Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread

[CorporalCaptain]

I already said I was wrong and that the law I was thinking of related to vulnerable adults and caregivers.

But the claim that it might be so anyway didn't go away even after you said you'd misremembered (and it's still the weekend); I was replying then to a different poster. Now that the issue has been raised (I don't know why, out of "concern" for the children?), just consider my request for links on the subject of whether adults can be busted when children get a peek of PG-13 material, especially in Western countries such as the US and Canada, a general and standing one to everybody.

 

[theenglish]

And you would be wrong. The correct answer is, it's commercial. It's always commercial.

The politics of commercialism!

And in response to the posts up-thread, yes, the Netflix shows did push the edge sometimes regarding showing skin, particularly in Jessica Jones and Luke Cage

 

[Mage]

Yes, everything but the nipples.

I vagualy remember nipples, but I do know that for some movies and shows there are different cuts for different parts of the world. Maybe our Netflix got a different cut, or ofcourse I remember it wrong. I could check somewhere this week, but I have no clue which episode or time in that episode. And honestly, I still need to watch season 2 of Luke Cage, the last season of Jessica Jones and most of Iron First. After The Defenders I got a bit sidetracked and underwhelmed with the Netflix Marvel shows. I only stuck with Daredevil till the end.

 

[Christopher]

I could check somewhere this week, but I have no clue which episode or time in that episode.

It was the first episode.

 

[Tuskin38]

Nope. There is no history of toning down Deadpool movies. None whatsoever. The comic book is a different animal. The audience is not the same.

I mean, they did make that PG-13 cut of Deadpool 2.

 

[Avalon]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Grendelsbayne]

^Which made like 50 million total.

 

[The Knappos]

^Which made like 50 million total.

Because it was a rerelease, not the main release. $50M is a nice bit of wedge under that circumstance

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I mean, they did make that PG-13 cut of Deadpool 2.

Please tell me that you understand the difference between this [https://xmenmovies.fandom.com/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Deadpool] —

Once Upon a Deadpool is a PG-13 retelling of Deadpool 2 that ran for a limited release in theaters. The premise of the film centers around Deadpool kidnapping Fred Savage and telling him the events of Deadpool 2 in the form of a bedtime story.​

— and the actual Deadpool 2.

Also:

From December 12-24, 2018, 20th Century Studios donated $1 of every ticket sold to the Fuck Cancer foundation, which temporarily changed its name to "Fudge Cancer" in the spirit of Once Upon a Deadpool's PG-13 rating.​

This is not a data point regarding what it would be like to release a Deadpool film only with a PG-13 cut.

 

[FreezeC77]

Because it was a rerelease, not the main release. $50M is a nice bit of wedge under that circumstance

Return of the Jedi re-release with the special edition only made $45m in theaters. TALK ABOUT A FLOP RITE?

 

[Christopher]

Return of the Jedi re-release with the special edition only made $45m in theaters. TALK ABOUT A FLOP RITE?

I think The Knappos was saying that it did well for a re-release, not poorly.

 

[Mudd]

Yes, and whether toning down the language would work for Deadpool. Which history proves can work, because it’s not an essential element. He’s the merc with a mouth; as in he won’t stop talking and whittering , not won’t stop swearing.

Yeah, fuck that noise.

 

[JD]

Disney has never allowed R rated material under the Disney brand.

Sorry to go back to an old post, but I was that far behind.
The Marvel stuff is not released under the Disney brand, they're just released under the Marvel Studios banner, so there's no reason they couldn't release R rated MCU movies if they really wanted to. It wouldn't be any different from when they used to release R rated movies under the Miramax banner, or under 20th Century Studios today.
Marvel used to have the MAX imprint for their mature comics, so maybe they could do something similar and release their R rated Marvel movies with an additional MAX logo to let everyone know it's not for kids.

 

[FreezeC77]

I think The Knappos was saying that it did well for a re-release, not poorly.

