Deadpool Two: Spoilers - No Time Traveling back from this

[AliceLost]

I was rather annoyed on that score too, but to be fair she is un-fridged by the end.


Technically, that was to save Deadpool, though... if the latter has the ability to monkey around with the timestream indefinitely now I guess it's not clear why Cable couldn't just go home?

Un-fridging her may once again set up the potential for her to do something in a subsequent film, but it does nothing for me to improve this one. She still did nothing and existed only as a casualty to further Wade's story.

Cable's last use of his device bugged me because he had a clear way to save Deadpool if he wanted to: just take off the collar. He chose not to because he was respecting Wade's desire to die, so...why couldn't he just make a decision and stick to it? Save Wade, remove his collar, go home to family; or respect Wade's wishes, go home to family. It would have been trivially easy to have his device otherwise damaged to keep him here for future films. The decision he made just hilighted to me how meaningless his wife and daughter were to him once they weren't driving the plot.

[Lacuna Caster]

For all of those concerned about Vanessa's fridging, and you should be, the end stinger where Deadpool gets the fixed Slider and fixes all those time problems is canon. Writer's have said so, though also noted the watch is broken because **** time travel as a plot mechanic you need to account for. So don't worry, she's alive.

...My personal idea on this is that, dying plus going into the mutant tube in the first movie would awaken Vanessa's mutant powers to make her literally become Lady Death.

Ahh, now that would be interesting. (Are they actually planning to tie her in with Thanos at any point?)

Also all the people feeling annoyed by Russel's pissy attitude is great because that's the entire point. He's supposed to come off as this annoying pissant brat because hey wait he was abused a lot and he's going to become a mass murderer hey maybe we should do something to help stop these people who've been in bad situations from becoming bad people. Just a hunch. Just a small little hunch. Instead of ignoring it or just killing them needlessly like Cable wanted to. It fits with the theme of the movie. Sometimes we have to actually DO THE EFFORT. Get our hands dirty and do the stuff we'd probably rather not want to, because it'll actually help out.

Wouldn't... killing a teenager normally be considered 'dirtier' than... not doing that?

I was actually... surprised by how sympathetic the movie is to Cable's position and/or the man himself. MovieBob's review gave me impression the film just existed to **** all over him, but aside from being quite impressive in a fight and doing an eventual heel-face turn, when he actually tries to shoot Russell it's arguably defensive- not just as a theoretical projection, but right there, in the moment.

[Lacuna Caster]

Cable's last use of his device bugged me because he had a clear way to save Deadpool if he wanted to: just take off the collar. He chose not to because he was respecting Wade's desire to die, so...why couldn't he just make a decision and stick to it?.

...Yeah, that's a good point. I guess the psychological effect might have been the tipping point, though I'm not sure I'd credit Cable with that much insight? (I mean, in principle, Wade could just put on the collar and shoot himself whenever he wants, so...)

I don't have any real argument about Vanessa's role or the shortcomings thereof, I just, uh, really like Morena Baccarin and like to see her getting work.

[LaZodiac]

Ahh, now that would be interesting. (Are they actually planning to tie her in with Thanos at any point?)

Wouldn't... killing a teenager normally be considered 'dirtier' than... not doing that?

I was actually... surprised by how sympathetic the movie is to Cable's position and/or the man himself. MovieBob's review gave me impression the film just existed to **** all over him, but aside from being quite impressive in a fight and doing an eventual heel-face turn, when he actually tries to shoot Russell it's arguably defensive- not just as a theoretical projection, but right there, in the moment.

...Yeah, that's a good point. I guess the psychological effect might have been the tipping point, though I'm not sure I'd credit Cable with that much insight? (I mean, in principle, Wade could just put on the collar and shoot himself whenever he wants, so...)

I don't have any real argument about Vanessa's role or the shortcomings thereof, I just, uh, really like Morena Baccarin and like to see her getting work.

No it's all symbolism that I noticed that I hope they go more literal with. Having Vanessa become powered is something I wanted from film 1 and having her die and become the literal manifestation of Death itself could be super rad.

Which is easier? Just killing an individual or trying to help that individual become a better person and, through that, deepening your understanding of people so you can help others. It's an interesting contrast and one I like, because yes murdering a child before he's done any crimes is a pretty good way of getting your hands incredibly filthy, but it's also effortless. The contrast between "hard work" and "dirty work" intercepts at odd angles and it's part of the themes of the movie. They actually filmed a scene of Deadpool's montage where he goes back to kill Baby Hitler, and they removed it almost certainly for the reason that it doesn't exactly gel with the themes that you're not evil until you've done evil. That everyone can be redeemed, if you put in the effort and if you reach them soon enough. Some people, Dopinder and the Warden, cannot be saved. So you let Dopinder kill the Warden because he deserved to die and Dopinder needed to get it out of his system he'll be fine he's an adult. But you save Peter from dying and you save Russel from being killed because they aren't bad yet.

