz/)

Hey! Would ya look at that. I guess I'll care if/when she is in Deadpool 3.

[LaZodiac]

Hey, if you want to go to name calling because I asked you to back up an assertion have at it. I'm sorry I don't have the time or care to fact check you whenever you feel like you don't need to provide evidence for something you said.



Hey! Would ya look at that. I guess I'll care if/when she is in Deadpool 3.

Last time I brought it up I cited my source for it, and I'm pretty sure you saw it.

At any rate there you go.

Also I'm actually not super keen on Deadpool showing up in films where he's not the protagonist, because I'm not sure him doing his thing in another context, at least in these films, would work that well.

[Reddish Mage]

Also I'm actually not super keen on Deadpool showing up in films where he's not the protagonist, because I'm not sure him doing his thing in another context, at least in these films, would work that well.

I think he's good for a few snarky comments and can cut the tension or add a funny bit. You just have to read Shakespeare to see that the clown can have a role to play in almost any sort of production.

Deadpool doesn't have to be the protagonist, he can be the clown.

[LaZodiac]

I think he's good for a few snarky comments and can cut the tension or add a funny bit. You just have to read Shakespeare to see that the clown can have a role to play in almost any sort of production.

Deadpool doesn't have to be the protagonist, he can be the clown.

That's true, I'm just worried how it'll go. I shouldn't be, but I am to a degree.

[Dienekes]

I'm surprised by your surprise. Women in refrigerators is a trope that's usually considered offputting. It's defined as being killed to provide motivation for another (male) character: she wasn't fridged in DP1 but she was certainly sidelined and damseled and it was frustrating because a) it's Morena Baccarin and she's awesome and b) her character was interesting and her relationship with Wade is incredibly refreshing and fun to watch. She's one of the only superhero love interests who doesn't add tension to the relationship, and could simply be supportive of his job.

Her role in DP2 didn't really need to be bigger than it was (I would have enjoyed seeing more of her, but I won't argue that it was necessary), but it would have been miles better to have her remain alive, in a relationship with Wade, and his narrative motivated by...literally anything other than her death. It's Deadpool. Coming up with reasons for him to do stuff isn't exactly hard, he's not the most complexly motivated character Marvel has.

Fridging has always been kind of a drum over nothing for me, personally. Death as motivation happens a lot. For Batman it's his parents then Jason. For Spidey it's his uncle then girlfriend then best friend. For Hal Jordan it was his entire city being glassed. For Aang it's his mentor. For Luke it's his aunt and uncle and then mentor. For Achilles it's Patroclus.

Death is a fine motivator to use.

Now, when Gail Simone coined the term she wasn't against using the death of a female as a motivating force. She actually does that herself, at least once (Secret Six, read it, it's great). Just noting that it was a thread that is repeatedly used which could drive female readers away from comics.

But if it annoys you, that's totally fair. I hate watching romances.

As to the movie itself. It was alright.

I loved the "made by someone who can't draw feet" line, which involved me laughing like an idiot while my friends looked at me confused.

Overall it was a bit of fun. Even though the time travel made no sense since it seems to be both going back in your own body and actually moving you through time. I don't think they ever have Deadpool comment on that either. Pity.

[The Glyphstone]

Last time I brought it up I cited my source for it, and I'm pretty sure you saw it.

At any rate there you go.

Also I'm actually not super keen on Deadpool showing up in films where he's not the protagonist, because I'm not sure him doing his thing in another context, at least in these films, would work that well.

I think Deadpool works better as a co-protagonist, really. Much of his humor comes from being zany in comparison to more grounded characters. Colossus, Dopinder, Weasel, Blind Al - his supporting cast are the Straight (person) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_man) to Deadpool's comedy. A theoretical X-Force movie would put the other team members in that same role.

[Kato]

The order is denial guilt anger (includes bargaining) sadness and acceptance

Then there’s that extra step following acceptance where you reverse everything with a time machine so it never happened.
Wait, if you hit acceptance and then go back, can you not stop it from happening, do the cycle again and become even happier?

Also, I haven't studied the field but isn't it by now acknowledged the order is rather arbitrary (except it should end with acceptance)?
But I guess there are differing explanations..



Also I'm actually not super keen on Deadpool showing up in films where he's not the protagonist, because I'm not sure him doing his thing in another context, at least in these films, would work that well.
Yeah. I mean, I'll be really unpopular here and say... Wade was fine in Origins, Deadpool wasn't.
And Deadpool is great in his own movie, doing his own thing, but he's too much if it not revolves around him and his style of storytelling.

[LaZodiac]

I think Deadpool works better as a co-protagonist, really. Much of his humor comes from being zany in comparison to more grounded characters. Colossus, Dopinder, Weasel, Blind Al - his supporting cast are the Straight (person) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_man) to Deadpool's comedy. A theoretical X-Force movie would put the other team members in that same role.

Okay so yeah obviously he needs people to bounce off of but I mean-



And Deadpool is great in his own movie, doing his own thing, but he's too much if it not revolves around him and his style of storytelling.

Yeah that's the thing I was trying to say. That. He needs to be the FOCUS, for the straight men to be next to him, instead of him being the goofy guy in the background while Tony does his serious thing with Strange. He's too much in that situation.

[Sinewmire]

Fridging has always been kind of a drum over nothing for me, personally. Death as motivation happens a lot. For Batman it's his parents then Jason. For Spidey it's his uncle then girlfriend then best friend. For Hal Jordan it was his entire city being glassed. For Aang it's his mentor. For Luke it's his aunt and uncle and then mentor. For Achilles it's Patroclus.

Death is a fine motivator to use.

Now, when Gail Simone coined the term she wasn't against using the death of a female as a motivating force. She actually does that herself, at least once (Secret Six, read it, it's great). Just noting that it was a thread that is repeatedly used which could drive female readers away from comics.

But if it annoys you, that's totally fair. I hate watching romances.

Sure. Death or betrayal is a pretty typical plot device that writers will use to drive a story.
Look at most serial TV programs, unless they are a main MAIN character they will betray our main character at some point, even if it's just for an episode, because there's an easy emotional impact. For example, The Flash - I guessed the villain for season 3 because I thought "well, it has to be someobody they know, otherwise they won't feel betrayed and conflicted". I think there's a certain bleakness in that show, no matter how lighthearted it is, because every single character is just a timebomb until they become a villain, and I'm looking at them thinking "I wonder how this person will end up being an agonizing experience for Barry." It's kinda like watching a show where you know everyone will die.

That said, it's a lazy and overused trope. Writers love the start and the end of relationships, as they invoke strong emotions. Problem is, as has been said, this reduces the role of the significant other to either an end goal or a cheap reason for conflict with the villain. That's not a character, that's a This being a situation where a female character could have been replaced with a sexy lamp, ie. an object with no agency "You broke my lamp! Grrr!" Whilst that's not a shooting offence in and of itself, given that most main characers tend to be male most of their "noooooo!" fodder tends to be female.

Individually it's not a problem, but with a repeated pattern accross hundreds of examples it is a problem (like drinking!), because it hammers home a message that women are disposable, that they only exist as objects to give be acted upon by more important people (men). It's an attitude that belongs in the 50s.

I can't help but feel that the writers of Deadpool could, and should have, done better given how well they skewer cliches and familiar plot devices.

[Dienekes]

Individually it's not a problem, but with a repeated pattern accross hundreds of examples it is a problem (like drinking!), because it hammers home a message that women are disposable, that they only exist as objects to give be acted upon by more important people (men). It's an attitude that belongs in the 50s.

I can't help but feel that the writers of Deadpool could, and should have, done better given how well they skewer cliches and familiar plot devices.

This is the argument that somewhat confuses me. How many men does Deadpool kill in this movie? How many women?

Everyone is disposable when it comes to the conflict around the protagonist. On the other side of things the death of the love interest is shown to be some very dramatic and terrible event, while the death of men is played for laughs.

Now, I will admit, I am biased on this. The quicker the love interest gets killed off, the less of the story I have to deal with said love interest. Romance is always the most boring part of movies, Deadpool was no exception.

So to me, the great change would be less saying you can't kill off the love interest (by all means, murder them quicker). But start making more protagonists and active persons within the story female. Domino was a good start, but the movie could have done better in that regard. The big active characters are Deadpool, Cable, and Russell. Colossus and Domino were roughly the same level. Negasonic Teenage Warhead and Yukio were mostly just there to show that they exist.

[LaZodiac]

This is the argument that somewhat confuses me. How many men does Deadpool kill in this movie? How many women?

Everyone is disposable when it comes to the conflict around the protagonist. On the other side of things the death of the love interest is shown to be some very dramatic and terrible event, while the death of men is played for laughs.

Now, I will admit, I am biased on this. The quicker the love interest gets killed off, the less of the story I have to deal with said love interest. Romance is always the most boring part of movies, Deadpool was no exception.

So to me, the great change would be less saying you can't kill off the love interest (by all means, murder them quicker). But start making more protagonists and active persons within the story female. Domino was a good start, but the movie could have done better in that regard. The big active characters are Deadpool, Cable, and Russell. Colossus and Domino were roughly the same level. Negasonic Teenage Warhead and Yukio were mostly just there to show that they exist.

If Vanessa wasn't killed she could become more active. Also I guess different strokes for different folks and all that, but I loved the time with Vanessa that was romantic. How many series show such a passionate, genuine and real relationship on screen? "Holiday Screwing" in the first film was probably one of the funniest montages I've ever seen.

[Talakeal]

"Women in refrigerators," has become way overused. In the original context it wasnt just anout violence towards women to motivate men, it was about writing a character out of the story (and thus removing all future dramatic potential and character growth) so they could give a male character more dramatic potential or growth, turning the male character into a sort of "screentime vampire". Its a lot like "mary-sue" in that regard, people are so overly sensitive to it they jump to use the term even when it lacks the original context.

[AliceLost]

This is the argument that somewhat confuses me. How many men does Deadpool kill in this movie? How many women?

Everyone is disposable when it comes to the conflict around the protagonist. On the other side of things the death of the love interest is shown to be some very dramatic and terrible event, while the death of men is played for laughs.

Now, I will admit, I am biased on this. The quicker the love interest gets killed off, the less of the story I have to deal with said love interest. Romance is always the most boring part of movies, Deadpool was no exception.

So to me, the great change would be less saying you can't kill off the love interest (by all means, murder them quicker). But start making more protagonists and active persons within the story female. Domino was a good start, but the movie could have done better in that regard. The big active characters are Deadpool, Cable, and Russell. Colossus and Domino were roughly the same level. Negasonic Teenage Warhead and Yukio were mostly just there to show that they exist.

I'd say that the issue does, as you suggest, come down to active vs passive roles in stories. Fridging focuses particularly on female love interests because that's a commonly visible problem, but at its core we simply don't have enough active women in media, and any female characters that are sidelined contribute to that. Deadpool may kill a lot of men, but part of the reason for that is because "minion" is an active, if brief and disposable, role, and so it's largely male dominated. Deadpool fights a horde of criminals, who are almost all men, in the opening, he fights prisoners and guards and orderlies in droves and they're all disposable objects that don't impact the plot at all, but they are still at their core expected to be performing an activity; doing something active. The love interest, by comparison, is usually expected to be passive, sitting off to one side offering support or tension, which Vanessa does quite literally in this film: her death may be focused on as a big deal, but dying isn't an action that she performs. Almost all of what she does is sitting on a sofa and talking to Wade. Black Tom takes a more active role in the film than she does (although I'm not arguing a more significant one).

As you point out, Negasonic and Yukio are also characters with basically nothing to do, so Domino ends up being the only female character in the film who takes an active role in...pursuing goals or accomplishing anything. This is separate from "plot significance", because obviously Vanessa is shown to be involved in a dramatic and terrible event and gets more focus than any of the other women, it's just that she doesn't have an active role in it, so as mentioned above, she could be replaced with an inanimate object that Wade had an equal attachment to and the plot wouldn't be different.

If the majority of action films were female-dominated casts about women in lesbian relationships avenging their dead lovers, it probably wouldn't be seen as such a pernicious trope because the core concept of female inaction wouldn't be present.
However, I still don't entirely get the strong defense of murdering people (of any gender) as a plot motivator, because quite frankly I've seen it often enough to feel it's mostly overdone, even gender issues aside. Give me more interesting action heroes who have meaningful family lives and relationships outside of their main action quest.

[Lacuna Caster]

Not sure which way this counts, but it just occurred to me- the entire crew of Thor's ship from the end of Ragnarok (including both Valkyrie and Heimdall) were kind of 'fridged' during the opening scene of Infinity War.

With that said, I can certainly envision a version of the movie that was still pretty entertaining and had vanessa 100% alive and possibly a little more proactive. (I still feel cheated that Pepper didn't keep her Extremis powers at the end of Iron Man 3. Cripes what a waste.)

