Talk:Deadpool 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Runtime

As revealed by the IFCO. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daerl (talk • contribs) 12:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.ifco.ie/website/ifco/ifcoweb.nsf/lookupupcomingreleases/3B6544083A04D99C8025828200410D31?OpenDocument&OpenUp=True&type=graphic

"Fridging" in Cast Section

I edited this once but apparently it was reverted. Why is there a half-paragraph on "fridging", out of one paragraph for Morena Baccarin, in the Cast section which has very little to do with casting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.25.111 (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the section is not about casting, it is about the cast. Casting information is in the production section, which discusses the making of the film. The cast section merely lists the cast of the final film, and then has some more information on significant aspects of each characters. Since all discussion about Vanessa involves this storyline, and we have the writers responding to that, it is a pretty noteworthy thing that should be mentioned. For a similar example, see the paragraph on the Ancient One at Doctor Strange (2016 film). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The death/murder of a person close to the superhero is a common plot element in comic books: Superman's and Batman's parents deaths, Spider-man's Uncle Ben's murder, etc. It often motivates the hero towards a life of pursuing criminals. The death of Deadpool's girlfriend motivated him to save Firefist (the kid) from a life of crime. So it is more a common superhero plot element, and not sexist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.108.98 (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be both. Yes, it is a common superhero plot element, but the fact that it mostly happens to woman makes it (according to our sources, which trump your personal opinion) sexist as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second/third the proposal to remove or abridge the discussion of "fridging" from the cast section, as this is a discussion tangential to the actual character, the actress, or the casting choice. While it is an element of the character and her arc, the fact that it takes up the great majority of the section on the character, and makes that section larger than more prominent characters, seems disproportionate and indicates an ideological, not factual or utility-based reason for its inclusion and length. Also - adamstom I notice you seem to always be the one making the reverts, pitting you against several other editors and allowing your preferred version to stand due almost solely to persistence (and having the time to edit) rather than logical argument. I request you reconsider your position, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.27.62 (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "tangential" to anything, it is literally all of her story in the film and is being discussed in the section by the creative team, the actress, and critical commentators. The fact that you say otherwise is what suggests an "ideological, not factual or utility-based reason for" wanting it removed. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC

If the attribution meets the standards of relevance, wouldn't it be more appropiate to cite within an article about fridging? Dropping it in the middle of the casting section for a film that is widely known for other reasons, appears to be more activism than encyclopedic zeal 186.185.64.83 (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it is not about fridging in general (though I'm sure mention of the issue would have some place in such an article), it is about a character's storyline in this film. No matter what happens to her in the film, the most appropriate place to discuss that is in her section, just like all of the other characters. The fact that this is the only paragraph that is being questioned is what suggest an activist motive here. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether it should or should not be in the article, I would not consider the way it is written now as encyclopedic style. In particular the second sentence currently reads like something plagiarized from a bad TVTropes article. I'd recommend moving it to a "Controversies" section, especially considering a large chunk of it is focused on the justifications of Rhett Reese, "Leitch" and "the writers", not the character or actress. Right now the only description of the actual character in the section is "Wilson's fiancée", which I feel could stand to be fleshed out a bit more. Hopefully we can reach some kind of compromise that finds space for both the fridging issue and a well-rounded summary. 2DLove (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This issue still hasn’t been resolved. I’m not sure if there has been agreement or consensus, but the emphasis seems ideologically driven and entirely to me out of place. 188.29.122.32 (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Hitler

WP:MOSFILM doesn't specifically address how to deal with Plot sections for different versions of the same film but I'm fairly sure the Plot section should be not include information that was missing from the Theatrical release and were only included in the extended DVD edition. Feel free to add details about those scenes to the Home media section, sources shouldn't be hard to find. -- 109.77.223.215 (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

We should keep the plot summary to the theatrical version. The baby Hitler scene is mentioned in the post-production section at the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intro should summarize

Only a few days ago an IP editor "added words" to the intro. The words claimed that critics had praised the mid-credits sequence. No evidence was given for this and the reviews already in the article didn't draw attention to this either. The intro should summarize the contents of the article, this doesn't. This edit was recent and without anything to back it up.

First why is anyone insisting on keeping it? Second why is anyone insisting on keeping it without adding to the article body to show that it might actually have some merit?

