Fact of life: sometimes people have a weird predilection towards disliking something. Hell, speaking for myself, I have more irrational hatreds than a goose has honks. But sometimes, folks can't just admit they have an irrational hatred that defies reason - they'll try desperately to sway others to their way of thinking, citing facts that do nothing or grasping at analogous straws, just to make them seem as though their hatred is well-earned.
Well, we have just such an example courtesy of Jezebel, which is a bummer because we REALLY like that site and the bulk of content they churn out. In this particular instance, some writer has a bug up her ass about Ryan Reynolds, and it seems as though 'Deadpool' was the catalyst that sent her off to the edge. Let's break it down, shall we?
If you’ve managed to continue circulating air in and out of your lungs for the past year or so, you’re aware that Ryan Reynolds is starring in a humble film adaptation of a superhero comic book called Deadpool.
Hah! That's funny! "Year or so"!
Look, thousands of people -- Reynolds included -- have been hoping for this film for YEARS. The seed started germinating in 2004, when Deadpool co-creator Fabian Nicieza penned this panel...
...and were further stoked when Reynolds played Deadpool in the questionable-at-best Wolverine Origins flick. SCORES of people have not only been aware of this, but praying for this for far longer than you've had your dainty little eye on it.
The film finally opens in theaters tomorrow, meaning that we’re just weeks away from never having to see another fucking Deadpool billboard or tweet or commercial or bus sign or radio ad or blimp or smoke signal.
Oh - haha! Jokes again! You're commenting on one of the greatest film marketing jobs of all time! The one that's garnered national praise for its originality and humor - which Reynolds himself playing a huge part in! And if you don't believe me or the previous slew of links, check out marketing guru Eric Hultgren sing praises to the marketing.
A lot is riding on Deadpool to finally prove that Ryan Reynolds is the movie star that Hollywood has been trying to convince us he is. In a gesture of goodwill, the Washington Post is helping with the, “No Seriously, You Really Do Want to Pay Money to See This Ryan Reynolds Movie” Campaign with a piece titled “Why we root for Ryan Reynolds to succeed — despite his many failures.”
This rather presumptuous headline necessarily begs the question: Do we even root for Ryan Reynolds?
Yes, very much so. Especially in this particular film. The dude's heart and soul is in it.
Nothing about this man’s career makes him an underdog. He continues to land huge roles in expensive movies despite the fact that he has yet to prove that he’s truly a bankable movie star people want to see. Ryan Reynolds is a perfect illustration of the sham that is the Hollywood casting system.
Ryan Reynolds cannot open a movie; that is, putting Ryan Reynolds in the lead role of a movie does not guarantee that said movie will have a successful opening weekend and go on to be profitable.
Early in his film career, Reynolds did have some big films including National Lampoon’s Van Wilder and The Amityville Horror. As his career continued, he scored other hits, but I would argue that those successes were largely due to the fact that he starred alongside some of the biggest movie stars in the world likeSandra Bullock and Denzel Washington.
That's incredibly dumb. Although he has his fair share of turds, he's also pulled in some pretty damn good openings, and giving him credit for the failures and not successes seems like something someone with an irrational vendetta would do...
His turn as the Green Lantern resulted in the film barely breaking even at the box office. (Which is to say nothing of the massive advertising dollars spent promoting the film.)
No, that's actually wrong. Green Lantern was as pleasant as having a bucket of warm whale jizz poured into your open mouth, but it's because it was a collaborative effort of people shitting on what could have been an incredible movie. I mean, shit, they had Mark Strong as Sinestro for fuck's sake - how'd they screw THAT up?
There was something called R.I.P.D. which had a budget of $130 million and grossed just $78.3 million. The 2015 thriller Self/less was another flop grossing less than half of its $26 million budget.
Again, huge turds, but that can't be pinned solely on Reynolds. RIPD had Jeff Bridges, and Self/Less had Ben Kingsley - where's your scorn for them?
There are some actors who are given multiple chances, but generally they have a track record that makes those gambles sensible. Will Smith hasn’t had a hit movie in years, but he’s also Will fucking Smith. In leading roles, his films have grossed nearly $6 billion at the global box office and have an average gross of $123 million. While his choices have been confusing as of late, put him in a decently written action movie where he gets to shoot a gun and crack jokes and it’s probably going to make an enormous amount of money.
FUUUUUUUCK WILL SMITH. You want to talk about cherry-picking in this article? Look at Smith's biggest movies, look at his costars, and how big of budgets those films had. Look at the directors, the studios, the cinematography and writing! He plays one character (Will Smith) in every movie, and 'confusing as of late' can also be interpreted as 'hasn't had a good movie in about ten years.' Here's hoping that he doesn't cock up 'Suicide Squad.'
You know who else can open a movie? Kevin Hart, but I bet you won’t see him starring in a huge superhero film anytime soon. Hart, who has starred in fewer films than Reynolds, has a box office average that sits around $50 million—Reynolds is at about $43 million.
You go ahead and name me one superhero Kevin Hart can play in live-action.
Seriously, unless he can convince us he's teenaged Virgil 'Static Shock' Hawkins, you'd be hard-pressed to find a hero he can play. That's not a slam against his talent, it's just that there aren't a ton of tiny, high-pitched-voice heroes available who aren't CGI-animated squirrels; some people can convincingly play better superheroes than others.
Deadpool will likely do well. It’s getting good reviews, the competition looks weak and audiences are hungry for a new superhero blockbuster. Still, with the what had to be an ungodly amount of money spent on marketing, it’s hard to separate Reynolds’ natural draw from 20th Century Fox’s herculean push for a film that probably would have succeeded with any number of actors in the role.
No one else could play Deadpool like Reynolds. NO. ONE.
Ryan Reynolds illustrates that it’s not about being a truly great actor or a solid financial gamble, it’s about a group of studio executives and agents deciding that they want you to be a movie star.
Again, what? Do you need to look at his IMDB again? Dude's made some pretty bad movies, but he's also made some pretty damn good ones. You have absolutely no grounds to make this accusation, and again, it sounds like a baseless vendetta.
So don’t root for Ryan Reynolds—or do, I don’t care. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what any of us does because the fact that he’s even starring in Deadpool proves that your opinion and (lack of) financial support doesn’t really matter in the first place.
This was the god-damn-dumbest, most pointless article I've ever slogged though. Reynolds, Tim Miller, and Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick spent nearly 10 years trying to get this made, and they overcame a deluge of obstacles. The fact that the internet rallied and basically forced Fox to make this movie, and make it the way it had to be made, only serves to further dismiss this petty, irrational hate piece. And holy fuckwhistle, you DO care if people root for your nemesis - otherwise you wouldn't have wasted your life cobbling together nonsensical blurbs to form this F-grade persuasive writing assignment.
Also? It's now the highet-grossing R-rated opening of all time, obliterating the previous record, and looking like it's going to keep rolling at the box office during its time in theaters. THANKS TO RYAN REYNOLDS.