Psshhhh, what're you gonna tell me, that they cut 7 million dollars from the budget last minute? And they did reshoots that were slightly less awesome, but still pretty good? NO WAY, JOSE!!!!!Deadpool did reshoots
Dude. Read the fucking article.reshoots happen all the time. could be something as simple as lighting or camera angles in a scene not working well.
i did read the article. that doesn't change the fact that reshoots happen all the time. sometimes reshoots last less than a week. sometimes a lot more. with THIS movie? the article says why they are doing reshoots. so that's kind of a moot point, now isn't it?Dude. Read the fucking article.
And fucks sake, no they do not. If your director is such a dumbfuck that he missed ANGLES AND LIGHTING why give him hundreds of millions to do a film at all? Moreover all the contractual bullshit comes into play when you do reshoots, but if you're not going to read the article you probably wouldn't have a fucking clue how Jews err... I mean movie producers and lawyers don't like to throw good money after bad, and that's exactly what this is. This is pretty straightforward: If we don't spend another 20 million finishing this, we wont get our money back at all from the other 9 films we were stupid enough to announce but can't cancel.
And btw the cancellations are coming as surely as Terminator's were Terminated.
That's actually in the first sentence of the article.i did read the article. that doesn't change the fact that reshoots happen all the time.
I would argue more movies than not are troubled/bad movies nowadays so technically it still couldReshoots are standard these days. More movies have them than don't so they're no longer the calling card of a troubled picture.
But good movies do them to so it's no longer a distinguishing characteristic. A bigger sign of a bad movie is when it's released (second half of Jan. thru March is the usual dumping ground for what the studios know to be drek) and a noticeable lack of marketing (not throwing good money after bad). Those two things coming together on the same movie is a sure sign of a stinker.I would argue more movies than not are troubled/bad movies nowadays so technically it still could
Exactly. And Reynolds went above and beyond to finally have his magnum opus. He literally made that movie. No other actor could have pulled it off. The amazing part is that Reynolds, the humor, being Rated R, etc, etc, etc all worked in conjunction to hide the flaws of poor action, and pretty dull story. I don't think you can really compare the two. It's like asking someone to play Joker after Ledger. Sure, it has to be done but good luck with expectations afterwards.Deadpool had a ton of marketing behind it. And you do get the occasional movie that ends up having legs that a studio puts out in that time frame specifically because they know the competition will be weaker.
Which is exactly his point. The studio had little faith in the product. They just gave Reynolds and co a deadline and left him alone. They were expecting a flop. But then they saw it close t to being finished and they went full bore with advertisement to try and helpUnless you're Deadpool.
What does a director have to do with lighting?If your director is such a dumbfuck that he missed ANGLES AND LIGHTING
This was the biggest problem with Deadpool. Story was just completely bland. Really Reynolds carries the whole movie by just hitting the mark on the Deadpool character.Exactly. And Reynolds went above and beyond to finally have his magnum opus. He literally made that movie. No other actor could have pulled it off. The amazing part is that Reynolds, the humor, being Rated R, etc, etc, etc all worked in conjunction to hide the flaws of poor action, andpretty dull story. I don't think you can really compare the two. It's like asking someone to play Joker after Ledger. Sure, it has to be done but good luck with expectations afterwards.