I found a reviewer that made not of the mid-credits sequence, but Helen O'Hara of The Telegraph' writes: "Deadpool 2 was clearly made to cater to existing fans with every innuendo-filled moment (they should stay through the credits for some important story points that are very nearly thrown away)." which if anything is not praising the sequence but criticizing the film for almost throwing away important story elements. -- 109.77.248.237 (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Deadpool

Should this maybe be split into it's own article? It's going to create a lot of issues of how to handle the plot/reception/box office (both Rotten Romates and Boox Office Mojo are treating it as a separate film) sections otherwise. And the subject itself has gained a lot of media attention, I'd say it's notable on it's own.

talk) 09:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Maybe it could be eventually, but at the moment we don't really have enough information to justify the split, and even if we did I don't know if it is appropriate. By all accounts from those involved (meaning those who actually know what the film is) this is simply going to be Deadpool 2 with something like 20 mins extra footage, which sounds pretty much like a standard extended edition. My feeling is still to keep it as is and add any reception information we get to the appropriate sections of the article, and if it does start to get messy then perhaps reassess the situation then. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have created a draft at Draft:Once Upon a Deadpool if you or anyone else would like to help me set that up. We'll see if it is worth moving to the mainspace, but I think it is looking likely at this point and will help keep things simple at this page which is what you had initially said. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be mention of the slight editing errors, such as during the attack on the convoy deadpool is shot through the hand yet there is no wound in this edit, then he is shot multiple times by Cable without bullet wounds, however after being ripped in half by Juggernaut the top half is riddled with bullet wounds including a bloody hole in his hand. 23:14 2019-01-20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.171.171 (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joker v. Deadpool

OK folks, can we talk about what is going on here? Nearly every reliable source out there is saying Joker has dethroned DP2 as the highest-grossing R movie, but it keeps getting reverted and restored here with either no context, no new sources, or a simple "Forbes was wrong." What are we using to say Forbes is wrong? Having a discrepancy between the Joker page (which says it is the highest-grossing R film), the top R movie list, and this page makes us look bad. Paging those involved SassyCollins, TheNamelessIndividual Cardei012597 Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 16:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joker now is highest with close to 850M (just updated by BOM). Forbes and other sources were based on the prognoses of what the film would make on Friday and Saturday, concluding on Thursday that it would be the highest R-rated (and stating, incorrectly, that is already was). It "made us look bad" to state that it was already the highest on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, when those figures had not even been made yet. All a moot point now though. SassyCollins (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this needs to be stated here. We generally avoid updating film articles when other films achieve new box office records, otherwise we would be forever updating the article even though the amount of money made by this film has not changed. The highest grossing film of all time is a different story because it is obviously unique and infrequently changes, but in this case we have something that has changed several times in recent years and is likely to continue changing in the future. We should be using the standard format of stating that the film became the highest grossing R-rated film and ignoring that this is no longer the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could not agree more. Restored. SassyCollins (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the reason why I changed it back to saying it hadn't made more than Deadpool 2 at the box office was because someone else reverted the box office total for Joker a couple of times. He claimed that Forbes isn't a reliable source, so I went with it. I'm glad to see there are now several reliable sources showing that Joker has made more than Deadpool 2, so I won't change it again. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNamelessIndividual (talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still think there's some need to have a clarification that the film is no longer the top R-rated film, the way it's written right now seems a bit misleading to someone who would not be familiar. Especially when you click the linked page and Joker is at the top. No need to name Joker specifically, could just be a parenthetical (e.g. "at the time") or a split to say it is the second-highest. Wikipedia is always evolving, so we shouldn't sacrifice clarity for not wanting to update the article if new information comes out. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary nor misleading. The film reached the number one status. Was released in 2018. Films released afterward can overtake, always possible. Joker did. We don't need to baby readers, either. My suggestion would be to add columns to the "Highest-grossing R-rated" page stating what the current and peak rankings are (like on the "List of highest grossing films" page). SassyCollins (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about naming higher-grossing films

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to specify surpassing films evidenced by SassyCollins' adjustments.

