Deadpool 2 Deadpool 2 News and Discussion - Part 2

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]532909[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]520403[/split]

 

[NotNickFury]

Yeah, and now it's going to play there. At least at the Beijing Film Festival.

It's in the very article that you posted.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/deadpool-2-outscores-original-test-screenings-1095838

Deadpool 2, which doesn't open until May 18, is already scoring high marks.

The Fox film received as high as 98 in recent test screenings, The Hollywood Reporter has learned.

Deadpool 2, which stars Ryan Reynolds, has been tested three times, with the scores for the first two screenings coming in at 91 and 97. The final test, which occurred in Dallas, tested two separate cuts simultaneously, which scored a 98 and a 94. The 98-scoring cut is the version the team is using, a source with direct knowledge told THR .

The crew attended the final screenings in Dallas, and a source in the audience of that 98 screening describing the environment to THR as being electric and akin to watching the Super Bowl. It's worth noting the highest test screening the original Deadpool received was a 91, according to insiders. The film went on to gross $783 million worldwide and stands as the highest-grossing X-Men movie of all time.

 

[I Am The Knight]

That's crazy. I guess that Twitter guy is about to have a meltdown over this

 

[ViewerAnon]

I'm curious about the wording - is the secret cameo something they just shot or something that's already in the movie?

Spoiler

McAvoy Xavier has a wordless cameo (along with Beast and Quicksilver)

but I think this could be referring to something bigger.

 

[ImSGirl95]

Wait, what? Those characters make a cameo? How confirmed is this?

 

[Anonymous1213]

All you need to know about that Jeremy Conrad dude is the fact that he is using some rando on twitter who mentioned that they saw Deadpool 2 shooting outside of City Hall in Vancouver as proof that the film is undergoing reshoots right now. That person never provided any proof and when asked about it they said they'd confirm but then never did. I am guessing these are kinds of sources Conrad has.

Meanwhile everyone who knows anything about the industry knows that if they're actually doing any reshoots they have to report them and if they were doing it in secret (which is a union no-no) well I'd imagine that a Hollywood production shooting outside of City Hall in a major city in Canada would warrant the attention of more than one person.

I'd love to see his Twitter meltdown at the moment and him probably saying that THR is a shill for Fox but alas he blocked me on twitter for who knows what.

 

[Frankeh]

Yeah I did read that people misinterpreted Brolin's interview about the reshoots. The interview was old but was published recently.

This is reassuring for sure. I'm still excited to see Juggernaut.

 

[Lip]

I saw Logan and Gambit being brought up in a Collider video as this cameo.

But, as far as I remember, the X-Force movie is set to start shooting this year. So my bet is some characters who'll be part of the X-Force team. I mean, X-Force is basically a sequel for this movie. It makes sense to me.

 

[imbruglia]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/deadpool-2-outscores-original-test-screenings-1095838

"Deadpool 2 underwent reshoots — six days' worth last month in Vancouver — to add more of what test screening audiences enjoyed. That's three days fewer than those done for 2016's Deadpool. There was also two hours' worth of work recently in Los Angeles for a secret cameo."

 

[Zant]

New trailer tomorrow ? If true, no more cutaway gags or skits please. A clue of the story will be welcomed.

 

[squeekness]

I'd be happy either way.

 

[dark_b]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/deadpool-2-outscores-original-test-screenings-1095838

when a movie tests over 90(91 and 97) on test screenings it means that the pacing worked for the people who watched it. when you add more screentime for two(not one but two) characters you obviously changed the edit of the movie,the pacing,the flow. which is very important with a movie like this. why would a studio that tested their sequel over 90 spend more money and risk destroying the pacing?

just asking.

 

[ViewerAnon]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/deadpool-2-outscores-original-test-screenings-1095838

when a movie tests over 90(91 and 97) on test screenings it means that the pacing worked for the people who watched it. when you add more screentime for two(not one but two) characters you obviously changed the edit of the movie,the pacing,the flow. which is very important with a movie like this. why would a studio that tested their sequel over 90 spend more money and risk destroying the pacing?

just asking.

Ding ding ding ding ding.

 

[SuperT]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/deadpool-2-outscores-original-test-screenings-1095838

when a movie tests over 90(91 and 97) on test screenings it means that the pacing worked for the people who watched it. when you add more screentime for two(not one but two) characters you obviously changed the edit of the movie,the pacing,the flow. which is very important with a movie like this. why would a studio that tested their sequel over 90 spend more money and risk destroying the pacing?

just asking.

Well I mean, the scenes can also make the movie better too. It's can work both ways and end up landing the film somewhere between that 91 and 97 - that's still a pretty decent sized gap.

 

[fobi]

If they are just quick cameo scenes I don't see how that would affect the pacing that much.

 

[Anonymous1213]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/deadpool-2-outscores-original-test-screenings-1095838

when a movie tests over 90(91 and 97) on test screenings it means that the pacing worked for the people who watched it. when you add more screentime for two(not one but two) characters you obviously changed the edit of the movie,the pacing,the flow. which is very important with a movie like this. why would a studio that tested their sequel over 90 spend more money and risk destroying the pacing?

just asking.

