Why was it such an uphill battle for a Deadpool movie to be made?

Because FOX are fucking purely retarded.

>MUH PULVERINE
>Let's cuck Cyclops
>Storm? Never heard of him.
>MUH PULVERINE

>>83445647
Because Fox is retarded.
Reminder that half of their superhero movies have been flops.

>>83445647
Producers didn't believe in it especially after their first take on Deadpool.
Also, despite him being probably Marvel's most popular character right now, he's still entirely unknown to your grandparents and the vast amounts of actual normies (unlike Spiderman, Batman, Superman, etc).

>MUH PULVERINE

Marvel

>let's make a movie where Iron Man is awesome
>let's make a movie where Thor is awesome
>let's make a movie where Captain America is awesome
>let's make a movie where Hulk is awesome
>let's make a movie where they all team up and everyone is awesome

FOX

>let's make a movie about Wolverine and everyone else sucks
>let's make another movie about Wolverine and everyone else sucks
>let's make another movie about Wolverine and everyone else sucks
>let's make another movie about Wolverine and everyone else sucks

+magneto is a murderous terrorist and is forgiven for no reason in almost every single one he's in

He was a generally unknown character. Fox was really worried that if they put money into a film with him it would bomb badly.

Also, they knew it would have to be R to do the character justice and that's usually a death sentence for box office grosses.

It's a small miracle it even got made and the leaking of the test footage likely saved the production from a red light.

Expect Fox to milk it though. Especially now that the X movies are starting to hit meh territory.

>>83445782
>Storm? Never heard of him.
Wasn't Storm like the most marketed/got the most face time next to Wolverine?

File: Deadpool Baraka.png (519KB, 841x809px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 841x809px

He wasn't Wolverine.

>>83445918
This.
Deadpool's success it's going to be it's demise.
They'll give Deadpool 2 a fuckhuge budget, thus they'll control it harder and probably fuck it up.

>>83445893
>wait this movie where Wolverine isn't there did surprisingly okay.
>cool lets make another movie about Wolverine and everyone else sucks

>>83445782
Pulverine?

>>83445947
>They'll give Deadpool 2 a fuckhuge budget
I thought like the director or somebody specifically addressed this question and said they would avoid this specifically because it was so successful

File: 7a7a614b68e7186d47af396fa3c6ae95.jpg (14KB, 236x344px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 236x344px

C-list character with an R rating.

You figure it out.

>>83445647
Rothman.

Same guy who said no to Sentinels at every turn because 'people don't like giant robots'.

Same guy who ignored proposals by both Ridley Scott and James Cameron for a new Alien film because 'they already had the Alien Vs Predator franchise'.

>>83445647
This guy explains it pretty well I think
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP0A-NntFU4

>>83446043
>Same guy who said no to Sentinels at every turn because 'people don't like giant robots'.
But... I love giant robots.

YOU dig giant robots.

WE dig giant robots.

CHICKS dig giant robots.

>>83445924

err only in X-men 3... and still she gets no where near as much to do as him

>>83445952

Basically.

>>83446004

Rhymes with who Deadpool had to fondle to get his own movie.

I still wanna see footage if it exists of whatever meeting happened after avengers hit theaters. The one between whoever said no to joss whedon writing and directing x3 and instead getting yes man brett ratner to do it. They said no to the guy on directing the movie after his beloved comic run. Then for good measure they ganked the cure concept from his first arc. Then they made a shitty movie with brett ratner at the helm. Then whedon went on to basically make the most succesful team superhero film of all time.

The guy who turned whedon down had to at least get a littlr shit.

>>83445647
Well, those are unadjusted grosses, meaning they don't account for inflation between years. So all you need to do is look at the ratio between the # of films and average gross for each entry; it's kind of screwed up for James Bond (which has been going since 1962), but for more recent entries it's more or less comparable (though there is still quite a lot of wobble).

For example Transformers and Pirates are both on the list, but despite being lower down Pirates is more profitable because it has fewer entries in the series; Spider-Man appears to be less profitable as well. Fast and Furious is decidedly less profitable; X-Men isn't profitable at all by comparison.

The thing that's missing from the list is the average budget and ad spends for each franchise, but you probably can't find that data for the entire Batman franchise, let alone the James Bond movies, so people leave it out because it's hard (which is also why they don't bother with inflation, because there's several equally valid ways of working that out). But with the data on ad spend and budgets you can work out the average profit per entry in a franchise, and that would seriously alter this list; but why stop there? We all know the merchandise is where the money is for the studios, so why not add that data?

Because it's complicated. But in the context of this list, that's precisely the complication you need to understand: the FOX-men don't make merchandise. For some reason FOX never bother with much - perhaps because kids prefer the cartoon/comic stuff that FOX don't own - so the movies have to stand on tv rights sales and home video when the gross is gone.

And because that makes them less profitable, it's harder to get one made. Especially if you want to make it R-rated, because R-rated movies do not as a rule even make budget back.

That guy at Fox, the dumb one.

>>83446543
>err only in X-men 3... and still she gets no where near as much to do as him
I mean in terms of marketing

>>83447603
>For example Transformers and Pirates are both on the list, but despite being lower down Pirates is more profitable because it has fewer entries in the series
Uh, Transformers and Pirates have the same number of entries last I checked

>>83446007
I personally want to believe that anon. Considering how many long years they fought for this movie to be made, I don't doubt that Reynolds and co. are dedicated to keeping Deadpool pure and true to it's sources. Unfortunately, it's ultimately Fox that owns the movie license, and there's a very real chance the execs will be tempted to meddle with the process once they approve a larger budget. It's just what typically happens in the industry. The suits don't trust the creatives (Not to suggest that's *always* a bad thing, though. Some creatives really do need to be reined in).

>>83446043
>people don't like giant robots
>looks at #10 on OP's pic

damn that guy is stupid.

>>83447603
BayTransformers has four movies. They're probably counting the 1980s cartoon movie.

>>83447623
Which one?

>>83445647

Because movie studios and theaters, the movie business in general, are increasingly run by people who are bean counters at heart. Bean counters crunch numbers, they like having data and building models. This works most of the time, but they often forget that they aren't creatives. They only understand return on investment. They confuse lack of data with lack of potential. They have no taste, and no guts. They are conservative. Groundbreaking things happen in spite of them, not because of them. An R-rated superhero movie? That was new to them. They have no data, no opinion, nothing constructive to add, and that makes them feel insecure.

When a studio is run by bean counters, they stop innovating. They are followers. They hate leading and taking risks, but the riskiest ventures tend to have the biggest payoffs. This is why studios either founder, or acquire other studios to reinvent themselves.

>>83447857

Yes, she only got as much marketing as him in X-men 3.