Fox Is Probably Not Going To Make An R-Rated Deadpool Movie

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Fox Is Probably Not Going To Make An R-Rated Deadpool Movie

Deadpool

But comments by Simon Kinberg suggest they've considered it.

We all know that Fox and Sony would love to do with their licensed Marvel properties what Marvel has done with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. They probably won't succeed, however, but of the two studios, Fox probably has the biggest advantage in that unlike Spider-Man, the X-Men and Fantastic Four properties constitute a diverse enough universe on which multiple franchises could be based.

Of course, the problem is that Fox has made genuinely terrible films based on the X-men and Fantastic Four franchises so consistently you'd think that was the whole point*. But because people continue to flock to these movies despite that unhappy fact, they still have ownership of some of the Marvel Universe's coolest characters. One of these characters is Deadpool, last seen played by Ryan Reynolds in X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Deadpool is a somewhat interesting character, a parody of the grimdark antiheroes that made 90s comics so insufferable and a seemingly good fit for film in the post-MCU era of less self-serious comic films. Of course, a Deadpool stand-alone film has been 'in development' for years, with Ryan Reynolds set to reprise the role and visual effects artist Tim Miller attached to direct. Reynolds has been pushing hard behind the scenes for such a film to be given an R-rating, and at least one person involved with this potential movie thinks it should be.

Speaking to Collider at C2E2 in chicago, X-Men: Days of Future Past screenwriter Simon Kinberg was asked about the expansion of Fox's superhero films and the possibility of making an R-rated Deadpool. Here's what he said:

Yeah, it makes sense to me. Genuinely it's early phases, early days, but if you're gonna do a Deadpool movie, I think you've gotta do a hard-R, darker movie and he is the perfect character to do it with.

The prospect of an adult-oriented Deadpool movie is indeed awesome. But here's the thing: it's probably not going to happen.

The fact is, R-rated comic book super hero movies are big risks. 2008's Punisher: War Zone didn't break $10 million, and while Kick-Ass and Kick-Ass 2 were both successes, they also weren't burdened by association with an existing franchise. Making the film R-rated locks out a lot of people whose main interest in seeing it comes from having liked the 2009 PG-13 film it is a semi-sequel to. But more importantly, Ryan Reynolds has not had what one might call a great track record as an action movie/blockbuster headliner since he last played Deadpool. His Green Lantern barely turned a tiny profit on its $200 million budget, and the recent RIPD was an embarrassing flop. Not exactly someone studios will confidently feel can open an R-rated comic book film.

But it's cool at least that the people who might make the film are at least thinking in the right direction. Even if, of course, we know if it's anything like most of Fox's super hero movies, it's going to be terrible (assuming it ever gets made.)

So readers, what do you think? Is R-rated Deadpool something that perks your interest up? Do you even care one way or the other? And why the hell can't someone who is as likable and funny as Ryan Reynolds manage to be in movies that don't suck?

Source: Collider

*I realize that The Amazing Spider-Man is not good. But we can all agree that Sony originally got it right with Sam Raimi's first two Spidey films, right?

Permalink

Considering I randonly picked up a Deadpool compilation that was split between a 1970s blacksploitation/softcore porn style and a modern style, both with a main antagonist literally called "the White Man" and a series of racially-tinged jokes in it, can we just not have a Deadpool movie if they're not willing to go to the full R?

I mean, seriously, Deadpool is the comic version of the "Movie" franchise (Scary Movie, etc.). You have to go all the way or it's just going to be terrible.

I don't really care one way or the other since I never really likes the X-men and don't really care for Fox's movies, but I have to agree that the only way to do a Deadpool movie is to go R or go home. Just like the only way to make a Spider-Man movie is to go Rami and not have Venom forced on him by execs.

Looking back over IMDB, Reynolds has... never really helmed a hit, has he...?

There's also the small matter that even Reynolds' portrayal of Deadpool in the Wolverine movie kind of pissed a lot of people off. Now I'll be the first to recognize that wasn't his fault; whoever finalized the script apparently decided that Deadpool's distinctive feature was that he was also a regenerator like Wolverine, so there shouldn't be any problem with making him a mute in his ultimate incarnation. (And please, someone hang the person responsible up by his screenwriting thumbs.)