[Dienekes]

If the majority of action films were female-dominated casts about women in lesbian relationships avenging their dead lovers, it probably wouldn't be seen as such a pernicious trope because the core concept of female inaction wouldn't be present.
However, I still don't entirely get the strong defense of murdering people (of any gender) as a plot motivator, because quite frankly I've seen it often enough to feel it's mostly overdone, even gender issues aside. Give me more interesting action heroes who have meaningful family lives and relationships outside of their main action quest.

That’s easy for me to explain.

You say that seeing death as a motivation has been overdone.

Alright, how many stories instead use love? How many have you seen use romantic love compared to death? I don’t have an official tally but I’m willing to bet love wins out. It is ubiquitous in our media. It’s shoved into just about everything whether it fits or not. I’m tired of it and bored.

If killing off the protagonists boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband/sex buddy means we get a good old fashion Revenge tale rather than a romance I am for it 100% of the way. I just do not care whether or not the protagonist is getting laid. In Deadpool I came to watch people die in ridiculous ways, fourth wall jokes, and cool mutant powers.

Watching Deadpool and Vanessa talk about their future baby involved almost none of that.

[LaZodiac]

Not sure which way this counts, but it just occurred to me- the entire crew of Thor's ship from the end of Ragnarok (including both Valkyrie and Heimdall) were kind of 'fridged' during the opening scene of Infinity War.

With that said, I can certainly envision a version of the movie that was still pretty entertaining and had vanessa 100% alive and possibly a little more proactive. (I still feel cheated that Pepper didn't keep her Extremis powers at the end of Iron Man 3. Cripes what a waste.)

Heimdal yeah, and Loki, but Valkyrie was on the other hand. She's alive.

[AliceLost]

That’s easy for me to explain.

You say that seeing death as a motivation has been overdone.

Alright, how many stories instead use love? How many have you seen use romantic love compared to death? I don’t have an official tally but I’m willing to bet love wins out. It is ubiquitous in our media. It’s shoved into just about everything whether it fits or not. I’m tired of it and bored.

If killing off the protagonists boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband/sex buddy means we get a good old fashion Revenge tale rather than a romance I am for it 100% of the way. I just do not care whether or not the protagonist is getting laid. In Deadpool I came to watch people die in ridiculous ways, fourth wall jokes, and cool mutant powers.

Watching Deadpool and Vanessa talk about their future baby involved almost none of that.

Well I agree with you that romance is also overdone and leaned on as an easy motivation in lazy writing, I think both of them are.
However, do you understand that the difference between them is that the revenge story is inherently about one person (almost always male), while a romance is a story about two people (almost always one male and one female).

Also a revenge story isn't necessary for an action film, as seems to be your implication. Yes, killing Vanessa gave us an action story, but as has been pointed out already, there are plenty of other ways a similar story could have been kicked off.

I feel like the fundamental divide here is between people saying "I only care about the story, not which characters are in it" and people saying "I care about the story, but also about which characters get to do things in it". We all want a good story. We all want Deadpool to kill people and break the fourth wall, nobody is arguing against that. But some of us want to see that alongside female characters who get to do things and not be reduced to objects. Why does this get so much resistance?

[Dienekes]

Well I agree with you that romance is also overdone and leaned on as an easy motivation in lazy writing, I think both of them are.
However, do you understand that the difference between them is that the revenge story is inherently about one person (almost always male), while a romance is a story about two people (almost always one male and one female).

Also a revenge story isn't necessary for an action film, as seems to be your implication. Yes, killing Vanessa gave us an action story, but as has been pointed out already, there are plenty of other ways a similar story could have been kicked off.

I feel like the fundamental divide here is between people saying "I only care about the story, not which characters are in it" and people saying "I care about the story, but also about which characters get to do things in it". We all want a good story. We all want Deadpool to kill people and break the fourth wall, nobody is arguing against that. But some of us want to see that alongside female characters who get to do things and not be reduced to objects. Why does this get so much resistance?

That was not my implication. You don't need revenge for an action flick. Though usually in order for violence to become seen as justifiable by the audience it has to be a response for something. In that way, most violent media is revenge based in some way. Not all, there are some war movies where the action is just these two groups of people trying to kill each other because war, no need to get personal about it. God I loved Gettysburg.

Now the inciting incident that starts the conflict doesn't necessarily have to be the love interest, but again, because romance gets thrust into everything that often ends up being the case. And if it is the love interest that is a quick and easy way to completely ignore the romance and get to the stuff I like. Every second watching people kiss is a wasted second, in my book.

As an aside, honestly, most romances in fiction aren't really about two people. They're framed as being about two people. But really they're about one person trying to obtain the other. The other starts off as unobtainable because of some reason, the protagonist does something to woo them. Other starts coming around as a response to the protag's actions. The villain/random misunderstanding causes the protag's woo-ing to backfire. Protag has big climactic finish where the villain is discredited, the random misunderstanding is disproven. And dutifully the object of the protagonist's desires falls right into their lap.

My push back is rather the notion that a writer must not do something. Screw that. Write whatever the hell you want. I don't have to like it. I often don't.

If you say "I want more active female characters" cool. I'm all for it. Once you start saying "This is bad because it killed someone who I wanted to be more central to the story." I don't care. Whether it's the friendly uncle or the girlfriend getting offed. It's all the same to me. The inciting incident that gets the plot started.

For what it's worth, I rather liked Domino in the movie partially because she was great. But also because she didn't get shoved into a romance with anyone (unlike the comics thankfully where she had no real personality but was regularly knocking boots with Cable). I got to see her be active, make good quips, do some neat stunts, have some good powers. Done in a way that Vanessa really isn't set up as capable of doing. Since the first movie she was set up as the damsel for Deadpool to save and pine over. She just facilitates action. That's her purpose in the story.

Because that's really the trick to all of this. All of them are objects. Every character is written into a story for a purpose, otherwise you get a bloated story that seems random. They aren't real. And saying "you can't kill off this person" is silly.

Now do I want to watch females go around kicking ass and being active protagonists in their story? Sure do. But do I want to watch this active female protagonist go on a date with her boyfriend? Nope. Do I care if the boyfriend is killed to facilitate the story while also sparring me from watching more overlong romance dialogue? Can't wait for it to get here quicker so I can go watch this female protagonist kill stuff.

[Lacuna Caster]

Heimdal yeah, and Loki, but Valkyrie was on the other hand. She's alive.
I think I missed that bit- I thought everyone on the ship was slaughtered?

EDIT: No, wait- technically confirmed (http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/the-avengers/news/a856093/avengers-infinity-war-valkyrie-alive-joe-russo/) to survive. Okay, that's cool.

[Kyberwulf]

Why does it get so much resistance?

Because you can't force people to care, anymore then people can force you not to care. Besides that nothing would make you happy.

I mean, someone said... "Vanessa had to come to DP to kissed." If it were written that DP went to her, there would be cries of him forcing his misogyny on her, or something similar.

Vanessa being force to be responsible for the IED. You can say that, or you can say she had the power in the relationship to decide when the best time to have kids were. It was HER choice to come off the BC. I even think it was an ultimatum to DP. If you want to keep seeing her, you have to start a family. Heck, he didn't even have a SAY when to have a baby. Judging from his reaction to the IED when presented to him.

Also, it wasn't even the girl who was sent to care for the kids. It was DP, that was given that responsibility.



Why does this get so much resistance?

The same reason people seem to have a problem with current movies. I mean, why would people go watch a movie about a certain character, just to have it turn into some kind of buddy cop movie. Besides that's how you get so much tokenism in movies. You need to have the token girl in there, then the token black guy. The token Lesbian. The token ...well. Everything. I mean, You didn't even really need Colossus or negasonic teenage... long name in there. The only reason they were in there, was because they were in the first movie. The reason why Vanessa isn't given something more to do, is because she isn't the main character of the movie. That's the main reason why NONE of the characters are really given much to do. The title of the movie, isn't their name. So why would we want to watch something about them, and Deadpool getting less and less screentime?

[Pex]

Because it's not about being entertained anymore. It's about the propaganda of correct messaging.

[HMS Invincible]

Because it's not about being entertained anymore. It's about the propaganda of correct messaging.

Here's a wild conspiracy theory, you're the one who doesn't care about being entertained anymore. It's all about the propaganda of macho stereotypical plots.

Just the idea of a woman who isn't violently killed to further the plot makes you overreact. Just a crazy idea.

I wonder if Deadpool will show up in other marvel movies. He doesn't seem like he'd play well, but I do want more of him.

[Pex]

Here's a wild conspiracy theory, you're the one who doesn't care about being entertained anymore. It's all about the propaganda of macho stereotypical plots.

Just the idea of a woman who isn't violently killed to further the plot makes you overreact. Just a crazy idea.

I wonder if Deadpool will show up in other marvel movies. He doesn't seem like he'd play well, but I do want more of him.

I watch characters, not genders.

[Reddish Mage]

Wait, if you hit acceptance and then go back, can you not stop it from happening, do the cycle again and become even happier?

Also, I haven't studied the field but isn't it by now acknowledged the order is rather arbitrary (except it should end with acceptance)?
But I guess there are differing explanations..

We’re analyzing a movie. Acceptance doesn’t make you happy, it resolves the issue. My idea that Deadpool undoing the death was just fine wasn’t from Psychology but from literature analysis. It’s an idea that transcends the symbol. Or is it the signifier that transcends the signified (except that’s not supposed to be possible). Anyway, Deadpool’s character growth happened, he doesn’t need Vanessa’s death anymore to validate it, so reversing it is basically another joke.


Yeah. I mean, I'll be really unpopular here and say... Wade was fine in Origins, Deadpool wasn't.
And Deadpool is great in his own movie, doing his own thing, but he's too much if it not revolves around him and his style of storytelling.

Origins is not an example for what Deadpool is capable of as a supporting character. If you want to see what Deadpool is like, look at the comics outside of his own where he appears. He’s been all over the place and keeps returning.



If you say "I want more active female characters" cool. I'm all for it. Once you start saying "This is bad because it killed someone who I wanted to be more central to the story." I don't care. Whether it's the friendly uncle or the girlfriend getting offed. It's all the same to me. The inciting incident that gets the plot started.

Because that's really the trick to all of this. All of them are objects. Every character is written into a story for a purpose, otherwise you get a bloated story that seems random. They aren't real. And saying "you can't kill off this person" is silly.

Now do I want to watch females go around kicking ass and being active protagonists in their story? Sure do. But do I want to watch this active female protagonist go on a date with her boyfriend? Nope. Do I care if the boyfriend is killed to facilitate the story while also sparring me from watching more overlong romance dialogue? Can't wait for it to get here quicker so I can go watch this female protagonist kill stuff.

An uncle getting killed doesn’t carry the implication that the only role males can play is as passive victims. Fringing didn’t become a thing because it happened once, or twice, or even A mere half-dozen times.

There is definitely a feeling that superhero stories should be bereft of stable relationships. Vanessa cannot possibly contribute except by being a damsel in distress or dead.

In fact, I’m not hearing so much a defense that Deadpool is special and shouldn’t be in any kind of relationship but that as an Action hero the hero can’t have such in his life (or it would somehow turn the action movie into a drama or romcom or something). I think that defense is silly.

[Olinser]

*snip Judging from his reaction to the IED when presented to him. *snip*

OK this was absolutely HILARIOUS (unintentionally I'm sure).

It was an IUD - a birth control device.

An IED is a bomb.

Unintentional pun is best pun :smallamused:

[Dienekes]

An uncle getting killed doesn’t carry the implication that the only role males can play is as passive victims.

Technically, neither does killing off a girlfriend. You can read that this is what the death of a girlfriend is implying, but that doesn’t make it true. Now you can claim that there are not enough active females in fiction, and I’d agree. We need more Tophs in the world.


Fringing didn’t become a thing because it happened once, or twice, or even A mere half-dozen times.

I’m curious what’s happened more as a motivation for our heroes the murder of a love interest or the murder of a parental figure. I personally think parental figure is more common, not just a mere half-dozen times either.


There is definitely a feeling that superhero stories should be bereft of stable relationships. Vanessa cannot possibly contribute except by being a damsel in distress or dead.

This is sadly the case created by adding love interests into an action narrative. Your options are make the love interest as badass as the protagonist so the story then becomes watching these two people beat everyone else up for some other reason (the Incredibles model). Or make the love interest weaker from an action perspective, this at first seems fine since you can make the strength of this character come from something else and offer a different types of characters for the writers to write. That sounds nice, but this is an action movie. The plot will end in a big violent confrontation. The characters that are established need to become a part of this confrontation or all the time in your story spent on them was wasted. So you shove the non-action character into the action finale. This usually results in damselling the character. Though it doesn’t technically have to, sometimes the love interest will have some special ability that needs to be used to stop the evil plot. The hacker is a common enough example of this sort of thing. The protagonist is off fighting things the hacker does the hacking in the background maybe having to face a much weaker antagonist they can then beat to show how they’ve developed over the course of the story.

