Because of his profanity-filled antics and violent anti-hero tendencies, Deadpool might seem like the antithesis of Valentine’s Day. His origin story garnered an R-rating from the MPAA for “strong violence and language throughout, sexual content and graphic nudity,” making some think it’s not really “first date” material. However, Deadpool‘s production, story, and characters have more to do with Valentine’s Day than meets the eye. Plus, do you really want to see How to Be Single (2016)? #1 Love Moments Turns out, the production team of Deadpool is in on the joke. With an opening over Valentine’s Day weekend, they embraced the idea of romance and love in their publicity. Some posters and billboards make Deadpool look like a romantic comedy that would be the perfect date movie. Additionally, Deadpool appeared on a television spot on The Bachelor calling his film “a love story.” The publicity for Deadpool has been repeatedly praised, because it captures both the humor of the movie and embraces the concept that the character of Deadpool breaks the fourth wall. The marketing team unleashed Deadpool on the world, and the results were spectacular. #2) A Romantic Relationship Then again, the “mock” publicity for the film might not be too far off. The film begins with Wade Wilson/Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) meeting a call girl with sailor’s mouth and a heart of gold, Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). Wade and Vanessa’s romance ends up being a catalyst for the later events of the film, and their relationship is an important part of Deadpool’s origin story. Of course, the film’s interpretation of the trope “boy meets girl” spirals out of control, and in many ways, the portrayal of Wade and Vanessa’s relationship is unconventional, but at the end of the day, Deadpool wasn’t lying: the film is actually a love story. #3) Symbolic Meaning Valentine’s Day today is synonymous with chocolate, flowers, and other capitalist symbols of intimacy and affection. However, the day’s name comes from the Roman martyr St. Valentine. The story goes that St. Valentine performed Christian marriages in secret, which upset the Emperor Claudius II. When you upset a Roman Emperor, usually things don’t end well, and Valentine was sentenced to a three-part execution: beating, stoning, and finally (spoilers) beheading. The holiday commemorates him as the patron saint of lovers, but his origin story has more in common with Deadpool than Hallmark. 4) It Has Some Great Action (Pun Intended) Deadpool is a rare exception to the PG-13 superhero movie, and it wears its R-rating as a badge of pride. It is unflinching in its gore and violence. This might sound like the exact reason why it wouldn’t be a good Valentine’s Day movie, but it’s actually an asset. After all, romantic comedies aren’t the only popular date movies. In fact, one of the most popular genres to watch with a partner is horror, which typically features R-rated violence and suspense. After all, it’s the perfect excuse to get closer to a partner when something scary happens. With that in mind, is Deadpool really out of the realm of possibility? Deadpool is already projected to beat the previous record holder, Fifty Shades of Grey (2015), for highest grossing film for the month of February. Last year, Fifty Shades of Grey held the same Valentine’s Day opening weekend, and it pushed the boundaries of what a Valentine’s Day movie might dare to show on the screen. Deadpool, without hesitation, matches Fifty Shades of Grey. It features its own raunchy and kinky sex scenes, showing both full-frontal nudity and bedroom taboos. And while Deadpool might not be the most romantic movie, it is without a doubt more romantic than Fifty Shades. #5) Long Term Commitment
Deadpool‘s production history is troubled – the first discussion of a Deadpool film can be traced back to as early as 2000. The first time Ryan Reynolds’ name was attached to the production was 2004. A series of directors and producers were attached to the project, but the film faced a number of setbacks. It wasn’t until 2014, after fans reacted positively to leaked footage of Reynolds as Deadpool, that Fox greenlit the project. Reynolds attributes that leak for getting the film funded. The project’s budget was smaller than most superhero movies, but both Reynolds and director Tim Miller have said that the smaller budget also gave them greater creative control over the film. Both Miller and Reynolds consider themselves Deadpool fans, and worked to make sure that the film was for Deadpool fans. Without their devotion to the project, it would probably still be in development hell.