I wouldn't say no to a Deadpool movie, with or without Reynolds in it. I don't think such a movie would automatically be worse for having Reynolds in it, though given the above, there's a real possibility it would do worse as a result.

But R or PG-13, no way would I go to see such a movie in its first week. I would be waiting on professional reviews, and friends' reviews, and possibly for it to come to the second-run theater if there was a glimmer of a doubt.

Of course not. MNost films these days air targeted for a Pg-13 rating so they can get maximum viewership. WIthout pleasing anyone.

Fox is also probably ran by complete fucking idiots.

BigTuk:
Of course not. MNost films these days air targeted for a Pg-13 rating so they can get maximum viewership. WIthout pleasing anyone.

Yep, that's why Hollywood really needs to pay attention to this video:

Hairless Mammoth:
Fox is also probably ran by complete fucking idiots.

BigTuk:
Of course not. MNost films these days air targeted for a Pg-13 rating so they can get maximum viewership. WIthout pleasing anyone.

Yep, that's why Hollywood really needs to pay attention to this video:

Yeah, that's common knowledge around these parts. The last thing a Deadpool movie needs is to be tied to X-Men Origins: Wolverine. That's like tying a a fabulous lobster dinner to a dead body.

I say go big or dont go at all and R is the only way for dead pool

Alright, FOX may not do it but maybe they'll commission one of their in-house studios to make it. If they're going to make a Deadpool movie at all, you have to make something R-Rated...they got away with PG-13 Wolverine movies and only one of them was abhorrent. Deadpool, like The Punisher, just won't seem...right...in PG-13 or less. Unless of course the Deadpool movie plans on being a Lego Movie style thing that winks at the child audience and goes in THAT direction I guess...

In all honesty, I think they could do an R-rated Deadpool movie, but it would have to be a comedy. The Deadpool movie should actually be a parody/spoof of current superhero movie trends, Deadpool always doing a wink-wink-nudge-nudge thing like he does in the comics. Maybe if they kept the budget lower than typical superhero stuff, but even then I wonder.

Mr. Q:

Hairless Mammoth:
Fox is also probably ran by complete fucking idiots.

BigTuk:
Of course not. MNost films these days air targeted for a Pg-13 rating so they can get maximum viewership. WIthout pleasing anyone.

Yep, that's why Hollywood really needs to pay attention to this video:

Yeah, that's common knowledge around these parts. The last thing a Deadpool movie needs is to be tied to X-Men Origins: Wolverine. That's like tying a a fabulous lobster dinner to a dead body.

Or like tying Dragonball Z to Dragonball:Evolution. UGH.

They put Deadpool in the Ultimate cartoon and every modern Deadpool fan I know loved it. How would a PG-13 movie be any worse? He's already more cartoony than Slapstick, and Slapstick was a literal cartoon.

RossaLincoln:
But we can all agree that Sony originally got it right with Sam Raimi's first two Spidey films, right?

You mean "Spider-Man for People Who Don't Like Spider-Man" 1 and 2? No, I will most certainly not agree they got it right. For all the hate ASM gets, it's the better series thus far, especially in terms of "getting it right."

Callate:
Looking back over IMDB, Reynolds has... never really helmed a hit, has he...?

There's also the small matter that even Reynolds' portrayal of Deadpool in the Wolverine movie kind of pissed a lot of people off. Now I'll be the first to recognize that wasn't his fault; whoever finalized the script apparently decided that Deadpool's distinctive feature was that he was also a regenerator like Wolverine, so there shouldn't be any problem with making him a mute in his ultimate incarnation. (And please, someone hang the person responsible up by his screenwriting thumbs.)

Actually, the only part of that movie that pissed people off in terms of Deadpool was HOW they introduced him - a complete anti-Deadpool, so to speak. And, just to add, Deadpool wasn't giving "regeneration" solely for the movie. It's in the comics, it's been in the comics for a while. He's had his head lopped off before his sidekick managed to get it back to his body and put it back on. And there's also Zombie Deadpool's head rolling about the comicverse (or was, I don't necessarily keep up with the comics myself).