The other reason, in actual comics anyway, is that they know their audience is a bunch of horny teenagers and twenty-somethings so they focus on the character dating. Because that’s what the audience is sort of familiar with and people have confused the early lust of dating for love since Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet. When the relationship would naturally develop past this point the writers wind up deleting the whole thing to start again (One More Day or the various times Lois got her memories removed or again character death). And in fairness to them they do have some small examples to show that their audience actually does care more about dating than developing a fully functional relationship. The main example pointed to is Superman, when he finally got Lois sales on his comics plummeted. And you’ll get guys like MovieBob claim that Spider-Man got so much more interesting now that Parker is on the dating scene again and not saddled with MJ.


In fact, I’m not hearing so much a defense that Deadpool is special and shouldn’t be in any kind of relationship but that as an Action hero the hero can’t have such in his life (or it would somehow turn the action movie into a drama or romcom or something). I think that defense is silly.

Well that’s because I never tried to claim Deadpool shouldn’t be in a relationship. I also never claimed adding a romance suddenly makes the story a romcom. All I said is whenever they add it, and devote a scene to the romance I’m bored and am just waiting for the romance scene to end. Ending said romance in a way so that I no longer have to endure more romance scenes is always a bonus in my book.

You can read more into that if you want. I don’t particularly care. You can say this implies I think all romance turns movies into romcoms if that makes my argument easier for you to retaliate against. But really all it is, is romance is boring and I wish less of it in the media I watch.

[Ranxerox]

I watch characters, not genders.

Dude, have you met yourself?

You are the guy who is always going on about the how male heroes can never win a fight against female villains and always have to be rescued in these fights by other female characters. That is not an obsession of people who do not care about the genders of characters. I don't think that I have encountered anyone on the internet more concerned about the depiction of men in the media than you.

That is okay. There are things about the portrayal of men in the media that are warranting of concern. So, go ahead and be concerned about these things.

Just don't pretend that you watch media blind to gender.

[The Glyphstone]

OK this was absolutely HILARIOUS (unintentionally I'm sure).

It was an IUD - a birth control device.

An IED is a bomb.

Unintentional pun is best pun :smallamused:

Possibly an intentional pun, since Deadpool also makes that exact joke in the movie.

'It's my IUD."
"It's a bomb?"

[Pex]

Dude, have you met yourself?

You are the guy who is always going on about the how male heroes can never win a fight against female villains and always have to be rescued in these fights by other female characters. That is not an obsession of people who do not care about the genders of characters. I don't think that I have encountered anyone on the internet more concerned about the depiction of men in the media than you.

That is okay. There are things about the portrayal of men in the media that are warranting of concern. So, go ahead and be concerned about these things.

Just don't pretend that you watch media blind to gender.

Exactly. I rant against such a thing, thanks for remembering (sincerely), because the event is making me notice the gender. The character is a kick donkey hear me roar Woman who can beat up the toughest men, not the character. It's why I like Black Widow, for the female warrior persona, in the MCU. Also Okoye and Shuri from Black Panther. They're themselves, not their genders. Meanwhile, in The Flash when the women save the day in an episode it's all about Girl Power and the male cast is reduced to imbeciles, forcing me to notice gender. The show was lecturing me. I want to be entertained, not lectured.

[Reddish Mage]

Technically, neither does killing off a girlfriend [mean that girls must inhabit passive roles]. You can read that this is what the death of a girlfriend is implying, but that doesn’t make it true. Now you can claim that there are not enough active females in fiction, and I’d agree. We need more Tophs in the world.


Why do you want their to be more females in fiction? Do you simple want to see more women or do you recognize that the very lopsidedness means something?

Looking at Deadpool as if it was a work create ex nihilo I agree one story says nothing about women or their role in a genre. Only if you place it among a great body of work does the girlfriend dying to motivate revenge, pathos, and self-reflection become something more significant, a cliche, a trope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisposableWoman), the act of "fridging."

Now I can see someone defending the preponderance of fridging or disposable woman (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisposableWoman)as something good but that some other gender tropes are bad.

You have seem to be saying that girlfriends are somehow inherently expendable, but that's not significant because reasons. Those reasons, lumping the women in with the (less common) less-gendered expendables, basically amounts to saying the trope doesn't exist, or carries no significance. It still does when it is a women. Or its like saying movies like Deadpool should somehow be read as having a special exemption that renders the usual meaning of the trope meaningles.

Let me compare this to a hypothetical. I assume you would agree clothing means something in a society that legally mandates certain sorts of people wear certain types of clothing. Let's say slaves only wear slave clothing, people of different social status must wear other clothing, and so on. But society changes and no longer has such strict rules imposed by status. However, would you say that, absent such officially enforced and written rules clothing has no meaning at all? Would you say that even if the society became lax and people started to mix things up, clothing just doesn't mean anything specific anymore?

If you want to say clothes carry no meaning absent legal enforcement, or perhaps not in a fairly lax and egalitarian environment. I have some suggested work attire to change your mind.

By clothing has meaning here, of course I mean, it is indicative of certain social status regardless of how lax a society purports to be.

Now women have, historically, played almost exclusively, certain roles. A particularly extreme example of that rises to prominence as the worse example of women being limited in a particular context. Now, we see an example of that in a work not too long after. Forgetting whether superhero fiction resembles the society with clothing rules, or the rules are no longer strict, or even flexible, can you really say in any of these contexts that the showing a women in a specific situation carries no meaning at all?

[Dienekes]

Why do you want their to be more females in fiction? Do you simple want to see more women or do you recognize that the very lopsidedness means something?

Oh, I definitely recognize it means something. That society has created a largely male oriented view of the hero, and we could use a bit more diversity.

But here's where I become a bit of stickler. I can post Tvtropes too. For example, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender

So what does that say about gender, when women are expendable, and men are expendable? I think it just means everyone is expendable.

Hell we can even go to the actual fridging page:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge

Where we see a decent mix of male and females killed off for motivation. I'm not going to count which is more, this argument isn't worth that much effort. I’ll just concede it’s probably women.

The problem to me, seems that straight men are more common action heroes, so when the love interest gets killed off for that extra bit of motivation it's the female. Put more females in the role of action hero and we will see more males get killed off.

Now to get to the other part, you say a lot of things and back them up, to quote you "because reasons." If you can wave off all my reasoning with that, I'll do the same to yours.

Here's the situation, we have an action hero who is established to be in an important loving relationship with another character with no action qualifications. We have an action movie to plan. So, tell me a way to get rid of the love interest so I do not have to watch a single other romantic scene with the two of them (or anyone else), and tie it into the central narrative of the story. Go.

There's going to be a few ways to do it. Easiest is to kill them off.

[Ranxerox]

Exactly. I rant against such a thing, thanks for remembering (sincerely), because the event is making me notice the gender. The character is a kick donkey hear me roar Woman who can beat up the toughest men, not the character. It's why I like Black Widow, for the female warrior persona, in the MCU. Also Okoye and Shuri from Black Panther. They're themselves, not their genders. Meanwhile, in The Flash when the women save the day in an episode it's all about Girl Power and the male cast is reduced to imbeciles, forcing me to notice gender. The show was lecturing me. I want to be entertained, not lectured.

Oh, you think you are being lectured at about girl power. That is not what is happening.

If it were a lecture about girl power, the female allies would be beating up the big bad. That is how you would show female superiority. No, females allies are largely relegated to defeating minions and female adversaries. It is a second class herodom, really. We all love Black Widow, but when does she ever get to take down a name brand villain?

Male heroes are usually not allowed to beat female villains in part because this would steal what little thunder that the female allies get. The other, and larger, part of why male heroes don't get to beat female villains is because we as society are uncomfortable watching men beat women into unconsciousness, and don't consider it a very heroic action. So, we recognize women are capable of being villainous, and in the world of action movies that usually means being beaten or killed by the hero, but we prefer that they get the comeuppance from another female.

[Starbuck_II]

Why do you want their to be more females in fiction? Do you simple want to see more women or do you recognize that the very lopsidedness means something?


Well, for my honestly, I just to see more women.
Sometimes women bring something to a role a guy can't, but the same can be true in reverse.
There has yet to be a female Morgan Freeman type person.

On other more fun note: I loved Warhead's girlfriend.

[Mechalich]

Superhero movies, in terms of following social trends, are essentially two cycles behind. Social trends occur and that causes changes in the comics, which leads to the emergence of new popular characters which only then leads to new films. The majority of the current Marvel Film headline heroes originated in the 1960s. Deadpool is actually one of the more recent additions - dating to 1991 - but he shares the screen with some older characters (Colossus was introduced in 1975) alongside newer ones (Negasonic from 2001). Relatively few truly modern properties have been adapted. One of the key exceptions is Runaways, a property dating to 2003 - which absolutely has a much more modern balance in terms of the characters and the resulting TV adaptation retains this.

[Pex]

Oh, I definitely recognize it means something. That society has created a largely male oriented view of the hero, and we could use a bit more diversity.

But here's where I become a bit of stickler. I can post Tvtropes too. For example, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreTheExpendableGender



I've noticed that too. I've also noticed that it's not just men but men of a certain race. Men not of that race do get killed, but it often generates more scripted emotional impact. Maybe not as much if he was female, but he stands out. The Punisher on Netflix was this ad nauseum.

[LaZodiac]

Have you considered that men being the expendable gender as a concept is PART of the problem instead of a different problem?

Because it is. Men are "warriors" who must die for their cause, emotionalessly and without end. Women are precious and pure idols who are killed, stuffed into fridges, to motivate this man to do the bad murder thing he has to do because men deal with these issues by doing a violence.

Like that's THE THING. These are two sides of the same ****ing coin.

[Kyberwulf]

Wait so.. your solution. Is to turn men into something that motivates the hero to cut three swaths of nameless faceless groups of women? Isn't that worse? I mean at least as the "fridged" woman there is some meaning to her death. You are advocating to just turn woman into things.

[Dienekes]

Have you considered that men being the expendable gender as a concept is PART of the problem instead of a different problem?

Because it is. Men are "warriors" who must die for their cause, emotionalessly and without end. Women are precious and pure idols who are killed, stuffed into fridges, to motivate this man to do the bad murder thing he has to do because men deal with these issues by doing a violence.

Like that's THE THING. These are two sides of the same ****ing coin.

Of course. That’s kind of why I brought it up in the first place. It’s the solution to the problem that is the point of contention.

To me creating a category of character and proclaiming that you can’t touch them. They are safe, is one limiting the types of stories we can get, and two is more likely to create a situation where that group is seen as special either in a positive or negative light.

My solution has pretty much always been: make more female protagonists and murder their love interests. Add female stunt actors to the nameless mook squad to be killed off by male and female action heroes alike.

If you want to remove gender coding in films then actually remove it. Don’t add more codes on top of them and hope that fixes things. It won’t. It’ll be seen as good for a few years until people see the inherent sexism in the trend and will start calling that out as well.

[Lacuna Caster]

Have you considered that men being the expendable gender as a concept is PART of the problem instead of a different problem?

Because it is. Men are "warriors" who must die for their cause, emotionlessly and without end. Women are precious and pure idols who are killed, stuffed into fridges, to motivate this man to do the bad murder thing he has to do because men deal with these issues by doing a violence.

My solution has pretty much always been: make more female protagonists and murder their love interests. Add female stunt actors to the nameless mook squad to be killed off by male and female action heroes alike.
You know, I was actually watching the Deadpool musical parody video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbBjaDrvIxY) and I noticed that (A) there actually were female stunt actors in the nameless mook squad to be killed off by the male and female action heroes and (B) this consciously disturbed me for reasons I couldn't quite put my finger on.

I think part of the reason here is simply that women are overwhelmingly less likely than men to be involved in real-world criminal fraternities. And while one can make the argument that male-on-male violence in media might actually be driving that behaviour, I would also point out that imaginary media violence has gone steadily up for the past half-century at the same time that statistical real-world violence has gone steadily down. So... maybe, maybe not?

[Dienekes]

You know, I was actually watching the Deadpool musical parody video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbBjaDrvIxY) and I noticed that (A) there actually were female stunt actors in the nameless mook squad to be killed off by the male and female action heroes and (B) this consciously disturbed me for reasons I couldn't quite put my finger on.

I think part of the reason here is simply that women are overwhelmingly less likely than men to be involved in real-world criminal fraternities. And while one can make the argument that male-on-male violence in media might actually be driving that behaviour, I would also point out that imaginary media violence has gone steadily up for the past half-century at the same time that statistical real-world violence has gone steadily down. So... maybe, maybe not?

You could make that argument about fictionalized violence leading to gang members but that sounds pretty silly. I’d probably think the historical context plays a larger role. But then I am predisposed toward that kind of reasoning. Most criminal organizations I’m aware of developed out of various boys clubs or from prior criminal organizations with roots reaching back to an even more sexist time. As such they often tend to have very sexist views on gender issues. This is likely exacerbated that the lower levels of criminal organizations usually are propped up by the economically disenfranchised and under-educated. Both of which statistically also follows trends toward sexism (though it of course is not a 100% guarantee that the poor and uneducated are sexist).

[Pex]

Of course. That’s kind of why I brought it up in the first place. It’s the solution to the problem that is the point of contention.