Oh I know. I was being sarcastic and should have included the original message about it being 'only $50m made'.

Hell I doubt the budget for those short scenes was expensive at all on Once Upon A Deadpool so $50m was a damn fine return.

 

[wayoung]

Sorry to go back to an old post, but I was that far behind.
The Marvel stuff is not released under the Disney brand, they're just released under the Marvel Studios banner, so there's no reason they couldn't release R rated MCU movies if they really wanted to. It wouldn't be any different from when they used to release R rated movies under the Miramax banner, or under 20th Century Studios today.
Marvel used to have the MAX imprint for their mature comics, so maybe they could do something similar and release their R rated Marvel movies with an additional MAX logo to let everyone know it's not for kids.

The MCU films since Disney bought them are Marvel & Walt Disney co-productions, not Marvel only. That's the difference between them MCU
and, as someone earlier referenced, Touchstone pictures, whose films, despite being owned by Disney, are not Disney co-productions, because of the R rating, and Disney's refusal to have the main Disney brand associated with R material.

 

[Christopher]

The MCU films since Disney bought them are Marvel & Walt Disney co-productions, not Marvel only.

Yes, obviously we all know that, but JD's point is that they aren't branded as Disney films, i.e. they don't show the ridiculously long Walt Disney Studios CGI castle sequence at the beginning, instead showing the slightly less ridiculously long Marvel Studios logo sequence. There is a difference between ownership and branding, as JD mentioned with regards to the Miramax banner, or the Touchstone one that Disney used for more adult-skewing movies starting in the '80s.

People keep assuming that all Disney productions are meant to be the same, but that's dead wrong. The whole reason Disney acquired properties like Lucasfilm and Marvel in the first place was to diversify their output, so they could appeal to a wider range of audiences that their existing stuff didn't already appeal to. They didn't want to homogenize the acquired studios to be like them; they wanted them to keep doing the same distinct things they had been doing before, and thus attract distinct audiences, just with the profits going into Disney's coffers instead of somebody else's.

and, as someone earlier referenced, Touchstone pictures, whose films, despite being owned by Disney, are not Disney co-productions, because of the R rating, and Disney's refusal to have the main Disney brand associated with R material.

That's incorrect. Touchstone was never a separate company, merely a distinct label used by Disney for its older-skewing productions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchstone_Pictures
"Feature films released under the Touchstone label were produced and financed by The Walt Disney Studios, and featured more mature themes targeted towards adult audiences than typical Disney releases. As such, Touchstone was merely a brand of the studio and did not exist as a distinct business operation."

 

[wayoung]

Yes, obviously we all know that, but JD's point is that they aren't branded as Disney films, i.e. they don't show the ridiculously long Walt Disney Studios CGI castle sequence at the beginning, instead showing the slightly less ridiculously long Marvel Studios logo sequence. There is a difference between ownership and branding, as JD mentioned with regards to the Miramax banner, or the Touchstone one that Disney used for more adult-skewing movies starting in the '80s.

People keep assuming that all Disney productions are meant to be the same, but that's dead wrong. The whole reason Disney acquired properties like Lucasfilm and Marvel in the first place was to diversify their output, so they could appeal to a wider range of audiences that their existing stuff didn't already appeal to. They didn't want to homogenize the acquired studios to be like them; they wanted them to keep doing the same distinct things they had been doing before, and thus attract distinct audiences, just with the profits going into Disney's coffers instead of somebody else's.



That's incorrect. Touchstone was never a separate company, merely a distinct label used by Disney for its older-skewing productions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchstone_Pictures
"Feature films released under the Touchstone label were produced and financed by The Walt Disney Studios, and featured more mature themes targeted towards adult audiences than typical Disney releases. As such, Touchstone was merely a brand of the studio and did not exist as a distinct business operation."