It's not 100% clean a message, the idea that you shouldn't kill people unless they're actually monsters and also kids shouldn't kill people but adults can definitely go murder the pedophile that hurt them as closure for it, but then it's Deadpool. We're not going to get a clean message, we're gonna get one that tells us to do our best to help out the people who deserve being helped, and if not kill horrible people at least not send them a rope if they're falling off a cliff, to use a metaphor.

[Mordar]

The thing you misunderstand is that Rob Liefeld is in fact actually a hack, and while he did CREATE these characters, he is not the person who made them popular in the way that they are now. People liked Deadpool and Cable and probably Dominio when Rob made them, but it wasn't until writers who were actually good got a hold of them that people LOVED them. Deadpool's mannerisms that we know of in this movie and in most of his comic books is NOT the creation of Rob, who just wanted to make a rip off of Deathstroke the Terminator. Cable is basically just a generic garbage character until good writers got a hold of him. As the movie itself said, Domino is a lazily written character by a man who cannot draw feet. But other authors have made them good, this movie just a continuation of that.

I am not in any way diminishing the success Rob had. Image comics is an amazing thing to have done. Rob standing up for the creators and helping create a place for them is really cool and good. Rob himself cannot draw his way out of a paper bag and sure as hell couldn't write himself out.

I hear you (to some extent)...like I said, he was my fourth favorite out of the seven creators that spawned Image and I didn't know anything about 2 of the others. That being said, I was an avid collector during the late 80s and early 90s and I know just how hot the X-properties that Liefeld was running were, and that the three characters (really, more Cable and DP with Domino as an add-on) had a ton of buzz. In fact, after Wolverine and Punisher they were probably the most talked-about Marvel characters at the time. And there is a lot of the original feel of the characters present in the current incarnation. So I think he deserves a little more credit on that side of the ledger.

I look forward to the Teen Titans movie just to hear the kids rip about Slade being a copy (already see a bit of it in the trailer). Yup, DP is definitely a Slade/Wolverine hybrid and one of the few "copies" where the popularity of the copy surpassed that of the original.

- M

[LaZodiac]

Popularity doesn't equal quality, but I'll grant you that at the time Rob Liefeld and his certain brand of overmuscled underfooted gunhavers was definitely a refreshing take on the genre. To a point. A point that Rob and friends slammed into almost immediately.

You know that brings up a side point I'd like to bring up. This film didn't go for any easy jokes, I think? It didn't reference "I'm the Juggernaut bitch!" for one, and that's really good of em. It let us have a better look at Juggernaut as a result, and it didn't needlessly bring us back to X3 and how terrible that film was.

[Lacuna Caster]

The contrast between "hard work" and "dirty work" intercepts at odd angles and it's part of the themes of the movie. They actually filmed a scene of Deadpool's montage where he goes back to kill Baby Hitler, and they removed it almost certainly for the reason that it doesn't exactly gel with the themes that you're not evil until you've done evil.

But Green Lantern hadn't actually been made yet. I am confused!

It's not 100% clean a message, the idea that you shouldn't kill people unless they're actually monsters and also kids shouldn't kill people but adults can definitely go murder the pedophile that hurt them as closure for it, but then it's Deadpool. We're not going to get a clean message, we're gonna get one that tells us to do our best to help out the people who deserve being helped, and if not kill horrible people at least not send them a rope if they're falling off a cliff, to use a metaphor.

Yeah... I was somewhat disturbed by the total dismissal of the moral value of the lives of the warden and all the hospital staff. I mean, some of them might only have been hired last week.

Fun fact- I connected with Peter on LinkedIn and had a conversation about bees. The marketing team are certainly committed, I'll give 'em that much.

[Traab]

Popularity doesn't equal quality, but I'll grant you that at the time Rob Liefeld and his certain brand of overmuscled underfooted gunhavers was definitely a refreshing take on the genre. To a point. A point that Rob and friends slammed into almost immediately.

You know that brings up a side point I'd like to bring up. This film didn't go for any easy jokes, I think? It didn't reference "I'm the Juggernaut bitch!" for one, and that's really good of em. It let us have a better look at Juggernaut as a result, and it didn't needlessly bring us back to X3 and how terrible that film was.