To me creating a category of character and proclaiming that you can’t touch them. They are safe, is one limiting the types of stories we can get, and two is more likely to create a situation where that group is seen as special either in a positive or negative light.

My solution has pretty much always been: make more female protagonists and murder their love interests. Add female stunt actors to the nameless mook squad to be killed off by male and female action heroes alike.

If you want to remove gender coding in films then actually remove it. Don’t add more codes on top of them and hope that fixes things. It won’t. It’ll be seen as good for a few years until people see the inherent sexism in the trend and will start calling that out as well.

When there are female protagonists who have a love interest killed off it's at the end of the story.


You know, I was actually watching the Deadpool musical parody video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbBjaDrvIxY) and I noticed that (A) there actually were female stunt actors in the nameless mook squad to be killed off by the male and female action heroes and (B) this consciously disturbed me for reasons I couldn't quite put my finger on.

I think part of the reason here is simply that women are overwhelmingly less likely than men to be involved in real-world criminal fraternities. And while one can make the argument that male-on-male violence in media might actually be driving that behaviour, I would also point out that imaginary media violence has gone steadily up for the past half-century at the same time that statistical real-world violence has gone steadily down. So... maybe, maybe not?

In the first Deadpool movie when there's a montage of him killing nameless gangs of mooks one of the gangs is female. He fourth walls the dilemma of having to kill females.

[Velaryon]

An uncle getting killed doesn’t carry the implication that the only role males can play is as passive victims. Fringing didn’t become a thing because it happened once, or twice, or even A mere half-dozen times.

Does Vanessa's death carry the implication that the only role females can play is as passive victims? It seems to me that Domino's prominent role in the film suggests otherwise.


In fact, I’m not hearing so much a defense that Deadpool is special and shouldn’t be in any kind of relationship but that as an Action hero the hero can’t have such in his life (or it would somehow turn the action movie into a drama or romcom or something). I think that defense is silly.

Sure, it's silly to say that an action hero can't have a stable relationship in their life. Although it's a well-worn trope that this kind of lifestyle puts a lot of strain on a relationship if the significant other is not also of the action hero type, since they then stay home and worry over the hero's safety. I mean, that's a thing in thousands of stories about police officers and soldiers, and would apply for superheroes as well.

But if you don't want to the relationship to be a central focus of the story being told (i.e. you don't want to have significant scenes dedicated to the romance), then don't you need to do something to get that relationship out of the way for the duration of the story? That doesn't necessarily mean killing off the SO, or having them taken hostage, or whatever, but if they just stay at home and don't play any role in advancing the plot... why even have them in the story at all?

You could certainly have a story that's about a superhero maintaining an otherwise normal home life. That could potentially be interesting and could definitely work for comedy. But that isn't what they're doing here, and I don't know that there's anything wrong with that.



Oh, you think you are being lectured at about girl power. That is not what is happening.

If it were a lecture about girl power, the female allies would be beating up the big bad. That is how you would show female superiority. No, females allies are largely relegated to defeating minions and female adversaries. It is a second class herodom, really. We all love Black Widow, but when does she ever get to take down a name brand villain?

Male heroes are usually not allowed to beat female villains in part because this would steal what little thunder that the female allies get. The other, and larger, part of why male heroes don't get to beat female villains is because we as society are uncomfortable watching men beat women into unconsciousness, and don't consider it a very heroic action. So, we recognize women are capable of being villainous, and in the world of action movies that usually means being beaten or killed by the hero, but we prefer that they get the comeuppance from another female.

I'd argue it has at least as much to do with our society being less than comfortable with man-on-woman violence being portrayed as okay under any circumstances, even when it's a male hero vs. a female villain. I am not prepared to argue what might be right or wrong with that attitude, but it seems quite evident to me that it exists and is pretty prevalent in popular culture.

[HolyDraconus]

Does Vanessa's death carry the implication that the only role females can play is as passive victims? It seems to me that Domino's prominent role in the film suggests otherwise.



Sure, it's silly to say that an action hero can't have a stable relationship in their life. Although it's a well-worn trope that this kind of lifestyle puts a lot of strain on a relationship if the significant other is not also of the action hero type, since they then stay home and worry over the hero's safety. I mean, that's a thing in thousands of stories about police officers and soldiers, and would apply for superheroes as well.

But if you don't want to the relationship to be a central focus of the story being told (i.e. you don't want to have significant scenes dedicated to the romance), then don't you need to do something to get that relationship out of the way for the duration of the story? That doesn't necessarily mean killing off the SO, or having them taken hostage, or whatever, but if they just stay at home and don't play any role in advancing the plot... why even have them in the story at all?

You could certainly have a story that's about a superhero maintaining an otherwise normal home life. That could potentially be interesting and could definitely work for comedy. But that isn't what they're doing here, and I don't know that there's anything wrong with that.




I'd argue it has at least as much to do with our society being less than comfortable with man-on-woman violence being portrayed as okay under any circumstances, even when it's a male hero vs. a female villain. I am not prepared to argue what might be right or wrong with that attitude, but it seems quite evident to me that it exists and is pretty prevalent in popular culture.

When poison ivy and catwoman were villains, batman regularly beat down both. Killer Frost is also a thing.

[Tvtyrant]

When poison ivy and catwoman were villains, batman regularly beat down both. Killer Frost is also a thing.
I think the "when" is pretty telling here. Catwoman is pretty normal and rehabilitable, but Poison Ivy and Harley Quinn are both psychotic murderers who still get their own independent spin offs. Imagine if Mr. Freeze, Clayface and the Riddler got a long running comic together where they are no longer evil.

And even when male villains get reformed they almost immediately return to being evil, while female characters stay good/neutral.

[snowblizz]

Does Vanessa's death carry the implication that the only role females can play is as passive victims? It seems to me that Domino's prominent role in the film suggests otherwise.
Ah, see, this occurred to me when people talk about Domino's "active role". Is it really? Deadpool himself argues as much during recruitment. "Luck isn't a superpower".
The majority of Domino's screentime is just everything falling (often literally) into place for her. Without her having to really do anything beyond walking along. I could easily posit a number of arguments based on that whichever way I want to go with it. I'd bet on there already being such around.


Sure, it's silly to say that an action hero can't have a stable relationship in their life. Although it's a well-worn trope that this kind of lifestyle puts a lot of strain on a relationship if the significant other is not also of the action hero type, since they then stay home and worry over the hero's safety. I mean, that's a thing in thousands of stories about police officers and soldiers, and would apply for superheroes as well.I think Hawkeye from Marvel, at least in the movies, have something like that.


But if you don't want to the relationship to be a central focus of the story being told (i.e. you don't want to have significant scenes dedicated to the romance), then don't you need to do something to get that relationship out of the way for the duration of the story? That doesn't necessarily mean killing off the SO, or having them taken hostage, or whatever, but if they just stay at home and don't play any role in advancing the plot... why even have them in the story at all?
Well the argument would be to show the stakes. Again Hawkeye notes in one of those Marvel movies how he does it for the family and that X happening will impact them too. "I can't not join in saving the world even though there risk to me becaus eyou my family will be effected." That's about the usual spiel.
We do also get to see the family, not sure if that counts as advancing the plot.

[Frozen_Feet]

Does Vanessa's death carry the implication that the only role females can play is as passive victims? It seems to me that Domino's prominent role in the film suggests otherwise.

Let me state the obvious: a film can send mixed messages, both on accident and on purpose. Furthermore, there is nothing implicit about either - Deadpool invokes, lampshades and mocks Vanessa's fridging and everything about Domino explicitly. Just like it invokes, lampshades and mocks diversity in movies and audience tendencies to see "implications" everywhere.

It's also a black comedy parody film. Expecting it to have a consistent message, nevermind a family friendly, politically correct one, means someone missed what kind of movie they watched.

[HolyDraconus]

I think the "when" is pretty telling here. Catwoman is pretty normal and rehabilitable, but Poison Ivy and Harley Quinn are both psychotic murderers who still get their own independent spin offs. Imagine if Mr. Freeze, Clayface and the Riddler got a long running comic together where they are no longer evil.

And even when male villains get reformed they almost immediately return to being evil, while female characters stay good/neutral.

Dragonball disagrees with this statement. and PI WAS supposed to remain a villain but her writer did such an amazing job of making her out to be an anti that when she reverted back to being a villain her fans revolted. And Catwoman is literally getting married to batman this july. There's no way they was going to keep her a badguy. And Mr Freeze DID have a run where he was an anti, and it was good.

[Mordar]

Again I think you don't get the critique and this statement shows it. This is about a particular, especially tired, plot device that has especially significant unfortunate implications, not critiquing sexism in general or rumaging for gender cliches.

DP2 isn't as good as the first movie mainly due to the overuse of cliches. It is otherwise very well executed.

Rumaging for cliches? My response was in direct reply to your "DP2 is full of cliches" and "look at all these issues right here" post...piling on some more.


I've mentioned generally the problem of cliche's but what's the significance of pointing them all out if we are talking about a particular one? You seem to want to avoid discussing fridging specifically to point out all these other shinies. I am talking about one exceptionally tired trope AND a trope that, having effectively removed the feminine element from comics since the 80's, has unfortunate implications.

On the whole I don't think DP2 is anywhere near the apex of misogyny and is even ground breaking. It contains significant female participation, and the first superhero lesbian couple on screen.

More on point, Venessa herself reappears to Deadpool throughout the story, so she isn't even written out of the story as a character.

I don't think the need to move on is that uncommon even in comicbooks. However, dropping the revenge element is pretty significant. Deadpool announces he killed every single one responsible for Vanessa's death minutes after the scene. It adds something that his adventures are not ther result of a revenge cliche.

I'm not trying to avoid discussing "fridging" in the specific instance we are discussing (DP2)...though perhaps, in general, I am. I distinguish the two primarily because I haven't been a serious comic buyer/reader in decades, and even when I was, I was not engaged in the community (internet was a thing, but barely), so I don't have the grounding in the topic to do more than participate passively. In the specific, the action spectacle cliche of Vanessa dying is...well, cliche (even if the ghost-tutor bit is less so). As we have discussed, so are a bijillion other things about the movie.

Let's go back to your point:


9 times out of 10 its the girlfriend and its an especially common trope in comic books. I think there's plenty of powerful emotional reasons to make its the girl and not another character. It shouldn't be written off as "any non-action character is fair game." That is a fundamental failure to understand why the girlfriend is chosen and the criticism of the practice.

...and there are plenty of emotional reasons to make it the older mentor cop in the average loose-cannon cop action spectacle. *EVERY* non-action character in action-spectacle is expendable and exists only as a device to impact the main character(s). The vast majority of the action characters are expendable. Only rarely is even the main character a fully-fleshed character. There's no time, room...or even need...for the ancillary characters to be fully developed. Good, bad or indifferent (I think indifferent), that seems to be the genre.

The girlfriend was chosen (a) because she is one of three people that we know that DP cares about at all, (b) the only one he has been shown to care about beyond casual banter, (c) is really is the only person that would impact WW beyond a pure revenge story and (d) because "they" wanted a story that focuses on DPs growth as a member of a family. Weasel could have been used as leverage in telling a different DP2 (one without the orphans kid mutants, and with growth in a different direction, say recognizing that he needs actual friends and not just drinking buddies) story, quite possibly more of a Worm/Rounders story, ending up even more dead than Vanessa and that would have been acceptable to a significant portion of movie goers.

So that I am on proper footing, the criticism requires both the disposal of the female ancillary character as leverage *and* that the action characters are superheroes, correct? Or does it apply to all action spectacles?


The criticism is, if you look across a broad swath of media in the superhero realm, you'll find these plots dominating to the point of cliche. The feminist criticism is that this relegates the women's role to...well being dead. There's an obvious lack of appreciation for women's voices in repeatedly writing such plots.

Also, your reaction to this criticism is a fine as a gut reaction. Vanessa's death is obviously pivotal to the movie. However, there is a question as to whether superhero media ought to be male-dominated to the extent it has, and whether its desirable that female-victim cliches get repeated as often as they have. Perhaps the most discussed visible symptom of the trend is "fridging."

I get that point. So to counter the idea you have to have women who have roles other than being dead (or kidnapped, etc). I don't think DP2 did that as well as some people might (hence my point about the casual sexism), but it tried. Was the effort a good thing? Maybe. Tokenism or acclimatization?

From a purely fiscal standpoint, it would be good to have more female superhero leads in books and film. Have as broad a potential audience as possible. But movie producers are risk averse. Laying out 10s/100s of millions kind of makes them that way. So in order to get them to green-light movies outside the norm they have to either be lower-budget or have a proven track record. That leads to potentially bad movies that give the wrong idea (e.g. The D&D movie failed miserably, so it must be because fantasy movies can't sell, right?) and "surprise" successes that the mainstream views incorrectly (DP1 was a huge success because it was R-rated, so all R-rated superhero movies will make bank, right?)...or drawing from sources that have decades of proven success. Since virtually all the superheroes with decades of success are male, what do we see?