7 Comments
BothMarvel Studios and Warner Bros. are escalating the stakes in the same way this year: by having their most popular heroes face off against one another in an ideological (and physical) battle. Captain America: Civil War will split the Avengers down the middle into two factions, led by Captain America and Iron Man. Meanwhile, Zack Snyder’s Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice‘s title represents not only the monumental prospect of seeing the Son of Krypton and the Bat of Gotham battling it out on the big screen, but also the groundwork being laid for Justice League.
The pressure on Batman v Superman to be successful is enormous. Warner Bros. already has a plan in place for the DC Extended Universe that stretches all the way to 2020, with multiple movie release s every year. Batman v Superman doesn’t necessarily need to be huge at the box office, but it does need to win audiences over to the idea of a shared DC movie universe in a similar vein to the world that Marvel Studios has built.
As a core piece of Warner Bros.’ larger storytelling, Batman V Superman has to deal with a lot of narrative admin. It needs to address the fallout from Man of Steel, establish Ben Affleck’s version of Batman, introduce the rest of the Justice League members, and lay the groundwork for them eventually working together as a superhero team. All of this needs to be accomplished somewhere in between “the greatest gladiator match in the history of the world,” and another showdown between Batman, Wonder Woman, Superman and Lex Luthor/Doomsday. Meanwhile, the only thing that Suicide Squad needs to do is throw a bunch of wacky villains together and send them on an adventure.
Comparatively, the weight on the shoulders of Warner Bros.’ second DC release of 2016, David Ayer’s Suicide Squad, is pretty small. The movie’s premise – a group of supervillains being recruited into a task force because no one will care if they get killed – is a pretty accurate reflection of Suicide Squad‘s role in the DCEU. Characters like Harley Quinn, Killer Croc and Enchantress are expendable in a way that Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman just aren’t. It’s even feasible that Jared Leto’s Joker could never appear in the DCEU again; it’s not as though Batman has any shortage of enemies.
It’s not fair to say that Suicide Squad is objectively more colorful than Batman V Superman; a lot of the footage we’ve seen so far takes place at night, or inside the walls of Belle Reve prison. But the raucous, in-your-face energy of Suicide Squad‘s latest trailer gives the impression of a more colorful movie – of something fresh and exciting and anarchic, if not necessarily important or with high stakes. Beyond earlier backlash to the new character design for the Joker, the buzz surrounding Suicide Squad has been overwhelmingly positive, whereas the response to Batman V Superman has been very mixed.
All of this does not, of course, mean that Batman V Superman should have simply tried to be more likeSuicide Squad. It’s a different movie with a different director who – for better or worse – has a different vision. But Suicide Squad‘s trailer plays to the movie’s strengths – chaos, humor, crazy characters, irreverence, amorality – and that’s something that the second trailer for Batman v Superman just doesn’t manage. The biggest selling point of this movie is an epic fight between DC’s most famous superheroes, and that should have been the core message that Warner Bros. drummed into the moviegoing public. For the trailer to show those two superheroes overcoming their differences in order to fight a common enemy is a serious misstep.
This muddled marketing can be traced all the way back to the title of the movie. By itself, Batman V Superman would have been a fine title for a comic book movie. Dawn of Justice would also have been a fine title. But instead these two concepts, which don’t gel together particularly well, have been forced together into one jumbled message that dilutes the appeal of the movie rather than strengthening it.
The promise of Batman and Superman coming together with other superheroes to form the Justice League takes the bite out of the promise of Batman and Superman fighting one another. The reveal of Doomsday triggered a wave of complaints about spoilers, but really those spoiler complaints should have been directed at the movie’s title.
Perhaps Warner Bros. should have taken the advice of Billy Flynn, the charming lawyer from the musicalChicago, who tells his client Roxie Hart, “We can only sell them one idea at a time.“ Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is trying to sell two very different ideas at the same time, whereas Suicide Squad has one idea (“Worst. Heroes. Ever.“) that it’s pouring all of its enthusiasm into.