The article states that the movie scored a 91. After the movie scored a 91, they did the reshoots to add more Cable and Domino. They then screened the version of the movie with Cable and Domino and it scored a 97. They then went to Dallas and screened two cuts of the movie with one scoring a 98 and the other scoring a 94. I am willing to bet the one that scored 94 was the original cut that score 91. And the 98 was the one that scored 97 in LA.

So they didn't add more screen time for anyone after the movie scored a 97. It was after the movie scored the 91. Which yea is a pretty good score but it's not a score that would guarantee a sure fire hit especially if you have the time to make it better, which at the time they did.

*And for what it's worth there are people on Letterboxd from the Dallas area who watched the film and have rated it a 4 and 4.5 stars out of 5.

 

[Anonymous1213]

Ding ding ding ding ding.

Serious question. Why do you want this film to fail so badly? Like what do you get out of it?

Actually don't answer that. I have figured it out. You're either a). The person who told Jeremy Conrad the movie is bad or b). you heard from someone who said it was bad and passed along that info to him. Which probably explains why both of you came running to BOT and created new accounts to try and "calm" everyone down.

But now you're bitter because Fox is saying the opposite of what you've either reported or heard.

 

[def28]

The article states that the movie scored a 91. After the movie scored a 91, they did the reshoots to add more Cable and Domino. They then screened the version of the movie with Cable and Domino and it scored a 97. They then went to Dallas and screened two cuts of the movie with one scoring a 98 and the other scoring a 94. I am willing to bet the one that scored 94 was the original cut that score 91. And the 98 was the one that scored 97 in LA.

So they didn't add more screen time for anyone after the movie scored a 97. It was after the movie scored the 91. Which yea is a pretty good score but it's not a score that would guarantee a sure fire hit especially if you have the time to make it better, which at the time they did.

*And for what it's worth there are people on Letterboxd from the Dallas area who watched the film and have rated it a 4 and 4.5 stars out of 5.

They made a good movie...better.

Crazy how only 1 person is the source for all this negativity. The scores were high in the first place.

 

[StarLord]

So the new trailer info came from the Fox account on Weibo, which is China's version of Twitter.

Doesn't that mean it will just be an international trailer then?

 

[Anonymous1213]

They made a good movie...better.

Crazy how only 1 person is the source for all this negativity. The scores were high in the first place.

The source is actually in this thread.

And it's not unheard of for a studio to take a good movie, tweak it and make it better. In fact, that's what the best studios do.

 

[def28]

The person who saw it, or the person who knows someone who saw it?

...and I agree. Happenes with the majority of films.

 

[Anonymous1213]

The person who saw it, or the person who knows someone who saw it?

...and I agree. Happenes with the majority of films.

If I was a betting person, the person who saw it is in this thread. The person who tweeted out what they heard got their info from said person.

But irregardless, my problem is when people like that are very aggressive in trying to prove their right. Like no posting potential plot points 2 months before a movie is released isn't going to get you brownie points nor does it make me believe anything you're saying. In fact it makes you look insecure.

And with any film regardless of test scores, reviews whatever I'm still going to go and watch the film to form my own opinion.

You're not going to get movies like Black Panther without tweaking the film and making it the best possible. Heck there was a movie out last summer that premiered at SXSW to rave reviews and still had test screenings afterwards. It's also not unheard of for comedies to go through various test screenings to tweak jokes and move them around in order to get the best possible reaction. Sometimes a one second difference is the difference between a joke landing and a joke falling flat.

 

[ViewerAnon]

Serious question. Why do you want this film to fail so badly? Like what do you get out of it?

I don't want the film to fail. I don't have a stake in it.

I want people to use their brains. A studio's goal is to make money. You ideally do this by making a film that people enjoy. When you know they enjoy the film, you don't then reshoot huge chunks of it this close to release. Do you realize how much reshoots this late in the game cost?

If Deadpool 2 scored that highly that consistently, they would not be adding a week and a half of reshoots seven weeks before it hit theaters. It does not track. It has nothing to do with Deadpool 2 - it's basic logic. If they have a film they know people love, they have nothing to gain and are throwing money away.

Down to brass tax, the numbers are BS or reshoots ending March 29th is BS. They do not fit together.

Actually don't answer that. I have figured it out. You're either a). The person who told Jeremy Conrad the movie is bad or b). you heard from someone who said it was bad and passed along that info to him.

Am I also Robert Meyer Burnett and Mike Kalinowski?

We are legion.

Which probably explains why both of you came running to BOT and created new accounts to try and "calm" everyone down.

What definition of "calm everyone down" are you using? I specifically went to BOT and said reaction to the screening was not as bad as people were saying online, which is counter to Jeremy Conrad's posts.

But now you're bitter because Fox is saying the opposite of what you've either reported or heard.

I'm no more bitter than I was in the days leading up to Justice League's release, because I knew the evidence would bear out. I am definitely amused that Fox is scrambling.

Movies aren't sports. There's no point in rooting for or against them like a football team.