Chicken and the egg, right? The success of Wonder Woman should/may have helped. But let's see if Harley Quinn helps or drags things backwards. I remember what the popular female heroes/villains of the late 80s early 90s were like...and I don't believe they will legitimize "serious" female super-leads. So what is the list of existing potential mainstream superhero leads (that studio heads will spend the actual dollars and opportunity cost on)?


There is definitely a feeling that superhero stories should be bereft of stable relationships. Vanessa cannot possibly contribute except by being a damsel in distress or dead.

In fact, I’m not hearing so much a defense that Deadpool is special and shouldn’t be in any kind of relationship but that as an Action hero the hero can’t have such in his life (or it would somehow turn the action movie into a drama or romcom or something). I think that defense is silly.

That isn't a defense. That is a genre element. The hero can have a family, a relationship, a hobby, a life outside the action spectacle. But it isn't nearly as important as the action in the action spectacle and they cannot consume too much time. Fast and furious (not the car movies...) wins the day, so the non-action elements have to serve as set-dressing or transitions (or, as above, points of leverage). I believe that even the historical, cop or political action spectacles only have a veneer of serious set dressing that can be quickly scrapped away and just serves as background/transition between set pieces.

A franchise, however, does present a different opportunity, and as I think of it from that standpoint (and certainly from a comic book series perspective) there is much more room for development and presentation of the family/relationship/hobby/etc. Other than that, I think it has to be kept to the level of Aunt May in Homecoming, or the Bartons in Age of Ultron.

- M

[Psyren]

Saw it, loved it. Reynolds remains a riot, Domino is a breakout star, they finally got Juggernaut mostly right, and there was more queer representation in this one film than the entire MCU and DCEU combined, even if a lot of stemmed from Deadpool's own typical hornball/cornball shenanigans.


Ah, see, this occurred to me when people talk about Domino's "active role". Is it really? Deadpool himself argues as much during recruitment. "Luck isn't a superpower".
The majority of Domino's screentime is just everything falling (often literally) into place for her. Without her having to really do anything beyond walking along. I could easily posit a number of arguments based on that whichever way I want to go with it. I'd bet on there already being such around.

Take it away McBain:

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/132/thatsthejoke.jpg

In a cinematic sense, there's very little difference between portraying an improbably skilled Badass Normal and a moderately skilled one that happens to have supernatural good luck. Everything Domino did in the movie, from parachuting into the convoy successfully to taking out a roomful of mooks by herself to surviving multiple crashes unscathed to briefly taking on Juggernaut without serious injury - all of it would have fit perfectly into a Black Widow movie, or for that matter a Transporter/Fast & Furious/James Bond movie. Deadpool's lampshade hanging is to make you realize that, yeah actually, Domino's power is not that hard to show off in an action movie and still feel awesome to watch - we've been doing it for decades, just with largely white male protagonists (who ostensibly have no powers at all.)

[BWR]

The movie was fun. Not quite as good as the original, and the only really memorable scene was the death of X-force, but good for an evening's entertainment and discussion afterwards.

[lord_khaine]

I missed the after credit seens by the look of it.
What happens after deadpool has the time traveling device fixed?

[Tvtyrant]

I missed the after credit seens by the look of it.
What happens after deadpool has the time traveling device fixed?
Kills mouthless Deadpool.
Kills Ryan Reynolds to stop Green Lantern being made.
Saves Vanessa.

[The Glyphstone]

I didnt think of it during the movie, but did the Juggernaut call anyone a b****? Seems like the sort of low hanging fruit theyd go for on parodies.

[Grim Portent]

I didnt think of it during the movie, but did the Juggernaut call anyone a b****? Seems like the sort of low hanging fruit theyd go for on parodies.

Nope, my brother and I were pretty happy they didn't go for that line to the point we mentioned it to each other as we were leaving the cinema.

[Aotrs Commander]

Just got back from seeing it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh my Lichemaster.

I haven't laughed that much for QUITE a while.

From start to that last-minute Juggernaut choral at the end of the credits.

Brilliant.

Yay Domino and yay Negasonic Teenage Warhead and Yukio (wow that would be a funny adaption to see in the comics... I actually couldn't place Yukio until I looked it up - first I thought of Hisako and then Noriko and then went "wow, there are enough young Japanese X-Men girls I have to actually think about it.") But sure, I ship it (especially considering the Pinkie Pie reference...!)

Yay Deadpool goes without saying, really.

Actually, I just made a typo in that last sentence and nearly wrote Dadpool and there is Deadpool 3, is it? (Eventually. Apparently we get X-Force next, though.)



Skimming the first page makes me comment:

I actually liked Russel. Damn, the kid has stones during the jail sequence, and honestly, he was pretty damn awesome in the finale. Yeah, let's have in in the next one, please.

[Timur18]

I enjoyed it overall. My only criticism is the soundtrack wasn’t as good as the first and neither was Deadpool’s action scenes.

Domino was awesome and her action sequences stole the show for me.

Honestly, I went to see it a 2nd time just for the baby legs and the incredibly cathartic feeling of “fixing” the biggest problem with the Deadpool from origins in the mid-credits scene.

I will agree that it was disappointing to see Vanessa shoved in the fridge so quickly. I don’t think they knew it was a green lantern reference when they did it, they just needed Wade to have motivation.

I really thought that Deadpool would survive being shot at the end because his heart was in the wrong place. Since he heard that originally when he was regenerating after exploding, I really thought it would be that his heart was literally in the wrong place and that would let him survive at the end.

[lord_khaine]

Honestly, I went to see it a 2nd time just for the baby legs and the incredibly cathartic feeling of “fixing” the biggest problem with the Deadpool from origins in the mid-credits scene.

The scene where he uncrosses those legs to mess with Cable had the entire room laughting :)


I will agree that it was disappointing to see Vanessa shoved in the fridge so quickly. I don’t think they knew it was a green lantern reference when they did it, they just needed Wade to have motivation.

Its only a Green Lantern reference if she is litteraly murdered and showed into a fridge. This was just killed the girlfriend. Its as old as i dont know what.


I really thought that Deadpool would survive being shot at the end because his heart was in the wrong place. Since he heard that originally when he was regenerating after exploding, I really thought it would be that his heart was literally in the wrong place and that would let him survive at the end.

Im glad i was not the only one thinking that :)

[huttj509]

The scene where he uncrosses those legs to mess with Cable had the entire room laughting :)



It also caused me to find a friend of mine who didn't know about the movie Basic Instinct (we're all in our mid-30s).

[Velaryon]

When poison ivy and catwoman were villains, batman regularly beat down both. Killer Frost is also a thing.

In movies? I'll argue that what people are comfortable seeing in the pages of a comic and what they're comfortable seeing in a live-action film are not necessarily the same.

I confess that I don't remember the fight scenes from Batman Returns or The Dark Knight Rises very well, and I've done my best to suppress Batman & Robin from my memory.

And who or what is Killer Frost?


Ah, see, this occurred to me when people talk about Domino's "active role". Is it really? Deadpool himself argues as much during recruitment. "Luck isn't a superpower".
The majority of Domino's screentime is just everything falling (often literally) into place for her. Without her having to really do anything beyond walking along. I could easily posit a number of arguments based on that whichever way I want to go with it. I'd bet on there already being such around.

Deadpool does make that argument... and is pretty conclusively proven wrong almost immediately when the action starts. The fact that circumstances arrange themselves for Domino is literally what her power does. If you have some argument to make about that, well, feel free. Pretty hard to respond to something you haven't yet said though, so I'll move on for now.


I think Hawkeye from Marvel, at least in the movies, have something like that.

Sure, but Hawkeye's family is revealed in an ensemble team film, one in which he is at best the fifth most important hero, and their existence serves the dual purposes of 1) squashing the Hawkeye/Black Widow ship that had existed after the first film, and 2) leveraging the surprise value of a superhero that actually has a family. The reveal really only works because he's the exception to the rule, and because Hawkeye is a fairly minor character whose background had been pretty much nonexistent before that.



Let me state the obvious: a film can send mixed messages, both on accident and on purpose. Furthermore, there is nothing implicit about either - Deadpool invokes, lampshades and mocks Vanessa's fridging and everything about Domino explicitly. Just like it invokes, lampshades and mocks diversity in movies and audience tendencies to see "implications" everywhere.

Sure, it can and does mix its messages. That said, I am still interested to hear whether anyone thinks Vanessa's death carries an implication that the only role females can play is as passive victims. That notion seems contradicted within the film itself. Domino's powers act passively, but that frees her up to go ahead and do stuff actively. Even if she takes a backseat to both Deadpool and Cable, she's clearly no victim.

[lord_khaine]

Sure, it can and does mix its messages. That said, I am still interested to hear whether anyone thinks Vanessa's death carries an implication that the only role females can play is as passive victims. That notion seems contradicted within the film itself. Domino's powers act passively, but that frees her up to go ahead and do stuff actively. Even if she takes a backseat to both Deadpool and Cable, she's clearly no victim.

She does seem to have her own mission and agenda. And she does show to be extremely competent.

[Kyberwulf]

Deadpool's declarations, "Luck isn't a Superpower." Is suppose to be an Ironic joke. Kind of like when someone in some media says, "I am not gonna wear a dress!", then the next seems is them doing exactly that. He is proven wrong repeatedly.

Also, Domino's powers don't happen passively. She doesn't know how they work, or why they work, she just knows that she can do something amazingly awesome. She deliberately engages in actions that make her powers work for her. I mean, does Superman Fly passively? Does Tony Stark's brain magic work passively? I mean sure, there is evidence that they had to train or learn a lot of stuff. So to, is it for Domino. I mean in the School fight scene, she isn't just tripping and falling over things, Keaton style (jar-jar style) taking out mooks. In the driving scene, there is evidence she is doing things that take some skill. I don't like how Her powers or being diminished and handwaved away.

Also, I have seen people say that Deadpool is some special, for is depictions of gay people. Which I don't get. In the scene that most people are talking about. Nagasonic shows up with a girlfriend. First. That is just.... I don't get how that can't be seen as playing into stereotypes. In the first movie, her sexuality isn't just... stated. Although a lot of people could infer what it was, just by the way she looked and acted. I mean she stated she was ..at least gay, when she showed up with her Asian Stereotype. (Which, different argument altogether.) Frankly I would have been more surprised if she showed up with some Captain America-looking guy and acted more the girl-y role. Which brings me to ... Second. The irony of "Toxic Masculinity". If this was a scene where some guy showed up, and grabbed a girls hand and said.. "SHE'S MINE." I think that would have set off a lot of people. I mean, imagine if a guy did that, and said "This my STRAIGHT girlfriend, and shes mine." It woud make no sense. But the fact that a woman shows up and does it, it's applauded? Third, The whole scene turns being gay into a punchline. I mean it played out the way it did, and Deadpool was so dismissive of it. It's as if some offensive joke is thrown at you, then is downplayed because "This is a DEADPOOL Movie!" It's NOT SUPPOSE TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! The way it plays with Race and Stereotypes. Almost every character in the movie is some over used Stereotype. I mean, I feel like some people are going to put on their Snob Glasses, and say... "That's what the whole high Concept is suppose to be, Play with societal expectations... yea, see I am so smart"

I mean I like the movie. It has some funny moments. It's decent. Yet at the same time, it's almost a bad Parody movie. Something like, Not another Teen Movie, Scary Movie, or The Last Jedi.

This movie is almost what I was afraid of when I watched the first deadpool. It got so close to that line, that I almost was... Meh... about it. I just think it could use a lot less of that, in your face fourth wall breaking stuff. You know the ones were he makes a reference to something real world, then points it out and says.. IT'S A JOKE! LAUGH!!!

[The Glyphstone]

I mean I like the movie. It has some funny moments. It's decent. Yet at the same time, it's almost a bad Parody movie. Something like, Not another Teen Movie, Scary Movie, or The Last Jedi.


Don't be dragging Scary Movie down into low company, now. It's the only Wayans Bros. movie that is actually watchable.

[Lacuna Caster]

You could make that argument about fictionalized violence leading to gang members but that sounds pretty silly. I’d probably think the historical context plays a larger role. But then I am predisposed toward that kind of reasoning. Most criminal organizations I’m aware of developed out of various boys clubs or from prior criminal organizations with roots reaching back to an even more sexist time.
There are also, conceivably, biological reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4_L7cK1YZ8&t=1m19s) for why professions that involve regular physical violence and/or heavy lifting might be male-dominated. I'll admit that's something of double-standard- black widow is a martial artist after all- but I guess superhero stories by their nature tend to focus on a statistical handful of the freakishly gifted. So, I dunno. Maybe it works out.

[Psyren]

She does seem to have her own mission and agenda. And she does show to be extremely competent.

NTW and Yukio (Surge?) also make a good showing.

The only place the movie truly fell flat representation-wise was the "mutant prison" being predominantly/stereotypically male for no adequately-explained reason. Domino even mentions she was incarcerated there, yet we see no other female inmates.


