Comics Creators

Marvel Movies & TV General Discussion


It’s not like Disney aren’t spoiled for choice for billion dollar movies. Again, folks need to think through how you’d fit this in the schedule. They’re not releasing movies that compete against each other, so each movie needs a full 4-6 week run. That’s how Disney have operated for years. Typically 8 movies. I’d be very surprised amid all that massive Marvel branding they’ll be doing over the next few years if they release a R rated movie.


I can’t see them getting rid of Reynplds at all. I think they’ll release two cuts everytime, only on the same release date, not ten months later like Once Upon…


Agreed. Deadpool has bad language and sex scenes but it isn’t actively offensive to minorities or what have you. Disney just bought a brand that makes a ton of money so why would they do anything other than continue to make a ton of money with it? Unlike the other X-Men, this one doesn’t need rebooted yet. Hell, they should just keep Deadpool in the old X-Men universe for the third movie so he can crack wise about it and/or blow it up. Build up to Wade finally making it to the MCU further down the road.


This is a good point and I’ll be interested to see what they do with all the 20th Century Fox machinery, because I don’t think it’ll disappear, or at least not right away.

That’s a pretty big machinery too, so I reckon they’ll keep doing movies with it, and it’s possible they’ll end up competing against themselves anyways, if only because the fuckin mouse is swallowing everyone else.

Also, and in the end, profit is profit. Deadpool earned more profits than most MCU movies, and that’s nothing to scoff at… so to me, the smart move would be to keep doing that, keep the Fox machinery for smaller, but potentially more profitable projects that could go from PG up to R.


They bought a company, not just a film library, and we’re going to see what they do with it.

Because, even though they have detailed plans, even they don’t know what will work and what wont?

Fox will be reorganised and their output may decline a bit, but it’s going to be like Pixar and Marvel; adding to the number of movies that Disney can reap the rewards from.

The R-rated properties will remain an issue though. The first time one of those sparks a backlash we can assume that Disney will do what they’ve done so far; bring down the axe fast.


Yeah, think of those terrible films with intermissions like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Heat and Return of the Jedi (in it’s initial 1983 release)


When I was a kid every movie had an intermission…


In most cinemas here they put an intermission in movies so you can buy drinks or food. I think that’s where they make the most money from.


The LOTR movies were all around three hours, and people generally had no problems with that. I don’t see what the big deal is. I’m also confused by people who conflate a film’s length with its runtime. Is a film better because it is shorter? I don’t get this.


People complained about how the endings of ‘Return of the King’ felt like they went on forever.

If the time is used well then it’s fine. If it’s not, then 90 minutes can feel like an eternity.


They would’ve complained about those endings even if the movie was 1.5hrs… :smile:

The problem was the endings, not the runtime.

I generally prefer longer movies because it literally is more bang for my buck.


I think big epic movies deserve big epic runtimes. You Were Never Really Here, a brilliant film and my favorite to come out last year, was 90 minutes…perfect for the singular story they were telling. Fellowship, conversely, was 3 hours, perfect for the story they were telling.


I’m with Robert generally on the fact that a lot of modern films can run too long and have a lot of fat on them. It’s got a bit better overall I think but maybe 4 or 5 years ago it was very often I’d find a mid section where you start to check your watch, which is never a good sign.

At the same time though acknowledging that some films deserve the long running times and are better for them.

We shall wait and see if Endgame is in the latter camp.


I think if you enjoyed the first Infinity War then you’re probably going to be looking forward to more of the same - I don’t think a slightly longer runtime is going to hurt your enjoyment too badly.

If you weren’t in love with the first film though, a longer runtime might make you think twice, and I guess it could affect how many screenings venues can fit in a day, and also the rewatch factor.

I know I was a bit less enthusiastic about the first movie than others, and one of the problems I had with it was the structure and shape of the movie, so personally I am concerned that it could end up feeling even more bloated and disjointed than the first one. I’m aware I’m probably in the minority on that one though.


Yeah, I was hoping that getting rid of half the cast would allow them to make this one more focused, but I guess not.


The opening scene of Hawkeye completing a round of 18-hole golf in real time is going to be divisive, for sure.


Yeah but he’s Hawkeye so it only takes like six minutes.


And there’s a quote you don’t want to take out of context .


When I was a kid every movie was a double bill and you had an intermission between the movies.


I believe that was to give the piano player a rest.