I hate that argument. If popularity doesnt equal quality on something so subjective as good comics/music/tv/movies/books, then what DOES? There are things that can be objectively described as being high quality. A building for example. Its expertly built, everything is plumb and true. etc etc etc, you would say its a high quality building. But when you get into subjective subjects like entertainment, there are only so may objective qualities you can work with to determine if its good. And popular opinion seems to be the biggest one. You can break it down into categories an try to decide if its quality that way I suppose, but isnt the most important metric to entertainment how many people it entertains?

[LaZodiac]

But Green Lantern hadn't actually been made yet. I am confused!


Yeah... I was somewhat disturbed by the total dismissal of the moral value of the lives of the warden and all the hospital staff. I mean, some of them might only have been hired last week.

Fun fact- I connected with Peter on LinkedIn and had a conversation about bees. The marketing team are certainly committed, I'll give 'em that much.

Eeeh I think they made it clear that anyone working there was definitely into it. They've got the torture stuff right front and center, if you're working there you're part of the problem.

Give the man his allotment of self deprication, given I think he has a writer's credit on Green Lantern too.

I hate that argument. If popularity doesnt equal quality on something so subjective as good comics/music/tv/movies/books, then what DOES? There are things that can be objectively described as being high quality. A building for example. Its expertly built, everything is plumb and true. etc etc etc, you would say its a high quality building. But when you get into subjective subjects like entertainment, there are only so may objective qualities you can work with to determine if its good. And popular opinion seems to be the biggest one. You can break it down into categories an try to decide if its quality that way I suppose, but isnt the most important metric to entertainment how many people it entertains?

It means that a lot of people like it. You still need to look into it indepthly to see WHY people like it, however. Popularity is not an instant note that it is good. The Twilight movies where really popular because they provided something that not a lot of women get in their media, REGARDLESS of quality. The Orville is popular because it's the first Sci Fi show of that style to be on air in decades, again, REGARDLESS of quality.

I disagree that the most important metric of entertainment is that it entertains many people. A lot of people hate the Speed Racer movie, and John Carter Of Mars, and both of those are fantastic films that are also incredibly niche and otherwise disliked for making the general populace feel bad and confused. For me, they hold more worth than Twilight. Many people liking a thing does not mean it is good, again, it just means many people liked it. I don't see what is wrong with this. There's always going to be objective things to look at with media as a whole, but to say "a lot of people liked it" is objective is a fools game. A lot of people liked it, for subjective reasons, ergo it is objectively good since it entertained people? This is flawed, immediately, and part of why objectivity is not the end all be all. Something can be shot objectively perfectly, and still be a ****ty film. Just look at the Star Wars prequels, which are shot beautifully for the most part. But man, shame about everything else huh.

[Mordar]

Popularity doesn't equal quality, but I'll grant you that at the time Rob Liefeld and his certain brand of overmuscled underfooted gunhavers was definitely a refreshing take on the genre. To a point. A point that Rob and friends slammed into almost immediately.

I hate that argument. If popularity doesnt equal quality on something so subjective as good comics/music/tv/movies/books, then what DOES? There are things that can be objectively described as being high quality. A building for example. Its expertly built, everything is plumb and true. etc etc etc, you would say its a high quality building. But when you get into subjective subjects like entertainment, there are only so may objective qualities you can work with to determine if its good. And popular opinion seems to be the biggest one. You can break it down into categories an try to decide if its quality that way I suppose, but isnt the most important metric to entertainment how many people it entertains?

It means that a lot of people like it. You still need to look into it indepthly to see WHY people like it, however. Popularity is not an instant note that it is good. The Twilight movies where really popular because they provided something that not a lot of women get in their media, REGARDLESS of quality. The Orville is popular because it's the first Sci Fi show of that style to be on air in decades, again, REGARDLESS of quality.

I disagree that the most important metric of entertainment is that it entertains many people. A lot of people hate the Speed Racer movie, and John Carter Of Mars, and both of those are fantastic films that are also incredibly niche and otherwise disliked for making the general populace feel bad and confused. For me, they hold more worth than Twilight. Many people liking a thing does not mean it is good, again, it just means many people liked it. I don't see what is wrong with this. There's always going to be objective things to look at with media as a whole, but to say "a lot of people liked it" is objective is a fools game. A lot of people liked it, for subjective reasons, ergo it is objectively good since it entertained people? This is flawed, immediately, and part of why objectivity is not the end all be all. Something can be shot objectively perfectly, and still be a ****ty film. Just look at the Star Wars prequels, which are shot beautifully for the most part. But man, shame about everything else huh.