There are also, conceivably, biological reasons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4_L7cK1YZ8&t=1m19s) for why professions that involve regular physical violence and/or heavy lifting might be male-dominated. I'll admit that's something of double-standard- black widow is a martial artist after all- but I guess superhero stories by their nature tend to focus on a statistical handful of the freakishly gifted. So, I dunno. Maybe it works out.

I can't speak for mooks (the socioeconomics of organized crime and "henching" likely play a big factor there), but for more specialized outfits - if you're already focusing on the gifted few, there's no reason for their demographics to be unbalanced. 50% of the 2016 Astronaut class selected by NASA were women, and that trend repeated in 2017 (http://msmagazine.com/blog/2017/06/20/ladies-space-women-make-nearly-half-nasas-2017-astronaut-class/). I think we can all agree that being an astronaut is a very physically demanding job.

[Ranxerox]

NTW and Yukio (Surge?) also make a good showing.

The only place the movie truly fell flat representation-wise was the "mutant prison" being predominantly/stereotypically male for no adequately-explained reason. Domino even mentions she was incarcerated there, yet we see no other female inmates.



I remember seeing a female inmate. IIRC, she had red hair and looked like a truck driver. You could easily have mistaken her for a guy.

[Frozen_Feet]

How did we end up discussing physical differences between men and women again?

[Lacuna Caster]

I can't speak for mooks (the socioeconomics of organized crime and "henching" likely play a big factor there), but for more specialized outfits - if you're already focusing on the gifted few, there's no reason for their demographics to be unbalanced. 50% of the 2016 Astronaut class selected by NASA were women, and that trend repeated in 2017 (http://msmagazine.com/blog/2017/06/20/ladies-space-women-make-nearly-half-nasas-2017-astronaut-class/). I think we can all agree that being an astronaut is a very physically demanding job.
I don't know about NASA, but the european space agency sets different fitness criteria (https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/European_Astronaut_Selection/FAQs_Health_and_physical_condition) for men and women- they have to, or essentially no women would make the grade. You do have to be in excellent health, and there are so many applicants for astronaut training programs that space agencies can have their pick of the field, but the most demanding work is usually done by engineers and scientists on the ground.

Again, not much of this applies in fantasy or sci-fi, where cybernetics or alien biology or sorcery or divine mojo can be grafted onto the standard human chassy- any baseline sex differences in upper-body development would be a rounding error compared to whatever lets you juggle freight trains. But the basic mooks? I dunno. It weirds me out.

[lord_khaine]

The only place the movie truly fell flat representation-wise was the "mutant prison" being predominantly/stereotypically male for no adequately-explained reason. Domino even mentions she was incarcerated there, yet we see no other female inmates.

Well.. is it not extremely normal to keep inmates seperated by gender? :smallconfused:

And for that matter, is it not reflecting reality? Is the inmates in maximum security not almost purely male?

[Psyren]

Well.. is it not extremely normal to keep inmates seperated by gender? :smallconfused:

And for that matter, is it not reflecting reality? Is the inmates in maximum security not almost purely male?

You're absolutely right, it's extremely "normal." But nothing else about that prison was "normal." Dangerous mutant powers don't discriminate by gender, and the movie not bothering to acknowledge that was a missed opportunity in my opinion. The spaaaaace prison in Guardians of the Galaxy 1 did a better job of avoiding this trope, though even there the population was heavily skewed without an adequately explored reason why.

In other words, movie prisons are predominantly male because that is what we as viewers expect to see, even fantastical ones that don't have to adhere to our planet's own rules apparently. But why is that? There was a missed opportunity to examine that expectation and reflect it back to us as an audience.

[Frozen_Feet]

Majority of prison inmates everywhere (usually around 70% to 80%) are male.

However, part of this is due to a systemic bias. Women are routinely less likely to be convicted for the same crime, and when they are convicted, they get lesser sentences.

[Lacuna Caster]

Majority of prison inmates everywhere (usually around 70% to 80%) are male.
The global median is apparently (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11342408/Are-men-natural-born-criminals-Prison-numbers-dont-lie.html) about 4.3% women inmates.

Again, if you're talking about mutant inmates, it's less obvious why the numbers would be so skewed. The X-Men franchise in general is relatively good about balancing sex ratios, and there's no obvious reason why mutations would be less common for women, or why society would exclude or radicalise women mutants less. It's not like society in the marvel universe has a visible track record of integrating mutants into regular jobs, so... where do the ladies go, exactly?

[Frozen_Feet]

Maybe they just commit less crimes with their amazing mutant powers. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

The global median is apparently (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11342408/Are-men-natural-born-criminals-Prison-numbers-dont-lie.html) about 4.3% women inmates.

Again, if you're talking about mutant inmates, it's less obvious why the numbers would be so skewed. The X-Men franchise in general is relatively good about balancing sex ratios, and there's no obvious reason why mutations would be less common for women, or why society would exclude or radicalise women mutants less. It's not like society in the marvel universe has a visible track record of integrating mutants into regular jobs, so... where do the ladies go, exactly?

Precisely - if the "crime" in question is "being a dangerous mutant", we've got plenty of non-male examples of that. No mutant prison should be so badly skewed, especially one that actually does appear to be co-ed.

I mean, at the end of the day it's a Deadpool joint so it's not like I was expecting even Crash levels of social commentary. But it's still disappointing when these tropes get reinforced seemingly without any thought going into them or what they might imply.

[Velaryon]

Also, Domino's powers don't happen passively. She doesn't know how they work, or why they work, she just knows that she can do something amazingly awesome. She deliberately engages in actions that make her powers work for her. I mean, does Superman Fly passively? Does Tony Stark's brain magic work passively? I mean sure, there is evidence that they had to train or learn a lot of stuff. So to, is it for Domino. I mean in the School fight scene, she isn't just tripping and falling over things, Keaton style (jar-jar style) taking out mooks. In the driving scene, there is evidence she is doing things that take some skill. I don't like how Her powers or being diminished and handwaved away.

It is a passive power though, in that she doesn't consciously direct it. Things happen in Domino's favor, but she doesn't control what those things are. She knows how to put herself into a position where the luck power will trigger, and has the discipline to stay the course while the luck powers do their thing instead of flinching or ducking out of the way when that would probably do more harm than good. She also supplements that with a significant amount of actual skill at fighting. There is no diminishing or denigrating going on here.

But to put it in D&D terms, she isn't making a roll to use her powers; it's more like an area-of-effect that follows her around, and might make opponents have to save against it.



I mean I like the movie. It has some funny moments. It's decent. Yet at the same time, it's almost a bad Parody movie. Something like, Not another Teen Movie, Scary Movie, or The Last Jedi.

I see what you did there.

[Dragonus45]

Precisely - if the "crime" in question is "being a dangerous mutant", we've got plenty of non-male examples of that. No mutant prison should be so badly skewed, especially one that actually does appear to be co-ed.

I mean, at the end of the day it's a Deadpool joint so it's not like I was expecting even Crash levels of social commentary. But it's still disappointing when these tropes get reinforced seemingly without any thought going into them or what they might imply.

Well as Frozen Feet mentioned even when they comit equal crimes men are likely to receive a higher charge and more time to it isn’t unlikely that women are going to seen more often in whatever the step before super duper bad guy containment.

[lord_khaine]

You're absolutely right, it's extremely "normal." But nothing else about that prison was "normal." Dangerous mutant powers don't discriminate by gender, and the movie not bothering to acknowledge that was a missed opportunity in my opinion. The spaaaaace prison in Guardians of the Galaxy 1 did a better job of avoiding this trope, though even there the population was heavily skewed without an adequately explored reason why.

They dont, but when the dampening collars are off and dangerous mutant powers are out of the game, then its once more just ordinary men and women. It does make sense to seperate them by gender to at least cut a little down on the abuse.

[Aotrs Commander]

They dont, but when the dampening collars are off and dangerous mutant powers are out of the game, then its once more just ordinary men and women. It does make sense to seperate them by gender to at least cut a little down on the abuse.

That makes the dangerous assumption that dirty muties count as human and therefore deserve any basic consideration and do not, in fact, outright deserve abuse; male or female (hah, let alone somone claiming to be one or the other when they're clearly not!) or age or privacy doesn't matter, because they're all dirty muties, right?

[lord_khaine]

You're absolutely right, it's extremely "normal." But nothing else about that prison was "normal." Dangerous mutant powers don't discriminate by gender, and the movie not bothering to acknowledge that was a missed opportunity in my opinion. The spaaaaace prison in Guardians of the Galaxy 1 did a better job of avoiding this trope, though even there the population was heavily skewed without an adequately explored reason why.

I also remembered, as such assult riffles and large handguns dont discriminate by gender either. But prison population is still what it is.


That makes the dangerous assumption that dirty muties count as human and therefore deserve any basic consideration and do not, in fact, outright deserve abuse; male or female (hah, let alone somone claiming to be one or the other when they're clearly not!) or age or privacy doesn't matter, because they're all dirty muties, right?

They clearly do count as such in the eyes of the public. Noone shoot the little blustening punk who where blowing up stuff at the parking. Honestly, in the real world, had he been using a gun he would have been shot so many times they needed dental to identify him.

And people were clearly eager to let the x-men handle the situation.

[Aotrs Commander]

They clearly do count as such in the eyes of the public. Noone shoot the little blustening punk who where blowing up stuff at the parking. Honestly, in the real world, had he been using a gun he would have been shot so many times they needed dental to identify him.

And people were clearly eager to let the x-men handle the situation.

Ah, but the general public aren't the dirty black ops secret government team that is inevitably in-charge of the mutie prison (come on, its got to be - heck, there's not even a SHIELD to pass the buck onto this time), are they? And are almost certainly blissfully unaware of what goes on there, because out of sight, out of mind. Some of them might be duly horrified, true. (But this still being a Marvel thing, there will be a larger-than-one-would-expect of comedically-over-the-top human supremacists who are only horrified that the priso doesn't go far enough, but there we go.)

Or if we want to be super-realistic - the super-secret-government ops went to the lowest bidder and by the time they'd paid for all the whatever-proof glass boxes and power-supressors, they realised they couldn;t afford to build the woman's wing (because you just KNOW they were going to build that second...!)



To be entirely serious, though, I think the glass boxes/lack of privacy is probably even more of an issue than the mixed gender and very definitely compounds the problem.



...

...

Also, you made me realise that that the aforementioned crowd is one of the most reasonable we've seen in the X-Men cinematic universe and it's in a DEADPOOL FILM.

[Psyren]

They dont, but when the dampening collars are off and dangerous mutant powers are out of the game, then its once more just ordinary men and women. It does make sense to seperate them by gender to at least cut a little down on the abuse.

But this too is an assumption, that in a prison the guards can't control the "ordinary men and women" population if they were mixed. In our world, that is the case because prisons are so crowded. Are there really so many mutant prisoners and so few guards that they can afford to maintain two anti-mutant facilities just for that reason? You see what I mean about them just not thinking about the tropes they use?



They clearly do count as such in the eyes of the public. Noone shoot the little blustening punk who where blowing up stuff at the parking. Honestly, in the real world, had he been using a gun he would have been shot so many times they needed dental to identify him.

Only if he was bl-

...You know what, I'm just going to drop this topic altogether. *Skips away*

[Dienekes]

But this too is an assumption, that in a prison the guards can't control the "ordinary men and women" population if they were mixed. In our world, that is the case because prisons are so crowded. Are there really so many mutant prisoners and so few guards that they can afford to maintain two anti-mutant facilities just for that reason? You see what I mean about them just not thinking about the tropes they use?


Now, for the record. I actually agree with you that throwing in some women in the prison mob would be fine. But I also like thought experiments, so I'm going to take the differing view on this one.

I didn't really go into the film thinking I'd need to examine the layout of a prison, so do correct me if I'm misremembering. But, weren't all the incarcerated mutants just generally treated like regular people and inmates. Sure they randomly had heavy plastic see-through cells as opposed to regular rooms like in most prison shows I've seen, but beyond that they were a regular prison population. Outside of the big guy who doesn't seem to be affected by anti-mutant collars (cuz he's not a mutant).

So, why wouldn't they set up the prison to act like a regular prison? With roughly the same layout and guard to prisoner ratio.

That prisons are crowded is not the given reason for separating the sexes. Difficulty in keeping people's hands off of each other is far more about management scope. While yes, prisons are overcrowded, even if adequately manned the guards are not going to look over every inmate and every interaction all day. That's not what they're there for, any more than a cop is going to be looking over every single person's shoulder in real life. Their job is to spot the big problems before they become bigger problems and act as an organized force to create the illusion of always being watched.

Even going by the co-ed correctional facilities of the 70s and 80s which were not overcrowded (as far as my admittedly brief research could tell) were closed or turned into female exclusive facilities because of the increased costs.

Far more likely, at least to me. Is that the facility would be a modified pre-mutant prison. With two separate pods one for male and one for female criminals. It's even possible to justify overcrowding as a problem if all criminals with mutant powers are sent here, including those whose crimes were not about their mutant abilities: your petty drug dealers and small time burglars. Then throw in the batch of those who cannot control their dangerous new powers, and you'd add an even bigger prison population.

