Ok. Still doesn't make sense for Deadpool to be in this movie based on what they've presented in marketing Logan. His character doesn't fit the tone shown in the trailer.
More importantly, the story seems to say that mutants are dying off...and sense DP is essentially the same as Wolverine in their key power, there's not reason to think he wouldn't have been effected too.
I'm guilty of never remembering that, and I always appreciate when Firefox corrects it for me. Sadly, mobile chrome does not.
I don't recall him being in the original story for old man logan either...weird inbred hulks, yes. Deadpool, no.
Disney confirms Dr Strange is in Ragnarok https://d23.com/disney-things-were-most-excited-for-in-2017/?share_token=03f535db6e
I feel like that movie is going to be top tier, despite how meh the previous two have been. It seems like they understand what didn't work in the first two and are simply not doing that. How novel.
It doesn't matter. 20th Century Fox only budgeted Deadpool with $50 million. Think about that for a second. We are in the midst of an era where superhero movies dominate the box office, and most of the time that film is budgeted at getting anywhere from $150-250 million. Deadpool was an absolute hit, and now 20th Century Fox surely will give the sequel a huge budget, and since Deadpool nor Logan is connected to Disney/Marvel then they will damn sure market the new Deadpool anyway they can to generate excitement. Studios aren't thinking of this in terms of, "well that wouldn't happen with this story." Studios force reshoots, script changes because a character isn't bright enough, or any other strange reason. It's all about money.
They're really going for it with the insanity it sounds like which is the right thing to do along with making it feel like the Thor movies are impacting other parts of the MCU. Feige said this'll be the game changer for Phase 3, and I hope he's right.
I liked the first Thor movie. I don't know the comics at all so maybe it was a bad comic book movie in that sense, but I thought it was a good movie that set up Thor and Loki well for the movies that followed. The second one kind of sucked, though.
Marvel had me at Taika Watiti. What We Do In the Shadows and Hunt for the Wilderpeople are awesome, and he wrote Moana. Not too mention he and Jermaine Clement were a comedy duo.
Yeah I thought the first one was a good fish out of water story. It was nothing remarkable but it was "good." The second one just didn't work at all.
I don't care about the relative truth value of any of these statements. I don't care about how reality shaped them. I just know they make me sick to my stomach.
I like them both. The first one felt pretty natural. The second one followed a boring formula but I still like the characters and the action.
Dark World is so forgettable. Think it's the only Marvel movie that I've only seen once. The director said it was a nightmare working on that movie due to all the studio notes and changes made. It definitely looks like a movie that was focus tested to death.
Dark World had plenty of Loki, which is always good. It was well paced, shortest MCU movie I believe and didn't have much filler. Had a good cliffhanger with Odin's whereabouts, but as pointed out, very formulaic. It wouldn't shock me if Ragnarok turns out to be the funniest movie of 2017. Hemsworth has always had great comedic moments as Thor, and Waititi should be able to expand on that more.
Dark World had a much higher quotient of Cat Dennings and her next level sweater zeppelins. That alone made me enjoy it.
Spoiler She's not in Ragnarok and may not appear anymore. Hopefully, Thor bangs that one Asgardian girl that is in his crew.
Where does he say that? All I remember is Thor and Tony arguing about which of their girlfriends is more accomplished between Jane and Pepper at the party during the beginning of the movie.
Just catching up here: So the movie about an elderly Wolverine is getting rave reviews? I also just am learning about the new Spider-Man for the first time (I haven't even seen Civil War yet, sorry). Michael Keaton = yes please, in any capacity or role. He's so good.
Ugh I totally blanked on that. I think I'm confusing with a theory, but yeah he mentions Jane might win a Nobel prize.
The reviews are from people that have seen only the first 40 minutes and yeah it's getting great reviews.