Spoiler: Popularity and Quality

Show

I do think this is a really interesting topic...I absolutely remember that Liefeld had hate even in that pre-social media, everyone online era. There was a vocal group that suggested Liefeld was to comics as comics were to "real" sci-fi/fantasy/genre fiction (e.g. fodder for the unwashed masses). But how can we objectively measure the quality of the art/writing beyond evidence of engagement (popularity, sales) which is muddied by promotion/advertising and in the case of comics, the springboard of existing characters and titles, among other things?

I think it is fair to say that Liefeld was a very successful writer/artist who attracted a number of customers to his books and kept sales figures high on those books. He was emulated by some, derided by some, and made a lasting impact on the industry (along with Jim Lee, Silvestri, McFarlane and the other Image trailblazers). I think it is fair to say that his work didn't have the staying power of Claremont, Buscema, Barry Windsor Smith or many of the other non-god tier writers and artists, but clearly captured the industry/customer base for a time.

Liefeld's products succeeded in their mission (like Stephanie Meyer's books and films). John Carter of Mars (my wife and I LOVED it...so sad there will be no more, ditto the new Tarzan) did not succeed in its mission. Their missions were the same - sell units, get people to see and enjoy so they want to come back again. Those are objective truths, none of which I am particularly happy about. So as commercially viable popular entertainment vessels, one did a good job, the other didn't. But how do we avoid falling into a "no true Scotsman" mistake here? Liefeld was a successful superhero comic creator/producer, in a niche industry. We can't "blame" his success on hordes of teenage girls(' moms) who think Robert Pattinson is dreamy, so there must be something there. Lots of other titles had advertising pushes, established popular characters as springboards and financial backing. Why didn't they do as well?

We know it is possible from something to be "good", objectively or otherwise, in one place and time and not later (see Model T automobile). Is this the case here? What are the standards we are using? How do they evolve? There are probably thousands (tens of thousands?) of artists that have the same skill level of Rembrandt in this day and age. Does that cheapen Rembrandt? Frank Sinatra wouldn't have had a prayer at getting a major record deal now. Does that mean he wasn't good? We see tons of similar arguments in sports...MJ or LeBron? Goose Gossage or Mariano Rivera?...where time and place become equally important. But for them, we can at least have some objective numbers. Shooting percentage. Strikeouts. Blown saves. All we have for popular media is sales and opinion. X-Force had 5 of the top 20 sales spots in 1991 (including the number one spot), not bad considering only 7 issues were released that year and variants of Xmen #1 took up 5 slots.

Isn't it funny how "appeal to authority" and "appeal to the people" are both "logical fallacies"?

Coming back on topic...

I'm a little surprised so many people are put off by Vanessa dying. She's actually a girl in the refrigerator in DP1. In DP2 she's a motivator. Not much different. Should she have a bigger role and why?

The bare butt Juggernaut...yeah, not particularly valuable.

Also surprised by the cocaine bit. What did that add? (Other than paying off the joke from DP1).

- M

[LaZodiac]

Spoiler: Popularity and Quality

Show

I do think this is a really interesting topic...I absolutely remember that Liefeld had hate even in that pre-social media, everyone online era. There was a vocal group that suggested Liefeld was to comics as comics were to "real" sci-fi/fantasy/genre fiction (e.g. fodder for the unwashed masses). But how can we objectively measure the quality of the art/writing beyond evidence of engagement (popularity, sales) which is muddied by promotion/advertising and in the case of comics, the springboard of existing characters and titles, among other things?

I think it is fair to say that Liefeld was a very successful writer/artist who attracted a number of customers to his books and kept sales figures high on those books. He was emulated by some, derided by some, and made a lasting impact on the industry (along with Jim Lee, Silvestri, McFarlane and the other Image trailblazers). I think it is fair to say that his work didn't have the staying power of Claremont, Buscema, Barry Windsor Smith or many of the other non-god tier writers and artists, but clearly captured the industry/customer base for a time.