[Tvtyrant]

Makes sense to me to keep them seperate. Mutantism is hereditary once it appears, the anti-mutant tax payers likely don't want new mutants coming out of their prison system. Even if that sounds silly, this is a world where sentient giant robots were considered a reasonable response to mutants.

[Kyberwulf]

It is still a usable power.

I mean, you can cut hairs with all the characters. Steve Rogers power is passive, because he got the steroids to give him that power. He didn't do anything to get that power or earn it.


Tony Stark is a magic guy, because no MIT student I have heard of can do machine work with that. He is just.. given that power to work magic with machines.

Black Widow.. Despite having NO explanations of were she got her supwer powers,.. I guess it's just from being a woman? She has the ability to keep up with Super powered people.

There is really no difference between how and where she got the power to use it. The fact is she is able to use it in a way that benefits her.

[Dragonus45]

I mean, you can cut hairs with all the characters. Steve Rogers power is passive, because he got the steroids to give him that power. He didn't do anything to get that power or earn it.


Nah he had to go through a bunch tests to prove himself worthy of that bit. His real super power was being born with such fully formed compassionate ideals and a powerful unwavering moral compass that make him almost virtuous a living saint.

[Starbuck_II]

It is still a usable power.

I mean, you can cut hairs with all the characters. Steve Rogers power is passive, because he got the steroids to give him that power. He didn't do anything to get that power or earn it.


Tony Stark is a magic guy, because no MIT student I have heard of can do machine work with that. He is just.. given that power to work magic with machines.

Black Widow.. Despite having NO explanations of were she got her supwer powers,.. I guess it's just from being a woman? She has the ability to keep up with Super powered people.

There is really no difference between how and where she got the power to use it. The fact is she is able to use it in a way that benefits her.

No black widow gets explained she was trained to be an assassin like Bucky was later. But unlike Bucky, she was trained since childhood. Just like Bruce Lee, she was trained hard at that time.

Okay, Stark's magic tech is a hard one to argue against.
At least, Mr Fantastic we can argue is a mutation from cosmic radiation. Doom has actual magic augmenting his tech.

[tomandtish]

Here's an interesting question: Do we have any evidence to indicate that THIS Colossus can assume a human form?

He's been in armored form every single time we see him, including when he's sleeping at the mansion. And we haven;t heard him referred to by any name other than Colossus. Maybe this version is permanently armored?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I liked the movie... for an entirely different reason than I liked the original. Because it's an entirely different sort of movie.

The first Deadpool movie was wacky, zany, irreverent, and had all the earmarks of a one-off job, because honestly Ryan himself didn't know if FOX was going to *LET* him do it properly. It was an entertaining movie that my significant other and I still watch from time to time (when the kiddo is off at school or otherwise not going to be in for a few hours).

But this move? This was something else. This was literally the start of a franchise. In many ways, Deadpool was a prequel, and this was effectively 'X Force: The Beginning'. It set up characters that people enjoyed, and it was actually a semi-serious movie. Deadpool was anything but serious, but this one had an actual plot, which actually developed. It didn't take itself too seriously, no, but it was a better start for a franchise than many others I could name. And the box office numbers proved that it could be a *viable* franchise. So while it was a movie that did not take itself seriously, it was in fact a serious movie from a business perspective.

And now that House of Mouse has purchased it... I dunno. If they are smart, they'll let Ryan run with X-Force, and maybe even weave it into the MCU. It's almost a shame the merger didn't happen sooner.

I'd have loved to see a scene in the middle of Infinity Wars where everyone was fighting Thanos and getting stomped pretty hard, then Deadpool just kinda walks on screen eating a chimichanga, and cue the record scratch. He makes some fourth-wall breaking comment like "Uhh... I think I walked into the wrong fight scene... are you sure this is Stage Three?" to which Thanos immediately drops whatever he was doing, and completely ignores the Avengers in favor of pointing at Deadpool shouting a nearly inarticulate "YOU!!!!!", showing what he's like when he is REALLY pissed. To which Deadpool responds with a "Yikes!" or maybe "Hang on, I don't have my brown pants on yet!" or some equally cute quip before running like hell, Thanos close on his heels, and the Avengers just kind of looking at each other like "Uhhh... WTF just happened...".

[Talakeal]

I was thinking, its not just women who are killed in the first act of the movie to motivate their loved ones. Thinking about the female led action movies, a very high percentage of them involve husbands / boyfriends / brothers killed in the first act. Maybe this trope just seems more prevalent in our minds because most action movies have a male lead?

[Kato]

I'd have loved to see a scene in the middle of Infinity Wars where everyone was fighting Thanos and getting stomped pretty hard, then Deadpool just kinda walks on screen eating a chimichanga, and cue the record scratch. He makes some fourth-wall breaking comment like "Uhh... I think I walked into the wrong fight scene... are you sure this is Stage Three?" to which Thanos immediately drops whatever he was doing, and completely ignores the Avengers in favor of pointing at Deadpool shouting a nearly inarticulate "YOU!!!!!", showing what he's like when he is REALLY pissed. To which Deadpool responds with a "Yikes!" or maybe "Hang on, I don't have my brown pants on yet!" or some equally cute quip before running like hell, Thanos close on his heels, and the Avengers just kind of looking at each other like "Uhhh... WTF just happened...".

Yes, that would have been pretty cute / funny but I don't see it happening any time soon. But I guess if thinks keep developing the way they do maybe some time in the future...


Also, there was a minor thing that keeps bugging me.. Would it really have been a good idea for Wade and Ness to have a kid? I mean, the guy is still a walking tumor...

[The Glyphstone]

Cancer risk can be increased by genetic factors, but it's not a surefire thing. Plus, IIRC Wade developed like fifteen different cancers all at once, which is statistically improbable bordering on ludicrous, so the odds of any kid of theirs suffering the same fate is miniscule.

[JamesForeCast]

So, previous part was better and next part will be worth and it's a rule. But we have exceptions and the exceptions only confirem the rule. :smallwink:

[lord_khaine]

Cancer risk can be increased by genetic factors, but it's not a surefire thing. Plus, IIRC Wade developed like fifteen different cancers all at once, which is statistically improbable bordering on ludicrous, so the odds of any kid of theirs suffering the same fate is miniscule.

Yeah.. well.. cancer can spread if not caught in early stages..
But with the speed at witch Wade's spread, then i suspect its more a case of the wrong chemical in the right amount.

[kevindean]

I loved the movies. Hated the Vanessa twist tbh. But the whole movie was amazing, from start to finish. I was so happy that Peter lived! And all after credit scenes were just a cherry on top for me.

[Kato]

Cancer risk can be increased by genetic factors, but it's not a surefire thing. Plus, IIRC Wade developed like fifteen different cancers all at once, which is statistically improbable bordering on ludicrous, so the odds of any kid of theirs suffering the same fate is miniscule.

But isn't Wade's power (poorly phrased) super cancer? As in, he has cancer basically everywhere, including testicular cancer? So it's pretty likely any sperm he produces is also.. not high quality. Or maybe his cancer isn't quite as bad.

[Grim Portent]

Testicular cancer would usually just give him a low sperm count and/or infertility, and maybe not even that since he's not undergoing chemotherapy, it shouldn't do much to the sperm cells themselves.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

How they took down juggernaut was, if you'll excuse the pun, an arse-pull. In this case, quite literally.

Originally, at least I thought, Juggernaut wasn't actually a mutant, he just got screwed by the Crimson Gem of Cyttorak, an artifact powered by one of the most powerful beings around, and fueled by hate and rage. Really, only Dr. Strange can handle that level of artifact without getting screwed over. Not that he was particularly sane before he got his hands on it, but the odds of mental stability went from 'really damn low' to 'not a chance'.

[LaZodiac]

How they took down juggernaut was, if you'll excuse the pun, an arse-pull. In this case, quite literally.

Originally, at least I thought, Juggernaut wasn't actually a mutant, he just got screwed by the Crimson Gem of Cyttorak, an artifact powered by one of the most powerful beings around, and fueled by hate and rage. Really, only Dr. Strange can handle that level of artifact without getting screwed over. Not that he was particularly sane before he got his hands on it, but the odds of mental stability went from 'really damn low' to 'not a chance'.

Naw, you're correct, that's Juggernaut's origin.

Go read what you said again. It's STUPID. Him just being a really powerful mutant is FINE.

[lord_khaine]

How they took down juggernaut was, if you'll excuse the pun, an arse-pull. In this case, quite literally.

Well yeah they had to do something like that. They did have Juggernaut quite close to his suposed level of power. And that means he is a hard fight for a full team of competent x-men.
With souch louse backup Collosus did kinda have to fight in a way that would make Juggernaut go "**** this im staying down here in the water until they are gone"


Naw, you're correct, that's Juggernaut's origin.

Go read what you said again. It's STUPID. Him just being a really powerful mutant is FINE.

Its HISTORY and TRADITION! him being a mutant is STUPID! when we have a TIMETRAVELER with a WRIST based TIMEMACHINE!

[Kato]

Its HISTORY and TRADITION! him being a mutant is STUPID! when we have a TIMETRAVELER with a WRIST based TIMEMACHINE!

Maybe some traditions are stupid? Maybe having some characters being avatars of literal gods but constantly losing is stupid? Maybe having twenty different backstories for one character is stupid? Maybe comics and by extension comic book movies are sometimes stupid. I guess at some point we have to settle for the least stupid solution.


Also: has anyone seen the Deadpool 2 trailer (Golden Girls edition)?

[LaZodiac]

Well yeah they had to do something like that. They did have Juggernaut quite close to his suposed level of power. And that means he is a hard fight for a full team of competent x-men.
With souch louse backup Collosus did kinda have to fight in a way that would make Juggernaut go "**** this im staying down here in the water until they are gone"



Its HISTORY and TRADITION! him being a mutant is STUPID! when we have a TIMETRAVELER with a WRIST based TIMEMACHINE!

I was gonna say something but:


Maybe some traditions are stupid? Maybe having some characters being avatars of literal gods but constantly losing is stupid? Maybe having twenty different backstories for one character is stupid? Maybe comics and by extension comic book movies are sometimes stupid. I guess at some point we have to settle for the least stupid solution.


Also: has anyone seen the Deadpool 2 trailer (Golden Girls edition)?

I mean this is good enough, really, but I wanna say SOMETHING. Sometimes being a little stupid is fine. Cable is from the bull**** nonsense future, he can have his sliders watch. But Juggernaut is Xavier's brother, and Xavier is a hyper powerful mentat. Having his brother be...NOT a mutant and instead some rando who picked up a god rock is REALLY SILLY but in a BAD way. Making Xavier's brother be this hyper powerful meatboy makes sense because it shows a really interesting duality.

[Daimbert]

I mean this is good enough, really, but I wanna say SOMETHING. Sometimes being a little stupid is fine. Cable is from the bull**** nonsense future, he can have his sliders watch. But Juggernaut is Xavier's brother, and Xavier is a hyper powerful mentat. Having his brother be...NOT a mutant and instead some rando who picked up a god rock is REALLY SILLY but in a BAD way. Making Xavier's brother be this hyper powerful meatboy makes sense because it shows a really interesting duality.

In the original comic origin they were stepbrothers, not brothers related by blood. This is also what drove the animosity between them, where Cain felt that Xavier got what he should have had.

[Lacuna Caster]

I mean this is good enough, really, but I wanna say SOMETHING. Sometimes being a little stupid is fine. Cable is from the bull**** nonsense future, he can have his sliders watch. But Juggernaut is Xavier's brother, and Xavier is a hyper powerful mentat. Having his brother be...NOT a mutant and instead some rando who picked up a god rock is REALLY SILLY but in a BAD way. Making Xavier's brother be this hyper powerful meatboy makes sense because it shows a really interesting duality.
Agreed. ...Though I am sort-of curious why they let him keep his helmet in prison.

[lord_khaine]

Maybe some traditions are stupid? Maybe having some characters being avatars of literal gods but constantly losing is stupid? Maybe having twenty different backstories for one character is stupid? Maybe comics and by extension comic book movies are sometimes stupid. I guess at some point we have to settle for the least stupid solution.

Easy solution. Made some non-stupid villains? see if people like them better?
Juggernaut extremely rarely loses in 1 on 1 fights, except to litteral gods like Thor. And thats despite not being one himself. Only an Avatar. Imbued with a fragment of Cyttoraks power.


Agreed. ...Though I am sort-of curious why they let him keep his helmet in prison.

Its to risky to remove? It involves getting close to Juggernaut. Deadpool showed why thats a bad idea.

[tyckspoon]

Agreed. ...Though I am sort-of curious why they let him keep his helmet in prison.

Even without his mutant powers he's enormously large, tough, strong, and inclined toward violence. Not an easy person to control by force, probably kills or seriously injures several guards when you have to do it. If you take the helmet off of him, he starts freaking out about the possibility of Xavier or some other telepathic talent messing with his head, probably gets a lot more unruly. Let him have it and he seems relatively content to just be a prisoner. Much safer to just let him keep the helmet.