In the lead and/or body, should a film that surpasses a current one for highest box office gross be named? Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 21:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as nominator: In particular, editor SassyCollins has reverted edits that note that this film has been superseded by Joker. I'm sympathetic to other editors' claims that putting "second-highest" is redundant. But I still maintain that the lead as is, which says the film became the highest-grossing R film, is misleading. Yes, that text is technically, pedantically, not wrong. But the amount of anonymous editors who plainly disagree show that this is not being read in the intended way, is not an overall consensus, and can't be brushed aside. SassyCollins claims it is "not common practice to update [specific films bypassing others]." However, looking at other high-grossing articles shows this is clearly not the case. The Matrix Reloaded indicates that it was outgrossed by Deadpool in 2016. The 2 Deadpool films do not show this because SassyCollins has exported the same language there. I would also point to the overall highest-grossing movies as well. From Jaws to Avatar (2009 film) (seven films, mind you!), each article specifies which film, in a sense, dethroned it. This does not mesh with the claim that providing this information is "not common practice." Earlier films, like Gone with the Wind and The Godfather have information similar to this (saying they were "for a time" etc) but do not mention specific films. I am sympathetic to the idea that we do not want to keep updating a movie's place on the gross charts. But I simply do not see the logic in insisting that we need not, at the very least, provide relevant information to which films surpass which for the top spot. If it changes, we change it. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about the edit:
"Deadpool 2 was released in the United States on May 18, 2018 by 20th Century Fox. It grossed over $785 million worldwide, becoming the ninth-highest-grossing film of 2018, the highest-grossing X-Men film, and the highest-grossing R-rated film at the time."
This removes the puffery phrase "of all time" from the statement (as per CRYSTAL), and is accurate in that, at the time, it was indeed the highest grossing 'R' rated film of the time. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I generally support this, but other editors have disagreed. My preferred rendition would be to add a full stop and then something to the degree of "The film surpassed its prequel to become the highest-grossing R-rated movie of all time until Joker superseded it in 2019." But that is too much, apparently. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 05:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can support the above although I think the "List of highest-grossing R-rated films" article would be improved by adding a column mentioning the peak positions of the films in this list. SassyCollins (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it should be named: I can understand the argument here from both sides. Personally, I'd say that there isn't anything functionally wrong with putting what movie it was surpassed by, especially if we're going to add that it was surpassed at all. I don't believe it should turn into a rabbit hole situation where we add every movie it was ever surpassed by, but I see no evil in naming the next movie to claim the highest box office gross award. -Yeetcetera @me bro 13:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that when we have articles that note that they were Number 'x' on a list of best whatever, precisely zero articles note what was higher on that list. The reason why is that the article is about a specific cubjst, not about something else unrelated. The movie Joker has absolutely nothing to do with Deadpool 2, and does nothing to advance an understanding of the subject matter.
Of course, I could be wrong. If there are FA-quality articles that do this, please feel free to note them here. The point of any article in Wikipedia is to elevate the quality of every article to FA, so those are the exemplars of what we use to judge. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On that note Jaws is an FA and lists when it was surpassed in gross and by what movie. Same with E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Jurassic Park, Titanic, and Avatar are all GAs and list similar information in the neighborhood of how long it reigned (not always necessary), what film surpassed it and when. Gone with the Wind is also a GA and has similar details in the lead, though it does not specify what film surpassed it. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now adjusted Terminator 2 (1991), The Matrix Reloaded (2003), Deadpool (2016), and Deadpool 2 (2018) as these are the four highest-grossing R-rated films before Joker. Cheers. SassyCollins (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Once Upon a Deadpool section

Given there is a pg-13 rated so I feel it should be added as another plot version with the receptions for that as well.

talk) 16:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

It has a section with brief descriptions of the plot differences and reception. See Deadpool 2#Release. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 23:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Deadpool (2018 film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Deadpool (2018 film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 26#SM (2002 film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actor returns for the MCU

It’s not set yet but Morena Baccarin I think it should be mentioned the stays of the progress of her potential return for Deadpool 3. Simply just to say where she’s at. Here 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deadpool 3 receiving a separate article

Is there enough information to start an article for it? Especially now with Vanessa and Colossus confirmed to return? Here 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See
WP:NFF. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
At least we can include Vanessa and Colossus here right? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yukio - Deadpool 2.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Yukio - Deadpool 2.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfiniteNexus (talk • contribs) 23:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade

This page lists Arcade (Marvel Comics) a having a cameo by Paul Wernick. However, the source used (this one) does not mention Arcade at all, only saying that Wernick appeared as a news cameraman. Malachi108 (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deadpool_2&oldid=1210832250"