Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman to star in Deadpool III (2024)

Can you image the critique RDJ would get for suddenly coming back as Tony after saying he was done? So many people would claim it's a cashgrab. And I saying this knowing that RDJ recently said he's open to it.

Yes, RDJ coming back would be a cashgrab and utterly shameless on Marvel's part, as it would be acknowledging (to a point) that they need the old popular character back to bolster certain new characters that are not exactly setting the screens (big or at home) on fire.

Oh, and about some tagging Lucas with repeating a plot device, it was one thing for Lucas--the creator--to use a second Death Star, but there's no excuse for others--decades later--to use a "bigger and better" world-killing weapon in TFA, which only added to the impression that the film was a knock-off of ANH (because the PTB could not think of an interesting, creative idea of their own).
 
The Disney regime ended up emulating the old EU in various ways. As but one example, giving in to the temptation of "bigger and better superweapon" as a plot device seemed somewhat inevitable. Or at least more likely than no more superweapons.
 
"Huh. Paul Rudd finally aged.":lol:

I guess that that definitely answers the question as to whether or not that is the skeleton of Lang or Pym in the movie. Although that just confirms what someone on the internet determined, I think it was Eric Voss at New Rockstars, and that was that the teeth of the Giant Ant-Man corpse matches Paul Rudd's teeth.

And that final line? Watch out, Scorsese! Shots fired! :lol::techman:


Shots fired rightfully so. Scorsese is one of the best directors ever but who's he to tell anyone what cinema is and should be and what isn't, that was arrogance at the highest level.

I can't wait but also am a little anxious that the movie might overdo it with the Disney/Feige bashing to a point it becomes repetitive.

The Disney regime ended up emulating the old EU in various ways. As but one example, giving in to the temptation of "bigger and better superweapon" as a plot device seemed somewhat inevitable. Or at least more likely than no more superweapons.

If they wanted to emulate it they should have adapated the OG Thrawn trilogy, no superweapons just a super mind and the third best villain after Vader and the Emperor.

Let's face it, they dropped the ball hard on their trilogy by letting big name directors do their thing without oversight thinking fans would eat everything as long as they slap the Star Wars Logo on it. To an extent it worked, all of the films were financial successes ( with diminishing profits for each movie as they got progressively worse) but critically they were shunned.

The same is happening with the MCU - they went overboard with spectacle at the cost of story and characters. Off the top of my head i can only name Spiderman 3, Shang Chi and Guardians 3 that were truly amazing and 2 of these movies were remnants of the "old crew" that had a good story to tell and Shang Chi had an interesting villain and cool fights but the rest went with bigger is better and it failed.

There is no fatigue anywhere if you have a good story and good characters and it was incredible that Marvel had a 22 movie streak ( with few exceptions) until they started to drop the ball.

Let's hope they can recover, some things make me hopeful but it'll be a long climb for Marvel.
 
Last edited:
If they wanted to emulate it they should have adapated the OG Thrawn trilogy, no superweapons just a super mind and the third best villain after Vader and the Emperor.

They're doing that now, essentially.

But there's a problem with Thrawn.

There's inherently a problem with writing a character who's supposedly a tactical genius, because how many writers are themselves tactical geniuses? Probably not many. It's a magic trick. Zahn managed to pull it off, Anderson not so much.

Lucasfilm under Disney ownership has struggled to make Thrawn look smart, especially in the Ahsoka show. And now Thrawn's back and they're committed. They're gonna have to figure out some way to make him look smart for the movie, but how?
 
They're doing that now, essentially.

But there's a problem with Thrawn.

There's inherently a problem with writing a character who's supposedly a tactical genius, because how many writers are themselves tactical geniuses? Probably not many. It's a magic trick. Zahn managed to pull it off, Anderson not so much.

Lucasfilm under Disney ownership has struggled to make Thrawn look smart, especially in the Ahsoka show. And now Thrawn's back and they're committed. They're gonna have to figure out some way to make him look smart for the movie, but how?

Yeah, Zahn pulled it off really well. If it weren't for the trope of main heroes always being at the right place at the right time to save the day Thrawn would have steamrolled the New Republic ( and given how in retrospect they expanded his background and purpose it might have been better if he were in control once the Yuzhaan Vong invasion started).

I agree with your take on Ahsoka, i have been so disappointed with his appearance on the show.
 
I don't really understand the complaints about Thrawn in Ahsoka. The one common element in all of Thrawn's major defeats are the things that he couldn't possibly have known about or planned for.

In the EU novels, it was the fact that he did not know that Leia Organa was the child of Darth Vader.

At Chopper Base, it was the existence of the Bendu and at Lothal it was the involvement of the purgill.

In Ahsoka, it was the fact that Thrawn had no way of knowing that Baylan Skol had reasons for being on that planet and in that galaxy other than service to Morgan. He notes Baylan's absence twice during the fight with Ahsoka, Sabine and Ezra. If Baylan had stuck to the plan then everything would have fallen into place exactly the way Thrawn expected it to. Even then, Thrawn still emerged victorious.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Screen Culture got me almost got me a few times before I realized all of the stuff is fake.
 
Back
Top