I'm referring to the credited companies on their respective films. If you go and look it up you will see, regardless of their logo appearing at the start of the film or in the closing credits, the Disney owned MCU films are all credited as co productions between Marvel and Walt Disney Pictures. They are Disney pictures.

The Touchstone pictures are not co productions, because Disney does not make R rated content. They own companies that do, but they do not credit those films as Disney productions.

 

[Christopher]

I'm referring to the credited companies on their respective films. If you go and look it up you will see, regardless of their logo appearing at the start of the film or in the closing credits, the Disney owned MCU films are all credited as co productions between Marvel and Walt Disney Pictures. They are Disney pictures.

That is not in dispute. You are misunderstanding what we are talking about, which is branding. That means what brand, what label and image, is presented to the public. Disney releases adult material under a different brand, to fool people who don't pay attention into thinking it's not a Disney picture when it actually is.

The Touchstone pictures are not co productions, because Disney does not make R rated content. They own companies that do, but they do not credit those films as Disney productions.

Did you read the article I linked to? The Touchstone pictures were not co-productions because Touchstone did not exist as a separate company, merely as a production unit within Disney. They were 100% Disney productions, but they were labeled as "Touchstone."

 

[wayoung]

That is not in dispute. You are misunderstanding what we are talking about, which is branding. That means what brand, what label and image, is presented to the public. Disney releases adult material under a different brand, to fool people who don't pay attention into thinking it's not a Disney picture when it actually is.



Did you read the article I linked to? The Touchstone pictures were not co-productions because Touchstone did not exist as a separate company, merely as a production unit within Disney. They were 100% Disney productions, but they were labeled as "Touchstone."

I think we have some cross connections here.


I never said Touchstone wasn't made by Disney. I said they aren't credited as Disney. Which is the same thing you are saying.

The Marvel movies are credited as Disney films. The logo doesn't show up in the opening credits, but Disney is credited as a co production company, and Disney is all over the closing credits.

They are branded Disney, because the Disney brand is all over the credits. The Netflix app blocks screenshots so I can't take one and show you, but if you pull up an MCU film and go to the credits, Disney is all over them. I just checked with Dr. Strange. IMDB also lists Disney as co-producers if you don't want to pull up a movie and scan through the credits (which I don't blame you at all) but we know IMDB isn't always the best source, which is why I tried to do the screenshot. Here's the Endgame link anyway:
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt4154796/companycredits?ref_=tt_dt_co

The Touchstone films are not branded Disney, because the Disney brand in not in the credits. I totally agree. That's the entire point of Touchstone. So the Disney name did not appear in the credits of those films.

Disney is not distancing its brand from Marvel at all. Disney is all about combining the two brands. I mean, just look at Disney Day two weeks ago. Disney is integrating them so if you think of one, you think of the other. If you ask a random person, they know Marvel movies are made by Disney.

Could Disney make an R rated film and just take their name off of it? Sure, I guess, but I don't know if I buy that happening with how much Disney has done integrating the brand's.


Edit:. Could we just not be agreeing on what constitutes branding? The Disney name is credited on the films and all over the closing credits, to me that counts as branding, as they attached their name to the product, even if the logo at the start of the film is Marvel. Disney doesn't credit itself as Disney on R films.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Because it was a rerelease, not the main release. $50M is a nice bit of wedge under that circumstance

Return of the Jedi re-release with the special edition only made $45m in theaters. TALK ABOUT A FLOP RITE?

It was a rerelease seven months after the main release, not over a decade later.

It also wasn't just a rerelease given that it not only adds new footage but completely changes the film's rating. If there were a significant portion of the audience that was really curious about Deadpool but turned off by the R rating, OuaD would have made more than 50m. So the movies made bank in large part because of the R rating (which is blatantly clear from the reviews), and the PG13 rerelease apparently did not significantly appeal to the non-R rated audience, or else more people who hadn't already seen DP2 a mere seven months earlier would have gone to see OuaD.