Ryan Reynolds. He was attached because he played Deadpool in that "Wolverine Origins" abortion of a movie, though I wasn't aware that was even being considered a canon film anymore. In fairness, the LOL RANDOM direction that Deadpool has taken over the last 5 years or so kinda ensures a guy like Reynolds will be playing him.

Oh yeah. Didn't they make it so Deadpool couldn't talk throughout most of his scenes, ostensibly so they could maintain a PG13 rating? I guess that's at least a little more fan service than turning DP into The Tick (although I do like the Tick as well.) Also, Ben Affleck as Batman?

He didn't talk because his character didn't have a mouth. Really. "The Merc With A Mouth" had no actual mouth.

After just about everyone hated the fleshy-faced no-mouth Deadpool, they shot a scene with Reynolds (in his pre-mutated form, I guess) kicking "Deadpool's" body and asking, "Who are YOU supposed to be?"

At least, I think they put that in after the negative response. I can't see how it makes up for the decision to do what they did. On the other hand, it's still an X-Men movie, which means it's still being run by Fox, who I believe is just waiting for a ginormous pile of cash to sell the rights back to Marvel/Disney so the movies will stop sucking so bad.

Trying to force Ryan Renolds down the public's throat as the next big action star has been one of the most baffling movie trends of the decade.

oh SHIT! FUCK! CUNT! I forgot that Disney has future rights to Marvel characters! Will my Deadpool movie be PG-13? D:

I might have had my selective reading goggles on there and just seen Marvel/Disney..

yeah Disney owns marvel now...and just about everything else. Hoping they don't start buying up classic anime IP next.

Or maybe I should hope they do? Because they've been making really good live action and animated movies since buying up all the good talent on the planet.

I mean, I don't want them disneyfying anime properties that require gory/disturbing violence as an integral plot point (Psycho-Pass). But almost everywhere else the things that get an R rating (tits, gore, drugs) are added as fluff to make someone cool or 3dgy, not actually important to the story. (or is used instead of a story *cough* Teraformars *cough*)

Oh, deadpool is a mercenary?

In the wolverine movie he was a cloned weaponized mutant (or modified mutant zombie thing) with the powers of a bunch of other mutants, featuring retractable katanas in his arms and laser eyes

Say wha?? Deadpool was a reject from the Weapon X program, which gave him the healing powers of Wolverine to cure his cancer but also fucked his brain up, so in some versions he can't remember where he came from, which is fun because it makes him the most flexible character in the Marvel Universe (like literally. He can be decapitated and it's no big deal as long as he can find his head) but as far as I know he was never a clone or had laser eyes.

I kind of want to redbox that shit just so I can see how bad it is; just make sure to keep me away from any objects that can be used to smash DVDs into pieces..

Yep. Starring Aubrey Peebles (boner alert), Juliette Lewis (boner maintained), and Molly Ringwald (warning! Boner losing altitude!)

Looking forward to what Sienna D'Enema will do with the footage.

i'm ok

I refuse to see it unless they put Sienna D'Enema in the starring role.

Jizz is not going to be happy.

phew, I'm glad you're alright man
I heard you were in an airplane accident of some sort

Isn't Chappie the sequel to Short Circuit 2?

So far they haven't been THAT bad to be honest, especially the Marvel ones, but now we're heading into that gray area where they are starting to consider adapting less-known, mediocre comics (Ant Man and Inhumans spring to mind) to keep the whole thing going and progressively trying to get us to take the "universe" more and more seriously, and that I think will prove to be a major mistake.

I disagree with Mr. Pain. I don't think Ant-Man will give us a new blockbuster, but I think fleshing out comic book universes as Marvel is doing (and doing quite well) is necessary for the genre, if the goal is to have ongoing franchises that don't spend as much time pissing off audiences as they do entertaining them.

Case in point: DC. Without a larger universe to play in that has some continuity between character franchises, you get stand-alone movies that don't make a ton of sense (i.e. Batman should've been nabbed and jailed by the cops a LONG time ago, but if there are other vigilantes running around, he's the least of their problems) and characters that get rebooted ever 5-10 years.

Without Marvel's current efforts, we'd still be getting nothing but origin movies followed by 1-2 sequels and then a reboot.

I'm still waiting for my Squirrel Girl movie.

counterpoint... I personally believe that pretty much every superhero movie will be utter and complete cesspool garbage, that way if I see one that's even passibly watchable it's a nice pleasant surprise. I'm a half full glass kind of guy.

Counter-counterpoint: there are like maybe four or five good superhero movies and there hasn't been a good one in about seven or eight years now.

Hook, if you're referring to "Superman Returns," then... you need help.

the last two X-men movies have been very good. I don't see why you'd whine about them.

Disney's goal in cranking out Marvel movies is to sell more of those little plastic turds for their "Skylanders" knock off.

(in my country, film studios can give a list of ip addresses with dates & times and they have to give up your identity)

They're frustrated filmmakers who just want to make shlocky horror movies.

So, every internet video critic then.

some of their humor does fall flat, particularly their pauses and false cuts. i'm not really sure what effect they're going for, maybe it's because they can't write many jokes so they rely on visual laughs.
on the other hand they're indignant, pessimistic, hateful, and cynical about the movie industry, and that rubs me in all the right places.