Liefeld's products succeeded in their mission (like Stephanie Meyer's books and films). John Carter of Mars (my wife and I LOVED it...so sad there will be no more, ditto the new Tarzan) did not succeed in its mission. Their missions were the same - sell units, get people to see and enjoy so they want to come back again. Those are objective truths, none of which I am particularly happy about. So as commercially viable popular entertainment vessels, one did a good job, the other didn't. But how do we avoid falling into a "no true Scotsman" mistake here? Liefeld was a successful superhero comic creator/producer, in a niche industry. We can't "blame" his success on hordes of teenage girls(' moms) who think Robert Pattinson is dreamy, so there must be something there. Lots of other titles had advertising pushes, established popular characters as springboards and financial backing. Why didn't they do as well?

We know it is possible from something to be "good", objectively or otherwise, in one place and time and not later (see Model T automobile). Is this the case here? What are the standards we are using? How do they evolve? There are probably thousands (tens of thousands?) of artists that have the same skill level of Rembrandt in this day and age. Does that cheapen Rembrandt? Frank Sinatra wouldn't have had a prayer at getting a major record deal now. Does that mean he wasn't good? We see tons of similar arguments in sports...MJ or LeBron? Goose Gossage or Mariano Rivera?...where time and place become equally important. But for them, we can at least have some objective numbers. Shooting percentage. Strikeouts. Blown saves. All we have for popular media is sales and opinion. X-Force had 5 of the top 20 sales spots in 1991 (including the number one spot), not bad considering only 7 issues were released that year and variants of Xmen #1 took up 5 slots.

Isn't it funny how "appeal to authority" and "appeal to the people" are both "logical fallacies"?

Coming back on topic...

I'm a little surprised so many people are put off by Vanessa dying. She's actually a girl in the refrigerator in DP1. In DP2 she's a motivator. Not much different. Should she have a bigger role and why?

The bare butt Juggernaut...yeah, not particularly valuable.

Also surprised by the cocaine bit. What did that add? (Other than paying off the joke from DP1).

- M

She was The Princess in Deadpool 1. Women in Refridgerators specifically refers to them dying. Being in a literal fridge doesn't make her one of those, unless she was killed and chopped up like Kyle Rainer's girlfriend.

Probably another thing to show that Wade's completely off the deep end.

[Some Android]

So I don't want to derail the thread too much but has anyone seen this video? I just thought I'd share this because Adult Swim is still using ATHF to promote stuff despite that showing being cancelled for multiple years now.



I might have to dress up Carl dressed up as Deadpool this year for Halloween.

[AliceLost]

Coming back on topic...

I'm a little surprised so many people are put off by Vanessa dying. She's actually a girl in the refrigerator in DP1. In DP2 she's a motivator. Not much different. Should she have a bigger role and why?

I'm surprised by your surprise. Women in refrigerators is a trope that's usually considered offputting. It's defined as being killed to provide motivation for another (male) character: she wasn't fridged in DP1 but she was certainly sidelined and damseled and it was frustrating because a) it's Morena Baccarin and she's awesome and b) her character was interesting and her relationship with Wade is incredibly refreshing and fun to watch. She's one of the only superhero love interests who doesn't add tension to the relationship, and could simply be supportive of his job.

Her role in DP2 didn't really need to be bigger than it was (I would have enjoyed seeing more of her, but I won't argue that it was necessary), but it would have been miles better to have her remain alive, in a relationship with Wade, and his narrative motivated by...literally anything other than her death. It's Deadpool. Coming up with reasons for him to do stuff isn't exactly hard, he's not the most complexly motivated character Marvel has.

[LaZodiac]

I'm surprised by your surprise. Women in refrigerators is a trope that's usually considered offputting. It's defined as being killed to provide motivation for another (male) character: she wasn't fridged in DP1 but she was certainly sidelined and damseled and it was frustrating because a) it's Morena Baccarin and she's awesome and b) her character was interesting and her relationship with Wade is incredibly refreshing and fun to watch. She's one of the only superhero love interests who doesn't add tension to the relationship, and could simply be supportive of his job.

Her role in DP2 didn't really need to be bigger than it was (I would have enjoyed seeing more of her, but I won't argue that it was necessary), but it would have been miles better to have her remain alive, in a relationship with Wade, and his narrative motivated by...literally anything other than her death. It's Deadpool. Coming up with reasons for him to do stuff isn't exactly hard, he's not the most complexly motivated character Marvel has.

The perfect solution to this: Have her get hurt, have her say in defiance "yeah there was no way they were gonna fridge me babe" and then have him go on a now comedically over the top revenge spree for her just being hospitalized for a few days. Maybe have him sort of spiral out of control because she got hurt because of what COULD of happened.

She better get an action roll in the third one though. Weasel's gonna be gone because TJ Miller's a ****ing psychopath so there'll be a slot open.

