Spoilers Deadpool & Wolverine (Spoilers)

[Clint_L]

I actually dont understand what people mean by 'terrible movie' - movies are a form of entertainment, if it tells a coherent story and entertains then surely its a good movie?

I rated it as a good movie because of the entertainment value. It's a good movie in the same way that junk food can be enjoyable. It's good for what it is.

But it's not an interesting movie. It's not got anything important to say about...anything, really. It's basically got great chemistry between two strong leads and a lot of in-jokes, enough of which land. That's not nothing, and I enjoyed my time at the cinema. I barely remember the film a month later. There's almost nothing to it beyond that immediate entertainment. It's fun in the moment.

Does art have to be more than that? Nope. But it can be. Marvel movies have been. My bigger point is that I think all this multiverse BS is a complete narrative dead end. This film did well for the reasons cited above, and because of nostalgia.

A lot of earlier Marvel films are interesting and memorable. I love many of them. I paid to see Guardians of the Galaxy five times in the cinema. I was there on opening night at 1:00 AM, the earliest showing in my town, for End Game, and I treasure the memories. So I feel frustrated by the direction they are going. They could be a lot better. Instead, they're going the same way other Disney films are going: spectacles that are there to capitalize on older, better films because it's easy money, not because there's any interest in making art.

Most of the recent MCU films are the adult equivalent of the live action remakes of Disney animated films. They're repackaging our nostalgia.

 

[Stalker0]

I rated it as a good movie because of the entertainment value. It's a good movie in the same way that junk food can be enjoyable. It's good for what it is.

Very well said.

Beyond all that, considering these movies are now supposed to be part of the larger cinematic universe with this newest edition....this is a movie that has now established the following:

Entire universes....not a world, not a galaxy, but a universe of 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars all hinge on the existence of a single being. Not a super being, not a god...just 1 single mortal person. That as soon as that person dies (which of course, one day they will)....the universe just fades away. That is now cannon in the MCU.

Marvel has had its share of dumb plotlines....but this movie has now made cannon one of the silliest and stupidest ideas I have ever heard.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Entire universes....not a world, not a galaxy, but a universe of 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars all hinge on the existence of a single being. Not a super being, not a god...just 1 single mortal person. That as soon as that person dies (which of course, one day they will)....the universe just fades away. That is now cannon in the MCU.

Marvel has had its share of dumb plotlines....but this movie has now made cannon one of the silliest and stupidest ideas I have ever heard.

Say you value lore over meta jokes without saying it.

 

[pukunui]

Say you value lore over meta jokes without saying it.

It's also not a new concept. If I remember rightly, the idea of "anchor beings" was first introduced in the Dr Strange What If? episode, wasn't it?

 

[Older Beholder]

Deadpool and Wolverine was still more believable than the new M. Night Shyamalan film 'Trap'

 

[Tonguez]

Very well said.

Beyond all that, considering these movies are now supposed to be part of the larger cinematic universe with this newest edition....this is a movie that has now established the following:

Entire universes....not a world, not a galaxy, but a universe of 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars all hinge on the existence of a single being. Not a super being, not a god...just 1 single mortal person. That as soon as that person dies (which of course, one day they will)....the universe just fades away. That is now cannon in the MCU.

Marvel has had its share of dumb plotlines....but this movie has now made cannon one of the silliest and stupidest ideas I have ever heard.

My guess is that Anchor being is just another term for Nexus being - a being that exists in all timelines and whose existence effects the reality.

In the MCU Scarlet Witch has been identified as such and there are a few identified in Comics. Most are powerful cosmic/magical beings (like Wanda and the Wizard Merlin), however Elizabeth 1 and Napolean Bonaparte were also identified as Nexus beings in a couple of alternate timelines.

 

[Nikosandros]

Deadpool and Wolverine was still more believable than the new M. Night Shyamalan film 'Trap'I

I haven't seen Trap, but if I let my cat walk on the keyboard, he'll write a more plausible story than the average Shyamalan script.

 

[Stalker0]

My guess is that Anchor being is just another term for Nexus being - a being that exists in all timelines and whose existence effects the reality.

In the MCU Scarlet Witch has been identified as such and there are a few identified in Comics. Most are powerful cosmic/magical beings (like Wanda and the Wizard Merlin), however Elizabeth 1 and Napolean Bonaparte were also identified as Nexus beings in a couple of alternate timelines.

Your likely right that the nexus being concept was the origin for the idea. But the two concepts are different in some key ways.

Nexus Beings tend to be focus points for their universe, aka when they move, the universe tends to move with them. That in itself is a pretty radical concept. But the universe can exist (and often does as nexus beings are often killed in comics at one point or another) without them.

The idea of a being that literally if they die, existence just stops....is a pretty different (and much worse concept).


That all said, neither concept is likely appropriate for the MCU, and this is an area where the MCU has gone off the rails to its detriment. When the MCU started, it presented the idea of a singular connected universe in the media of the movies. And while comics are wonderful inspirations for ideas, at the end of the day the comics world has these characters constantly refreshed in new forms, where the idea of continuity often takes a complete back seat to interesting story telling. In comics, villains often never die, people are constantly resurrected, there are a dozen takes on various characters, etc. That's the medium.

With the MCU originally, a lot of the zanier concepts of comics was reigned in favor of a more traditional movie format, and it was wildly successful. But now I think the MCU in the search for ideas is pulling in more and more of those zany comic tropes that works fine in that medium but does not translate well to the movies (especially considering a lot of the MCU audience DO NOT read comics, they are movie watchers not comic readers).

Now when deadpool was its own thing, I didn't mind a lot of the zanier concepts. Its deadpool afterall, its weird and crazy and its just its own thing....go nuts!!!

But now Deadpool is a part of the MCU, and so what happens in the movie presumptively is cannon for movies to follow.

 

[payn]

I will say, I assumed that whatever English butler guys character name is, was playing a ruse with Deadpool. He needed a distraction so he could employ his end the main vein plan. So, he was just playing fast and loose with the actual rules of things to get DP on the hook. Though, who can say really the writing was so bad on this film its hard to make heads or tails of what is happening. That said, I wouldnt put a ton of stock into it having any real impact on canon or the way of things. It also felt like a a dead end.

 

[Clint_L]

I've been thinking more about my reaction to this film, and I think it comes down to a fundamental problem, a vagueness, in my own understanding of what makes a film or any other art good.

On the one hand, I found this film enjoyable. Which seems like a good thing, and is. We all like enjoying ourselves.

Yet, I also found it disposable. By which I mean: it didn't change me.

So let me posit that to be truly good, in the sense that Aristotle might have used the word good, a work of art has to generate some change in the audience. And that's what makes it memorable. We keep thinking on it, coming back to it. Considering some new angle on what it means to be human, at least in the context of this art we have just spent time with.

So let me revise my previous judgment of Deadpool vs. Wolverine: it was enjoyable, but not particularly good. For me, anyway. Art is subjective, after all, and what changes me is going to be unique to me. If this was my first superhero film, I would likely have a very different reaction.