There’s still time for Batman V Superman to turn things around with a final trailer that really zeroes in on an angle that it can sell to general audiences. It’s not too late for Warner Bros. to see what’s working with the Suicide Squad marketing, and apply that to the other big DC release of 2016 (and, indeed, to the rest of the DCEU as it unfolds). As the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite began trending, just as it did last year, ceremony host Chris Rock joked in a Twitter promo that he was thrilled to be hosting "The White BET Awards." Then it got serious. Spike Lee, who was honored at the Academy's Governors Awards months ago, and Jada Pinkett Smith announced they were boycotting this year's Oscars and encouraged others to join them. Rock began facing pressure to resign as host in protest. Each day, more high-profile figures are lending their voices to the chorus calling for change. "For 20 opportunities to celebrate actors of color, actresses of color, to be missed last year is one thing," said David Oyelowo, who starred as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in the Oscar-nominated Selma, at an event on Jan. 18. "For that to happen again this year is unforgivable." The Oscars made big news last week, but not the way they intended. When the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences revealed its picks for the year's best performances on Jan. 14, no actors of color were nominated for the second consecutive year. What's more, acclaimed films with diverse casts including Straight Outta Compton, Creed, and Beasts of No Nation were shut out of the Best Picture category, and the nominations those films did receive went either to white screenwriters (for Compton) or to a white star (Sylvester Stallone for Creed). So the issue seems to be well concentrated at the core of Hollywood, therefore i want to explore the major issue why there is lack of diversity in the nomination of black actors for the Oscars Hollywood's Diversity Problem Starts At The TopA 2012 Los Angeles Times study found that the roughly 6,000-member Academy is nearly 94 percent Caucasian and 77 percent male, with a median age of 62. Invitations to join the elite organization are typically limited to high-ranking professionals who are nominated by at least two peers; once admitted, membership is for life.Also The study looked into film studios' executive ranks in 2013 and found that 94 percent of CEOs and/or chairs and 92 percent of senior management were white. Because of the high risk associated with the typical project -- most new television shows fail, most films underperform -- individual stakeholders in the industry (typically white and male) look to surround themselves with other individuals with whom they feel comfortable, with whom they feel they have the best prospects for producing a successful project. These latter individuals, of course, tend to think and look like the former, thereby reproducing an industry culture that routinely devalues the talent of minorities and women Studios And Talent Agencies Won't Take Responsibility To make matters worse, when the study's authors spoke with talent agencies and studio executives they found a lot of finger pointing and little accountability. “The talent agencies tell us they are in the business of selling to the networks and studios the kinds of packaged projects they demand," the authors wrote in their conclusion. "Networks and studios -- whose executive suites are almost exclusively white and male -- ironically suggest that packaged projects could be more inclusive were it not for overly narrow talent rosters." Films Just Aren't Casting Actors Of ColorLast August, USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism released comprehensive data evaluating the gender, race/ethnicity and LGBT status in the top-grossing films released in between 2007 and 2014 (excluding 2011). The study, titled “Inequality in 700 Popular Films,” found that on average 75.2 percent of speaking roles went to white actors during those years. That's despite the fact that 46 percent of movie tickets sold in 2014 were bought by Latino, Black, Asian and "Other" moviegoers, according MPAA Theatrical Market statistics. All-white acting nominations may very well be a reflection of a larger diversity issue in Hollywood, but the Academy isn't exactly a beacon of diversity. And the Academy isn't alone. Data has shown that the marginalization of actors of color is widespread in Hollywood, and it'll take more than #OscarSoWhite to fix it. J J. Abrams, the director of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, may not have the makings of a god or an empire builder like George Lucas, but he turns out to be what this stagnant franchise needs: a “Star Wars” superfan and pop culture savant. Given that the fans have been doing much of the heavy lifting for a while, holding up the franchise even as the filmmakers let them down with some titanic clunkers (“Attack of the