[Dragonus45]

I'm surprised by your surprise. Women in refrigerators is a trope that's usually considered offputting. It's defined as being killed to provide motivation for another (male) character: she wasn't fridged in DP1 but she was certainly sidelined and damseled and it was frustrating because a) it's Morena Baccarin and she's awesome and b) her character was interesting and her relationship with Wade is incredibly refreshing and fun to watch. She's one of the only superhero love interests who doesn't add tension to the relationship, and could simply be supportive of his job.

Her role in DP2 didn't really need to be bigger than it was (I would have enjoyed seeing more of her, but I won't argue that it was necessary), but it would have been miles better to have her remain alive, in a relationship with Wade, and his narrative motivated by...literally anything other than her death. It's Deadpool. Coming up with reasons for him to do stuff isn't exactly hard, he's not the most complexly motivated character Marvel has.

The plot needed her to die so died. And if it wasn’t even a little off putting it wouldn’t be as effective of a writing tool as it is. Bet let’s nt overtstate the importance of a character getting offed at the start of a movie.

[LaZodiac]

The plot needed her to die so died. And if it wasn’t even a little off putting it wouldn’t be as effective of a writing tool as it is. Bet let’s nt overtstate the importance of a character getting offed at the start of a movie.

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the trope and why it's usually considered bad. There's nothing wrong with a character dying to start off a film for motive. But it happens so often to girlfriends/wives, especially in super hero stuff, that it's trite and kind of super sexist. Again, it's named after the time Kyle Rainer's girlfriend was chopped up into pieces and shoved into the fridge for no reason beyond "we wanted to give the story shock value".

[AliceLost]

The plot needed her to die so died. And if it wasn’t even a little off putting it wouldn’t be as effective of a writing tool as it is. Bet let’s nt overtstate the importance of a character getting offed at the start of a movie.

I think you misunderstand how plots are made. They aren't born fully formed into the world, they require crafting and writing. I'd say the plot of this film needed very little, save that it have Deadpool in it. It's not as thought it would have been impossible for the writers to tell a different story.

But even if you wanted to stay as close to this script as you could, instead of having Vanessa die, she could have been left alive, and watching Wade's first interaction with Russell on tv (which could happen for nearly any reason because again...Deadpool). Have him care less and return home only for her express a desire to see him be a better man if they're going to have a child together, and encourage him to go back and make things right with Russell. The rest of the film would basically be the same, and if anything, give Deadpool a better motivation because he would be working to improve himself and satisfy an actual real person he has a relationship with, rather than an abstract death vision that may well entirely be in his head. Morena Baccarin doesn't even need to be in the film more, she can just have a couple of real actual scenes with dialogue, rather than simply sitting wistfully on a sofa.

This isn't the best idea, it's only something I came up with in a few minutes at work, and it still shows how unnecessary her death and sidlining was to this plot, never mind literally any other plot that could have been written. I don't think a character getting offed at the start of a film is that important, lots of good films don't use that device and it's tired and overplayed, even when it's not being used as an excuse to completely sideline any female characters from any engagement in the narrative.

[ben-zayb]

The Doylist reason for the cliched fridge would be that Morena Baccarin may no longer (want to) be around for Deadpool 3 or X-Force. Ignoring the midcredita scene and treating those as noncanon would be a way to keep her dead.

Personally, I prefer Cable also killed Weasel upon provocation for the very same reason, but that would make his teamup with DP's gang a little harder than what was done.

[AliceLost]

The Doylist reason for the cliched fridge would be that Morena Baccarin may no longer (want to) be around for Deadpool 3 or X-Force. Ignoring the midcredita scene and treating those as noncanon would be a way to keep her dead.

Personally, I prefer Cable also killed Weasel upon provocation for the very same reason, but that would make his teamup with DP's gang a little harder than what was done.

While Morena Baccarin can't exactly be completely candid with her opinions of a film she's "starring" in and probably still doing publicity for, she has expressed disappointment over the way her character was treated in this film, and a willingness to return, so I don't believe there were meta reasons.

The writers have responded to these criticisms, saying they had "never heard of fridging" before. They pretty much felt that they made up the idea of killing a woman too motivate a man because he had "everything taken away from him" on the spot.

[Lacuna Caster]

The perfect solution to this: Have her get hurt, have her say in defiance "yeah there was no way they were gonna fridge me babe" and then have him go on a now comedically over the top revenge spree for her just being hospitalized for a few days. Maybe have him sort of spiral out of control because she got hurt because of what COULD of happened.

That sounds pretty hilarious.