The problem came in when they said "Hey, let's get this snarky guy to play a snarky anti-hero for a flashback, then introduce our badass new version who doesn't talk or do anything besides teleports and optic blasts!". Oh, and the whole katana-wrists and optic-vision and natural teleporting too... that stuff doesn't help much, and were added in solely for the movie.

The fact is, R-rated comic book super hero movies are big risks. 2008's Punisher: War Zone didn't break $10 million, and while Kick-Ass and Kick-Ass 2 were both successes, they also weren't burdened by association with an existing franchise.

Yep, Kick-Ass and Kick-Ass 2 weren't associated with anything at all. Besides Kick-Ass, the comic that had been running for two years prior to the films release, and has (largely yet loosely) based the movies off of for its storyline. To be fair though, the guy making the comic got real lucky, and was able to sell the rights to the movie before even the first issue was published.

Also, I don't think it's necessarily a good choice to go off box-office only sales to try and get a feel for a movie's "Success". War Zone made $10 mill in a year after it's DVD release, and I'm sure it's continued to make money afterwards. It's not exactly a terrible movie, it's just not... all that good.

It would also be impossible to stay true to the tone of The Punisher, while pushing for, say, PG-13.
Deadpool, on the other hand? It's likely, but it all depends on the director, writer, and the studio.

Making the film R-rated locks out a lot of people whose main interest in seeing it comes from having liked the 2009 PG-13 film it is a semi-sequel to. But more importantly, Ryan Reynolds has not had what one might call a great track record as an action movie/blockbuster headliner since he last played Deadpool. His Green Lantern barely turned a tiny profit on its $200 million budget, and the recent RIPD was an embarrassing flop. Not exactly someone studios will confidently feel can open an R-rated comic book film.

Eh. Green Lantern = Typical non-Batman DC movie. He's a strong actor, and obviously CAN do these kind of blockbuster action flicks. Problem is that a movie is only as great as it's shittiest link (to use the phrase). And RIPD? It feels like a blatant MIB ripoff, replacing aliens-hiding-in-society with Supernaturals-hiding-in-society, and Ryan Reynolds instead of Will Smith. Except, unlike MIB, RIPD was just... bland. Plus, we got pretty lucky it seems... the Tommy Lee Jones character was apparently originally going to be played by Zach Galifianakis...

Which I'm sure would turn out so well... (On second thought, it potentially could...!)

I liked Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson in X-Men Origins, he was funny and seemed pretty fitting for the role. Too bad he keeps taking roles in bad movies.

cursedseishi:
Actually, the only part of that movie that pissed people off in terms of Deadpool was HOW they introduced him - a complete anti-Deadpool, so to speak. And, just to add, Deadpool wasn't giving "regeneration" solely for the movie. It's in the comics, it's been in the comics for a while.

Oh, I know. I'm just saying that "Hey, this guy regenerates, so we can make him the ultimate fight antagonist for Wolverine!" was clearly foremost in the minds of those responsible. We barely get to see Wade as the snarky guy, never mind getting one who was a multiple personality who regularly breaks the fourth wall. Deadpool who was deprived of regeneration would still be notable; Deadpool deprived of his voice isn't really the same character at all.

(Honestly, that movie regularly screwed up characters and motivations in the name of making sure there were regular fight scenes, however superfluous to the plot, presumably on the assumption that the target audience would fall asleep if there wasn't someone getting snikt'd every fifteen minutes or so.)

Callate:

cursedseishi:
Actually, the only part of that movie that pissed people off in terms of Deadpool was HOW they introduced him - a complete anti-Deadpool, so to speak. And, just to add, Deadpool wasn't giving "regeneration" solely for the movie. It's in the comics, it's been in the comics for a while.

Oh, I know. I'm just saying that "Hey, this guy regenerates, so we can make him the ultimate fight antagonist for Wolverine!" was clearly foremost in the minds of those responsible. We barely get to see Wade as the snarky guy, never mind getting one who was a multiple personality who regularly breaks the fourth wall. Deadpool who was deprived of regeneration would still be notable; Deadpool deprived of his voice isn't really the same character at all.