.. out of universe, the helmet is an iconic part of Juggernaut's character design and image. If you want people to immediately recognize the character, you need the helmet. It also allows you to beat him up a bit more brutally without showing as much of the impact of actually smacking somebody around, which is a benefit for the Big CGI Fight when you need to show Colossus going all out and hitting him in not-especially-heroic fashions while still being presented as the good guy.

[AliceLost]

Agreed. ...Though I am sort-of curious why they let him keep his helmet in prison.

How long has he been wearing that thing? He probably smells awful under there.

[Grim Portent]

How long has he been wearing that thing? He probably smells awful under there.

He probably smells as bad as Deadpool looks. :smallbiggrin:

[Reddish Mage]

I was gonna say something but:



I mean this is good enough, really, but I wanna say SOMETHING. Sometimes being a little stupid is fine. Cable is from the bull**** nonsense future, he can have his sliders watch. But Juggernaut is Xavier's brother, and Xavier is a hyper powerful mentat. Having his brother be...NOT a mutant and instead some rando who picked up a god rock is REALLY SILLY but in a BAD way. Making Xavier's brother be this hyper powerful meatboy makes sense because it shows a really interesting duality.

I agree Juggernaut getting powers from touching a strange gem is just weird. Not just comic book weird but a out of left field having to do with nothing weird. Changing him into another mutant just makes sense, especially since this is FOX and their Superhero Population by necessity is going to be almost entirely mutant (its what they have the rights to).

I don't get the brother-relation though, and for story purposes, step-brother = brother (with added potential for antagonism). I mean, Juggernaut isn't an especially deep villain who can be a rival, foil, or realistically be a primary antagonist for Xavier. All the traditional brother-roles the guy can't play. He's basically the apex of a raging bull.

In fact, looking at his comic history, I see he tends to get around and fight lots of different heroes, especially other strong guys like Hulk and Thor. I just don't see him having much to do with Professor-X. Professor-X isn't usually a main character, but when he does, his game should a battle of wits, against pure unbridled strength he either wins easily by being smart or doesn't and its lame, there just isn't much there for them going at each other.

[Dienekes]

I mean this is good enough, really, but I wanna say SOMETHING. Sometimes being a little stupid is fine. Cable is from the bull**** nonsense future, he can have his sliders watch. But Juggernaut is Xavier's brother, and Xavier is a hyper powerful mentat. Having his brother be...NOT a mutant and instead some rando who picked up a god rock is REALLY SILLY but in a BAD way. Making Xavier's brother be this hyper powerful meatboy makes sense because it shows a really interesting duality.

I’m a firm believer that the difference between awesome and stupid is often only the time dedicated into setting up that awesome/stupid thing.

One guy saying how some guy picked up a space rock and got super powers when there already was an obvious and in setting reason for him to get powers is stupid.

Showing your heroes steadily getting more tied to space and godlike plots and enemies. Tease some bits about the leaders inferiority complex non-powered brother. Then reveal that the brothers anger over the leader drove him to seek out the space powers and sell his soul to an eldritch god just to spite the hero and the story can become awesome (provided the writers are competent).

Juggernaut’s full backstory can be awesome. The pain and trials he inflicts on himself over his hatred for Charles can be Shakespearean. Cyttorak can be terrifying.

It just requires time and explanation that is way too much to ask of Deadpool 2 where he’s really just an extended cameo and excuse for an action scene or two.

Now, since Juggernaut’s backstory is so weird I’m surprised that D2 didn’t make it a joke somewhere in the movie. It seems rife for jokes especially when just read out it seems so ridiculous. Besides he got his powers from a rock. There has to be at least a couple male genitalia related jokes from that.

The fact they didn’t kind of makes me think they may not have the rights to Cyttorak.



In fact, looking at his comic history, I see he tends to get around and fight lots of different heroes, especially other strong guys like Hulk and Thor. I just don't see him having much to do with Professor-X. Professor-X isn't usually a main character, but when he does, his game should a battle of wits, against pure unbridled strength he either wins easily by being smart or doesn't and its lame, there just isn't much there for them going at each other.

That’s kind of what makes it good though. In a Lex Luther/Superman kind of way. The best Xavier/Jugg comics either make his conflict about the whole team trying to save Charles exactly because his powers don’t work on Jugg. Or not having to do with violence at all. But forcing the two characters to come to terms with their poor relationship as children and both of them learning to grow up.

[ben-zayb]

Now, since Juggernaut’s backstory is so weird I’m surprised that D2 didn’t make it a joke somewhere in the movie. It seems rife for jokes especially when just read out it seems so ridiculous. Besides he got his powers from a rock. There has to be at least a couple male genitalia related jokes from that.
I'm thinking less family jewel jokes, and more "you might want to hide that superpower-granting gem stone from Josh Brolin" kinda deal.

[Psyren]

Juggernaut’s full backstory can be awesome. The pain and trials he inflicts on himself over his hatred for Charles can be Shakespearean. Cyttorak can be terrifying.

It just requires time and explanation that is way too much to ask of Deadpool 2 where he’s really just an extended cameo and excuse for an action scene or two.

Now, since Juggernaut’s backstory is so weird I’m surprised that D2 didn’t make it a joke somewhere in the movie. It seems rife for jokes especially when just read out it seems so ridiculous. Besides he got his powers from a rock. There has to be at least a couple male genitalia related jokes from that.

The fact they didn’t kind of makes me think they may not have the rights to Cyttorak.


I'm not sure either since Strange used the term - but even if they do, it's not a good idea to tie themselves to that version of the character yet. It's difficult to tell whether the convoluted messy magic rocks backstory of Juggernaut would play well to a moviegoing audience when "he's just a mutant" would be all they really need to say by way of explanation.

But if you'll note, they didn't actually close that door either; his powers weren't explained at all. He was in the Mutant prison, so Essex Corp. presumably thought that's what he was at least - but we also don't see whether a collar would work on him, and once his cage was busted up, he appeared to have all his strength. So they could go either way in the future, and leaving it ambiguous now was the smart play.

[Tvtyrant]

Also Juggernaut smashing the bridge was one of the best shots in the movie. Especially with Domino landing in an inflatable advertisement.

[Tyndmyr]

I was thinking, its not just women who are killed in the first act of the movie to motivate their loved ones. Thinking about the female led action movies, a very high percentage of them involve husbands / boyfriends / brothers killed in the first act. Maybe this trope just seems more prevalent in our minds because most action movies have a male lead?

There's certainly no narrative reason why it needs to be a woman. It just has to be something the audience likes, and is important to the protagonist, thus justifying the following vengeance rampage. Spouse, significant other, close friend, kids, dog.

Generally, you're gonna pick someone close, because it's easier to justify them being important with minimal screen time before getting to the action.

Edit: Mentor as well. Frequent example of a male getting offed in the first third of the narrative. Being a mentor in an action movie is an extremely high risk proposition.

[Aotrs Commander]

Edit: Mentor as well. Frequent example of a male getting offed in the first third of the narrative. Being a mentor in an action movie is an extremely high risk proposition.

Honestly, I find that even more offensive than the whole off-the-loved-ones (and yes, I am pretty sure that the disparity towards them being females is largely due to the disparity in male protagonists that need motivating) - doubly so when it happens to an established character to make the next generation hero go through exactly the same thing.

(I'd make a spoiler comment here about what I understand is true of a recent thing in an unspecified form of media, but even mentioning it in a spoiler block to say what the spoiler block is about except in as vague a way possible could be construed as a spoiler. Heck, even that last sentence may to going too far; I only do so to say that wasn't even particularly what I was thinking of but if true, makes me even less inclined to partake of that piece of media.)



Seriously, I would, for once, like to see the set-up where you have the heroes are off doing A Thing (possibly Being Distracted), and the Bad Guy show up at The Hero's Base all "muah haha, just as planned" to destroy it, guarded as it is only by The Mentor/Secondary Character/Love Interest (etc). Do the whole deal, with the rain, the sad music, the desparate fight that you know will end in tragedy -the whole tried and tired set-up - and then Whedon the living FRACK out of it and have the main bad guy killed in his moment of triumph by said mentor/secondary character/love interest (etc), with Bad Guy doing a gurgling "this isn't supposed to happen! You can't kill me! [Hero] is suppoed to kill me!"

(Yeah, I know, Angel did it sort of once at the end, but once hardly counters all the times that tired old trope is played straight every other time in, like, every media form ever.)



Ya hear me, Deadpool 3/X-Force writers? Set it up so that, I dunno, Negasonic Teenage Warhead gets to spifflicate the Big Bad next time or something - trust me, you cna pull it of; with Deadpool it'll be hilarious.



By-the-by I would like to thank Deadpool again for breathing life into or at leats popularising Negasonic Teenage Warhead, because really, she should have been more than a one-note off-screen casualty of Genosha genocide. (Yes, apparently they have done some stuff with her later, but it doesn't sound espeically clever, honestly, at least as far as wiki goes, except maybe at the very last and only by amping powers up to "probably broken so expect her to be killed" levels. And notably, not a section in her actual personality...)

[Dragonus45]

Seriously, I would, for once, like to see the set-up where you have the heroes are off doing A Thing (possibly Being Distracted), and the Bad Guy show up at The Hero's Base all "muah haha, just as planned" to destroy it, guarded as it is only by The Mentor/Secondary Character/Love Interest (etc). Do the whole deal, with the rain, the sad music, the desparate fight that you know will end in tragedy -the whole tried and tired set-up - and then Whedon the living FRACK out of it and have the main bad guy killed in his moment of triumph by said mentor/secondary character/love interest (etc), with Bad Guy doing a gurgling "this isn't supposed to happen! You can't kill me! [Hero] is suppoed to kill me!"



You should check out this then. (http://www.superstupor.com/sust12272007.shtml)

[Dienekes]

You should check out this then. (http://www.superstupor.com/sust12272007.shtml)

Remember when MJ beat the crap out of the Chameleon with a baseball bat? Good times.

[Tyndmyr]

Honestly, I find that even more offensive than the whole off-the-loved-ones (and yes, I am pretty sure that the disparity towards them being females is largely due to the disparity in male protagonists that need motivating) - doubly so when it happens to an established character to make the next generation hero go through exactly the same thing.

Yeah, there's a point where tropes become so overused that seeing them is just...kinda painful. I get the need to show motivation, but sometimes it's done quite lazily indeed. Part of the fun of Deadpool is that it subverts tropes an awful lot, which is definitely enjoyable.


By-the-by I would like to thank Deadpool again for breathing life into or at leats popularising Negasonic Teenage Warhead, because really, she should have been more than a one-note off-screen casualty of Genosha genocide. (Yes, apparently they have done some stuff with her later, but it doesn't sound espeically clever, honestly, at least as far as wiki goes, except maybe at the very last and only by amping powers up to "probably broken so expect her to be killed" levels. And notably, not a section in her actual personality...)

She's quite fun. Not a lot of screen time, but it was enjoyable. I don't actually know her from comics/elsewhere at all, but honestly, that's cool. We're getting a pretty good cast in the Deadpool world.

Honestly, with all of two Deadpool films, I think they have a more solid movie universe set up than all of DC.

[DigoDragon]

I saw the movie last weekend and enjoyed it immensely. Cable was quite awesome and one of my fav characters in the film. The other is Domino, cause I want a Luck superpower like that.

[Aotrs Commander]

You should check out this then. (http://www.superstupor.com/sust12272007.shtml)

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

OIh yes! This, this so much!

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!





Yeah, there's a point where tropes become so overused that seeing them is just...kinda painful. I get the need to show motivation, but sometimes it's done quite lazily indeed. Part of the fun of Deadpool is that it subverts tropes an awful lot, which is definitely enjoyable.

Exactly. Repetition, regardless of how well-executed (if it even IS) gets boring. Variety,

(One of the reasons I have a lot of time for Joss Whedon is he thinks a lot like I do - set-up the obvious cliché you all know is coming and then BAM! subvert expectations.

I have still ever forgiven him for putting Tara in the credits in Buffy the episode they killed her. That was mean, calculated and it bloody worked.

It is EXACTLY what I would have done.)




She's quite fun. Not a lot of screen time, but it was enjoyable. I don't actually know her from comics/elsewhere at all, but honestly, that's cool. We're getting a pretty good cast in the Deadpool world.

Honestly, with all of two Deadpool films, I think they have a more solid movie universe set up than all of DC.

Well, given her initial comics "appearance" was a post-humous name-drop by Emma Frost as one of her students killed in the Genosha massecre, it is hardly surprising you might have missed EVEN IF you read a lot of X-Man comics!

...

My Lichemaster, I just realised that Negasonic was actually Fridged in the way some people have accused DP2 of, only off-screen and before her character was even introduced.

WOW, did she ever deserve to be movieified...!

[Elder Tsofu]

Interestingly there was a brief "discussion/comment" on fridging in the "Once upon a Deadpool" version of the film. Was fun to see a good movie once more (with slight alterations), but maybe not totally worth the price of admission.