It would be harder to write DP with a conscious deathwish, though I guess the movie doesn't exactly stick to that with perfect consistency? Hmm.

While Morena Baccarin can't exactly be completely candid with her opinions of a film she's "starring" in and probably still doing publicity for, she has expressed disappointment over the way her character was treated in this film, and a willingness to return, so I don't believe there were meta reasons.

The writers have responded to these criticisms, saying they had "never heard of fridging" before.

Really? Wow. You'd think given the furore over the avengers toy line they'd be a little more clued about this.

For my own part, I also thought that Jane Foster, Sif, Pepper Pots and Wasp were kind of unfairly minimised, so this isn't exactly unusual.

[Dragonus45]

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the trope and why it's usually considered bad. There's nothing wrong with a character dying to start off a film for motive. But it happens so often to girlfriends/wives, especially in super hero stuff, that it's trite and kind of super sexist. Again, it's named after the time Kyle Rainer's girlfriend was chopped up into pieces and shoved into the fridge for no reason beyond "we wanted to give the story shock value".

No I understand why you think to bad. It’s just not. It isn’t sexist, it isn’t an issue. It worked perfectly fine in the movie. There is no issue.

I think you misunderstand how plots are made. They aren't born fully formed into the world, they require crafting and writing. I'd say the plot of this film needed very little, save that it have Deadpool in it. It's not as thought it would have been impossible for the writers to tell a different story.

But even if you wanted to stay as close to this script as you could, instead of having Vanessa die, she could have been left alive, and watching Wade's first interaction with Russell on tv (which could happen for nearly any reason because again...Deadpool). Have him care less and return home only for her express a desire to see him be a better man if they're going to have a child together, and encourage him to go back and make things right with Russell. The rest of the film would basically be the same, and if anything, give Deadpool a better motivation because he would be working to improve himself and satisfy an actual real person he has a relationship with, rather than an abstract death vision that may well entirely be in his head. Morena Baccarin doesn't even need to be in the film more, she can just have a couple of real actual scenes with dialogue, rather than simply sitting wistfully on a sofa.

This isn't the best idea, it's only something I came up with in a few minutes at work, and it still shows how unnecessary her death and sidlining was to this plot, never mind literally any other plot that could have been written. I don't think a character getting offed at the start of a film is that important, lots of good films don't use that device and it's tired and overplayed, even when it's not being used as an excuse to completely sideline any female characters from any engagement in the narrative.

All of that sounds like not this movie. In fact it sounds like a totally different movie. This movie needed her to die however. It was very necessary.

[LaZodiac]

No I understand why you think to bad. It’s just not. It isn’t sexist, it isn’t an issue. It worked perfectly fine in the movie. There is no issue.

All of that sounds like not this movie. In fact it sounds like a totally different movie. This movie needed her to die however. It was very necessary.

It is, actually. Even if they didn't intend it to be, which I fully believe they did not. These guys seem good, and they'll do better on the next film. But mistakes happen.

[Dragonus45]

It is, actually. Even if they didn't intend it to be, which I fully believe they did not. These guys seem good, and they'll do better on the next film. But mistakes happen.

What mistake? Writing an amazing script that is making all the money and improved on the first movie in every way? Yea how dare they.

[Z3ro]

But mistakes happen.

Was it though? For me what matters is the execution, just like all tropes. The payoff at the end, "is this heaven? It is now" was amazing. I literally cried in the theater. DP2 made me cry with emotion for the characters, that's how much it hit me. I don't see how you could have had the same payoff without having her dead.

[HMS Invincible]

What mistake? Writing an amazing script that is making all the money and improved on the first movie in every way? Yea how dare they.

Cliches still work, but writers shouldn't always follow them. You can motivate heroes without killing women who date the main character. I highly doubt you would even notice if the motivation changed at all.
There's a lot of statistics that I'm sure you'll casually ignore, but the short version is this:
You live in a bubble. Male hero stories about fridge women need to the spotlight with other storylines.

[Dragonus45]

Cliches still work, but writers shouldn't always follow them. You can motivate heroes without killing women who date the main character. I highly doubt you would even notice if the motivation changed at all.
There's a lot of statistics that I'm sure you'll casually ignore, but the short version is this:
You live in a bubble. Male hero stories about fridge women need to the spotlight with other storylines.

Cliches are cliches because they work. Execution is the only thing matters. Yes there are plenty of ways to motivate a charater, they chose the one that worked best for the movie they made. And the long version is that it doesn’t matter because there is no cultural significance to any of those statistics. Other then reaffirming that people value their romantic partners making them excellent levers with which to manipulate the audience.