Clones” — why, George, why?), it seems fitting that the new film was directed by one of their own. Mr. Abrams was 11 when he saw the original “Star Wars” back in 1977; by the time he was a teenager, he had a gig cleaning Steven Spielberg’s old student movies. Excellent Team The Force Awakens, the 7th Star Wars movie, arrives with anticipation restored. It’s a film that’s been marketed with Imperial Stormtrooper-like precision, with teasers strewn over an entire year. Better yet it comes with a friendly pedigree. Abrams acquired original trilogy stalwart Lawrence Kasdan to co-write the new sequel. Kasdan, who’d had three decades to recover from his bruising collaboration with Lucas on Jedi, a period that saw his storytelling instincts trammelled by the merchandising imperative, had the unfinished business of a more adult, camp eschewing episode to complete. More importantly he had a Han Solo to kill, 32 year later thanJ.planned. Could Abrams and Kasdan have made a movie that didn’t count on the audience’s familiarity with its predecessors to lend weight to the story’s relationships, or add resonance in respect of new characters? Surely. But fear of making something too different, too distanced from the films the fans worship, has boxed in its creators. Within that restricting framework Abrams and Kasdan have experimented with a little more psychological intrigue – welcome notes that lay the ground for layered sequels, but that, for older viewers, is all there is. The Dedication Disney, who acquired Lucasfilm for $4bn, hired the young Spielberg clone to make it new. They had childhoods to monetise. During production the weight of expectation fell and crushed returning star Harrison Ford’s leg. Abrams broke his L4 (that’s his vertebrae not a droid) trying to lift it. He’s literally broken his back for this thing. On production of The Phantom Menace the worst thing that happened to Lucas was a one-day strike by Starbucks workers.J. J. Abrams, the director of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, may not have the makings of a god or an empire builder like George Lucas, but he turns out to be what this stagnant franchise needs: a “Star Wars” superfan and pop culture savant. Given that the fans have been doing much of the heavy lifting for a while, holding up the franchise even as the filmmakers let them down with some titanic clunkers (“Attack of the Clones” — why, George, why?), it seems fitting that the new film was directed by one of their own. Mr. Abrams was 11 when he saw the original “Star Wars” back in 1977; by the time he was a teenager, he had a gig cleaning Steven Spielberg’s old student movies. A Combination Of Old And New Those new to the franchise will take much of what older children took from A New Hope, plus a little of the tragedy from Empire Strikes Back. The new characters, particularly Daisy Ridley’s wide-eyed Rey and Oscar Issac’s charmer, Poe Dameron, are excitable audience proxies – great ambassadors for the film’s brand of old school adventure. In John Boyega’s Finn, there’s even a new idea, a First Order defector who spends much of the story scared shitless and learning to be a hero. And what of the villain, the heir to the dark side, Kylo Ren? Adam Driver’s volatile Sith wannabe has a useful, and from the perspective of the filmmakers, convenient in-movie reason for parroting Darth Vader (he’s a cultist with a family connection) and the notion of someone trying to actively resist being seduced by the good in them is a nice inversion of Luke’s original trilogy dilemma. But that brings you right back to the problem with this movie – it depends on what’s come before to achieve its effects.
Exceptional CGI CGI-filled aesthetic of the prequel trilogy, and real locales, props, costumes and some great production design (inspired by original Star Wars artist Ralph McQuarrie) that helps to both reestablish the familiarity of the Star Wars universe, but also advances things along, so that it’s fun for the eye to rediscover certain Star Wars tropes all over again (ex: vehicles like TIE Fighters and X-wings, or various alien species in the backgrounds of shots). A Diversified Cast Much as in the real world, though, the war has dragged on, and now Luke, Leia and Han have been succeeded by a charismatic, talented trio — played by Oscar Isaac, John Boyega and Daisy Ridley — who look more like the multitudes humankind contains, a genuine diversity infrequently represented in our movies. Yet while these three are variations on the original holy trinity, part of what makes them contemporary isn’t just their skin colors but also the slippery playfulness of their roles. Mr. Isaac, as a resistance pilot, Poe Dameron, suggests a next-generation Han, but so does Mr. Boyega as Finn, stormtrooper turned refusenik. The one seemingly unambiguous note is that the new-school Luke Skywalker is a young woman, a desert scavenger named Rey (Ms. Ridley), who shares Luke’s skill set and love of natural fabrics.