(Honestly, that movie regularly screwed up characters and motivations in the name of making sure there were regular fight scenes, however superfluous to the plot, presumably on the assumption that the target audience would fall asleep if there wasn't someone getting snikt'd every fifteen minutes or so.)

He seemed a lot more "Ultimate Deadpool" than "good Deadpool".
Yah, Ultimate Deadpool is just a faceless mutant-hater from whats-its-name the country that Doom rules over.

Mr. Q:
Yeah, that's common knowledge around these parts. The last thing a Deadpool movie needs is to be tied to X-Men Origins: Wolverine. That's like tying a a fabulous lobster dinner to a dead body.

Bad example. Tying a fabulous lobster dinner to a dead body is something that Deadpool would do...

I think an R rated Deadpool movie could be amazing.

p.s.
"*I realize that The Amazing Spider-Man is not good. But we can all agree that Sony originally got it right with Sam Raimi's first two Spidey films, right?"

No. I grew up with the 90s cartoons and so I inevitably hate all recent versions of spider man.

Zachary Amaranth:
You mean "Spider-Man for People Who Don't Like Spider-Man" 1 and 2? No, I will most certainly not agree they got it right. For all the hate ASM gets, it's the better series thus far, especially in terms of "getting it right."

How do you figure that the version where Parker's a straight-up overconfident jock with the whole world on his side before getting powers by dumb luck and going on an angst-fueled quest rotating around the mystery of his missing parents, experiencing no character development in the process, is the better adaptation?

I mean, that misses the central point of the character in all sorts of ways. And even if you're ignoring the source material, at least in Spider-man 1 and 2 the character had some sort of development arc.

Jim_Callahan:

How do you figure that the version where Parker's a straight-up overconfident jock with the whole world on his side before getting powers by dumb luck and going on an angst-fueled quest rotating around the mystery of his missing parents, experiencing no character development in the process, is the better adaptation?

I think you accidentally switched over to describing the Raimi films there.

So why are they not making this? Because of focus groups or because Fox is just out of a crippling fear for succes?

What you talkin about? Deadpool has never been in a movie so far, the Wolverine movie had some pink fairy wannabe, but no Deadpool.

OT; Deadpool has to be r18, see what happened to Robocop when they toned him down? Kinda obvious that one, the Robocop live action t.v series was also pg13, and it bombed. Point is, they both have to be ultra violent.

I say, go PG-13, but make it as R-rated as humanly possible. Compromise, I mean. If Animaniacs can hide in jokes about fingering Prince, then Deadpool can do the same sort of shit.

Now, about ASM being a bad movie. It's a great movie. Now shush :P

RossaLincoln:
Fox Is Probably Not Going To Make An R-Rated Deadpool Movie

Well then, I'm sorry, but I have to ask: What the hell is the POINT, then?

Deadpool is not for the faint of heart. He has no morals, no sanity, no mercy... He both kills and gets graphically 'killed' himself alot. He makes fun of everything, he breaks the fourth wall, and he is also lewd as hell. If you aren't going to go R for Deadpool, you may as well just not GO. This ain't no Spider-Man...

deadpool is clearly not meant for children. the comics alone proof that. the sexual content and the over the top violence is part of the deadpool universe. it has to be R rated otherwise the movie will suck over and over.
also, what, he was in the origin movie??' i watched it several times but i ant remember seeing him. i guess im just used seeing him in his outfit and mask.

Making a PG-13 Deadpool movie would be like buying a castrated bull to impregnate your cow herd...

well then whats the fucking point ? They really need to learn from their past fuck ups, with this kinda stuff you cant half ass it to try and get EVERYONE to see it. Oh....wait, a movie is a success and is great as long as it makes its money back within the first week. Sorry silly me.

Butbutbut, they promised. They promised an X rated musical. A musical about chimichangas, guns, 4th wall breakage, and the buttsex. For the sole reason reason of screwing around with the demographic that LOVES PG13 wolverine-centic to the detriment of the rest of the cast, schlock.

