The average superhero movie has 3 - 5 times the budget than Deadpool.
Did you notice it was that much cheaper?
Same question for Dredd which only had a 35 million budget.
Well yeah, the action scenes and filming locations are far from as grandiose as they were in the likes of Doctor Strange, Avengers and Iron Man, so it speaks for itself that the budget is much smaller than the average superhero movie.
shareIf the joke about the studio not being able to afford another X-Men to appear in the movie wasn't any indication... :)
Now thanks to its massive success, the sequel will obviously have a much bigger budget. But I for one think this movie had the perfect look and effects for this character.
Yeah, it was pretty obvious that they couldn't afford more X-Men, an awesome fight sequence, or an impressive villain.
And while I do love a good big-budget movie, "The Avengers" was on tonight and there's just no substitute for an alien invasion that cost a fortune in CGI! But the fact is that if you have all CGI and no script then you've got nothing but a mess like "Batman vs. Superman", so I for one would be happy to see Marvel make some mid-budget movies in this mode, with more wit and less CGI spectacle. It'll be good for their writing.
Deadpool, while not being the best in class, surely was refreshing to have. Not being made by Disney's Marvel may actually be a blessing in disguise.
sharei did not notice.
deadpool has a different appeal than "regular" super hero movies, though.
Deadpool cost 58 million to make. A lot of rom-coms cost more than that (Julia Roberts and Richard Gere snorefest 'The Runaway Bride' cost 70 million). Deadpool looked very expensive in relation to it's budget. It was an incredible feat. Most action films twice the budget look less expensive and have less action and scale. I was very impressed.
I agree... that's why I posted this question... impressive.
shareAs for Dredd, that was also pretty impressive. But with Dredd you can clearly see where they cut corners. You can't with Deadpool. Dredd was a great film, but you can kind of feel it was cheap. Cheap but well made. Of course, Dredd is set in the far future, so they had a hard task and did very well under the circumstances. Being a fan of the comics when I was a kid, I was very grateful for what they did and it's a shame we're not getting a sequel as the film was merely the tip of the iceberg of what they could really do with Dredd's world.
shareSurely, this teaches us that when you have less money, you're forced to work much harder.
Look at Lucas and his cartoon prequels.
It doesn't just apply to money either. When Kristof Kislowski was in communist Poland, he was forced to find ways around the state censors and produced some great films. Then he went to France where he was free to do whatever he wanted and started churning out overblown farts.
With that in mind, I fear the sequel may be a disaster.
yeah im worried about the sequel becoming too ambitious
share