A Bad Ass Villian Adam Driver’s volatile Sith wannabe has a useful, and from the perspective of the filmmakers, convenient in-movie reason for parroting Darth Vader (he’s a cultist with a family connection) and the notion of someone trying to actively resist being seduced by the good in them is a nice inversion of Luke’s original trilogy dilemma. But that brings you right back to the problem with this movie – it depends on what’s come before to achieve its effects. The Force Awakens, the 7th Star Wars movie, arrives with anticipation restored. It’s a film that’s been marketed with Imperial Stormtrooper-like precision, with teasers strewn over an entire year. Better yet it comes with a friendly pedigree. The recent box office figure highlights The Good Dinosaur as one of the most disappointing films of the year, financially. With a production budget of $200 million and roughly $150 million spent on marketing, industry analysts and executives say that Pixar and its parent company Disney must make $500 million to break even theatrically. Currently, the film has made $131.3 million globally and is showing signs of fading fast. At this point, many project that “The Good Dinosaur” will be lucky to crack the $400 million mark. That would make it the lowest grossing Pixar film since “A Bug’s Life” made $363.4 million worldwide in 1998. Domestically, the film is losing steam. After opening to $39.1 million in its initial weekend, “The Good Dinosaur” fell more than 60% in its sophomore weekend to $15.5 million. That’s a steep drop for a Pixar release — the company’s films usually see their opening numbers slide by less than 50% in their second weekends. The recent box office figure highlights The Good Dinosaur as one of the most disappointing films of the year, financially. With a production budget of $200 million and roughly $150 million spent on marketing, industry analysts and executives say that Pixar and its parent company Disney must make $500 million to break even theatrically. Currently, the film has made $131.3 million globally and is showing signs of fading fast. At this point, many project that “The Good Dinosaur” will be lucky to crack the $400 million mark. That would make it the lowest grossing Pixar film since “A Bug’s Life” made $363.4 million worldwide in 1998. Domestically, the film is losing steam. After opening to $39.1 million in its initial weekend, “The Good Dinosaur” fell more than 60% in its sophomore weekend to $15.5 million. That’s a steep drop for a Pixar release — the company’s films usually see their opening numbers slide by less than 50% in their second weekends. “It’s a pretty bad fade compared to other Pixar releases,” said Matthew Harrigan, an analyst at Wunderlich Securities. “It’s certainly disappointing.” The hope is that the film will stick around through the Christmas holidays when its major competition for the family audience will be “Alvin and the Chipmunks The Road Chip,” which debuts on Dec. 18. Regardless, it’s still odd to see Pixar and Disney have to scramble to push a film into the black, but there’s been something ill-fated about “The Good Dinosaur” since its inception. For one, the picture’s release date was pushed back by two years, and the production nearly derailed at one point. In 2013, original director Bob Peterson was removed over creative differences. He was replaced by Peter Sohn and the story underwent a major overhaul. Because of the delays, this marks the first year in the company’s history that Pixar released two films, the other being last summer’s “Inside Out,” which amassed over $850 million worldwide. The studio may also be feeling the pinch from the increased competition in the animation space. In recent years that sector was dominated by Disney and DreamWorks Animation, but now every major studio has an animation division, and rivals like Universal and Fox have scored with their “Despicable Me” and “Ice Age” franchises.
Of course, “The Good Dinosaur’s” global rollout isn’t over. There are still major markets left to open, including Japan, Brazil, and Korea, but the film is now widely available. Through Sunday, it had debuted in 59% of international markets. China, the world’s second largest market for film, could be a financial boon, but “The Good Dinosaur” has yet to score a release date in the People’s Republic and it’s unclear if it will screen there. Even if the picture does perform poorly theatrically, Disney could make up some ground in merchandising and consumer products. It may also benefit from home entertainment sales. Let see how it perform in the coming weeks as the cinemas get more and more crammed for the Christmas |
Archives
February 2019
Movie reviews
|