I just can't wait for the "90's comics were the worst thing in life ever" fad opinion to be over. Sure there was a lot of shit, but there has been in every generation. Some of that dark gritty stuff was actually alright

Here's the thing, the Wolverine movies aren't as fun as they should be because they're PG-13. The gore and evisceration count should be off the charts but no... because Fox.
So yeah... try going PG-13, you won't get ALL of Deadpool's greatness and will have to rely so heavily on the writing to save for the lack of grit, otherwise the chances of the PG-13 being garbage are very very very very very very high.
Now if there is a go ahead to make it R... GO NUTS, you struck a gold mine of quality.

P.S. Everyone has their opinions on ASM... I for one despise it, and am looking forward to 2 being shlock to some degree.
Yay team Raimi!

Callate:
Looking back over IMDB, Reynolds has... never really helmed a hit, has he...?

There's also the small matter that even Reynolds' portrayal of Deadpool in the Wolverine movie kind of pissed a lot of people off. Now I'll be the first to recognize that wasn't his fault; whoever finalized the script apparently decided that Deadpool's distinctive feature was that he was also a regenerator like Wolverine, so there shouldn't be any problem with making him a mute in his ultimate incarnation. (And please, someone hang the person responsible up by his screenwriting thumbs.)

Except his appearance as Wade Wilson for five minutes or so is generally considered the best thing about the whole movie (its about the only thing I personally choose to remember), and a pretty much spot-on nailing of the character, but in all the interviews Reynolds has made it pretty clear he gets the character and what makes him work.

Windknight:
Except his appearance as Wade Wilson for five minutes or so is generally considered the best thing about the whole movie (its about the only thing I personally choose to remember), and a pretty much spot-on nailing of the character, but in all the interviews Reynolds has made it pretty clear he gets the character and what makes him work.

I honestly don't remember it that sharply. I remember it was just fine; I thought Reynolds' Wade was one of the more interesting mercenaries, but he didn't enormously stand out for me.

But as I said, I don't think Reynolds would necessarily be a bad Deadpool; I've never gotten the impression that he was a bad actor. I was just saying that, given his association with a much-unloved version of same and other under-performing work, the audience at large- the people responsible for a movie making back its costs- might not be forgiving. Even though neither of those things were really his fault.

Few things here:

I think Ryan Reynolds could pull off a full-on Deadpool film, because he works as a comedy actor and has the 'capability' to do an action hero. Since Deadpool is mostly a comedy-oriented action hero, this is actually a pretty good match as far as I'm concerned.

Second, I've read the leaked script (look it up) from the 2010 draft, and it was astoundingly faithful to the comic book version of the character. It had scenes ripped right from the comics, scenes that would have fit in perfectly with the comics, and scenes that were actually rather new to the series but interesting enough (granted, I haven't read a whole lot on the origin of Deadpool but I have it on good authority that his backstory is intentionally vague?).

Thirdly, if it's an R-rating that's keeping the film barred from being greenlit, I am okay with dropping it to PG-13. WHY? Well, there's an episode of Disney Marvel's "Ultimate Spiderman" called "Ultimate Deadpool" featuring him. The TV show itself is rated Y7. That's right, that's a PG-rated episode of a cartoon featuring Deadpool. And besides a rather annoying voice actor who ISN'T Nolan North, they pull off the episode rather spectacularly. Heck, one of the very Deadpool-style jokes in the episode is that he keeps saying "un-alive" instead of "kill" because "kill" is a bad word. That's actually pretty funny.

So, in summary, Ryan Reynolds could make a good proper Deadpool yet, the draft looks good, and I'm okay with a lower MPAA rating.

I'll be brutally realistically honest in saying I cannot see Fox ever making Deadpool what he is in the form of a movie, the ratings would rather him be butchered down to a Pg13 movie at best, even then he wouldn't even be Deadpool, he'd be more of a poorly written joke than anything desired.

I'm perfectly fine with not getting a Deadpool flick in any capacity.
90+ minutes of some asshole screaming about chimichangas and acting sooooo "random" sounds about as much fun as a punch in the dick.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here