[Reddish Mage]

The plot needed her to die so died. And if it wasn’t even a little off putting it wouldn’t be as effective of a writing tool as it is. Bet let’s nt overtstate the importance of a character getting offed at the start of a movie.

How many superheroes have we seen with stable relationships and active, supportive partners? Their are not many, but they tend to be in some of the most successful movies.

They decided to do a movie where Deadpool would be motivated to become (quite literally) self-destructive by having his girlfriend died among all the alternative plots for all the alternative movies they could have made.

The result? Deadpool 2 is lagging expectations slightly. Now this could be for any number of reasons (this is the third big Superhero movie to run in...has it been a month since Black Panther?), but running a tired plot device so that Deadpool can get lost, get found (again) by our the budget X-men (who are awesome), immediately get lost again, redeemed, and then undo all the deaths in the credits...On the balance that may have ended up as actually being a pretty safe script filled with the action cliches.

Maybe that had something to do with it.

[Z3ro]

Now this could be for any number of reasons (this is the third big Superhero movie to run in...has it been a month since Black Panther?), but running a tired plot device so that Deadpool can get lost, get found (again) by our the budget X-men (who are awesome), immediately get lost again, redeemed, and then undo all the deaths in the credits...On the balance that may have ended up as actually being a pretty safe script filled with the action cliches.

Maybe that had something to do with it.

I think this is the reason:

To recap, Deadpool opened on a holiday weekend with no real competition for its target demographics. Deadpool 2 opened in the shadow of Avengers: Infinity War on a regular three-day weekend. Those differences resulted in Deadpool 2 finishing $7 million short of Deadpool's domestic opening, but $16 million higher than Deadpool's overall worldwide opening.

[AliceLost]

As always, the discussion here seems to be divided between people saying "I witness this frequently and I'm tired of it continually happening and it upsets me", and people saying "It doesn't upset me personally so it's not an issue".

If the character you're interested and invested in keeps surviving the opening moments of the film and having an active role in the narrative, of course you're going to be less bothered by tropes that do that to other people.

That sounds pretty hilarious.

It would be harder to write DP with a conscious deathwish, though I guess the movie doesn't exactly stick to that with perfect consistency? Hmm.


Really? Wow. You'd think given the furore over the avengers toy line they'd be a little more clued about this.

For my own part, I also thought that Jane Foster, Sif, Pepper Pots and Wasp were kind of unfairly minimised, so this isn't exactly unusual.

Yeah, for writers of such a self-aware franchise, I don't even know if I believe them, but I think it's a pretty blatant demonstration of what happens when you don't have women involved in the creative process. Apparently they had an early draft where Vanessa broke up with him, and then someone suggested he'd be even more compelling with "everything taken away from him", so they very much thought of Vanessa as a plot object to be taken away, and then given back, to Wade. Nobody seemed to really think of her as a character.

And I totally agree with you about the other women in Marvel films (and media in general). How long have we been waiting on the promise of a Black Widow film? That only makes my frustration worse every time they continue to do this, though, and this example was so painfully by the numbers it really stood out to me.

[Dragonus45]

As always, the discussion here seems to be divided between people saying "I witness this frequently and I'm tired of it continually happening and it upsets me", and people saying "It doesn't upset me personally so it's not an issue".

Alternative, just because it bothers you doesn't make it an issue.

Yeah, for writers of such a self-aware franchise, I don't even know if I believe them, but I think it's a pretty blatant demonstration of what happens when you don't have women involved in the creative process. Apparently they had an early draft where Vanessa broke up with him, and then someone suggested he'd be even more compelling with "everything taken away from him", so they very much thought of Vanessa as a plot object to be taken away, and then given back, to Wade. Nobody seemed to really think of her as a character.

And I totally agree with you about the other women in Marvel films (and media in general). How long have we been waiting on the promise of a Black Widow film? That only makes my frustration worse every time they continue to do this, though, and this example was so painfully by the numbers it really stood out to me.

Uh, what does the gender of the writers have to do with anything? This is a very sexist idea that somehow the gender makeup of the writing staff somehow has anything to do with its quality. And yes, it was in fact much more compelling to have her die then have her break up with him. Them breaking up for no reason after the last movie would have been boring and undercut the good parts of the first movie.

Also we are as likely to get a Black Widow movie as we are to get a Hawkeye solo movie. Which is never, they are both very much side characters who couldn't carry their own franchise.