Last weekend I joined millions of people worldwide in helping “Deadpool & Wolverine” set records for the sixth-biggest film opening of all time. When my husband and our friends decided to make an outing of it, we didn’t see it in those terms.
We simply wanted to hang out, enjoy some laughs and take it in before social media and our news feed spoiled the surprises. And Ryan Reynolds’ fan service vehicle did not disappoint. Chock full of chuckles, the movie unites Reynolds’ Deadpool with his one-time "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" co-star Hugh Jackman to revive the clawed cigar aficionado, last seen in 2017’s “Logan,” the film that was meant to close the “Wolverine” trilogy.
“Deadpool & Wolverine” also pulls in threads from other “Avengers”-adjacent titles in the MCU, including the mostly forgettable “Fantastic Four” movies and TV's “Loki.” There’s a throwaway line from the villain that’s probably a tip of the hat to “She-Hulk,” fourth-wall-breaking jokes about Marvel heroes, and DC heroes, and a wink at Reynolds’ run of mediocre romantic comedies in the aughts.
You'll notice that I’ve said nothing about whether the tale or visuals are remarkable. Anyone who sits through the end credits of a franchise movie and gawks at screens filled with hundreds of names of special effects and visual effects crew knows most of the is digitally animated. That all but renders that second discussion pointless.
Like those visuals, the story’s engineering is extensive. “Deadpool & Wolverine” credits five writers, including Reynolds and director Shawn Levy, who have a knack for making the audience feel smart in the MCU definition of that term.
Acts are held together by a long chain of references to other superhero titles and real-world actors, their careers and gossip about their romantic lives. Knowing which studio owns the rights to each character’s cameo and which timelines are crossing is essential to appreciating the cleverness in its execution. It’s an easter egg hunt where the eggs litter an open field.
Beyond this, there isn’t much of an emotional point aside from Deadpool figuring out what it means to matter. For a film that delights in the moment but leaves little to nothing of a mark on the heart after you leave the theater that's . . . also kind of funny.
Should we expect a superhero movie to move us? Some did, once upon a time. Christopher Nolan’s “Batman” entries are a balanced mixture of atmosphere, performance and character depth that made the audience ache at the hero’s failings. It is not a coincidence Nolan is one of the few auteurs who can still get a major studio to produce, promote and release his movies which are decidedly not about men who fly or punch through buildings.
If he hadn’t proven himself in that arena, would he have gotten to make “Oppenheimer,” a major studio release with a specific, stimulating vision? On the flip side, would “Barbie” have gratified audiences as much as it did if the script hadn’t been conceived and evolved by Greta Gerwig and her partner Noah Baumbach, a pair of independent filmmakers?
Franchise mania has taken the blame for the decline of indie cinema and general originality, which isn’t unfounded. Out of the top 20 highest-earning movies of 2024 domestically, only three are not a sequel, an extension of an existing title or character, a la “The Garfield Movie” and “The Fall Guy” or a biopic. (Those three are “Civil War,” “IF” and “Migration.”)
An entire generation has never known a time without the MCU and its reliable narrative architecture.
Household economics play a role. Movies are no longer the relatively inexpensive outings, making known properties surer bets for studios wagering on moviegoers gravitating toward the recognizable. With 34 MCU films released over 16 years, it’s the most reliable brand around next to “Spider-Man” and “Star Wars.”
As demand for these movies exploded, their plots stagnated. Neither Deadpool nor Wolverine can be killed, which is the reason “Logan” was such a creative swing.
Audience demand made it inevitable that these two would return. Reuniting them is simply fun and simple math. But to quote one of cinema’s greatest auteurs, these details remove all sense of revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger, replacing them with cameos to set up the next title or “phase.”
“The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes,” Martin Scorsese wrote in a 2019 New York Times op-ed. “They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way.”
He continued, “That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.”
We need your help to stay independent
There may be no better proof of that than the MCU’s current runaway success – for now. Bigger news arrived last weekend at Comic-Con in San Diego, where Marvel revealed the studio’s redirection from the Kang the Conqueror chapters – tossed after Jonathan Majors’ conviction on reckless assault in the third degree and harassment late last year.
Robert Downey Jr. speaks onstage at the Marvel Studios Panel during 2024 Comic-Con International at San Diego Convention Center on July 27, 2024 in San Diego, California. (Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images)Its plan to take the Avengers into the future revolves around the resurrection of supervillain Doctor Doom — now played by Robert Downey Jr., whose portrayal of Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, led the “Avengers” films. Stark’s death in “Avengers: Endgame” was meant to end an era. Shifting his far to another character doesn’t feel like a refresh, but we’ll have to see: he’ll re-debut in 2026’s “Avengers: Doomsday” and return in 2027’s “Avengers: Secret Wars.”
I am a cinephile who loves devouring Turner Classic Movies on a rainy day. I am a Marvel fan, too. I am also a “Star Wars” fan and enjoy James Gunn’s interpretation of the DCU. And five years after Scorsese angered comic book movie true believers with his stand against the MCU and other IP-driven movies and TV series, I find myself agreeing with him more than ever.
Movies and TV are dominated by genre storytelling held together by formulaic writing that forgoes character development, mood setting and creative plotting. This has long been my problem with “House of the Dragon” – what is “Game of Thrones” if not the TV version of the MCU?
Like most comic book movies, the writers seem only obliged to ensure certain characters appear, operating on the assumption that audiences can refer to the source material or phone a friend who knows.
At least “Deadpool & Wolverine” is self-aware derivative cinema, effectively marketed over a period lasting almost two years. The return for that is impressive to put it mildly, earning more than $550 million worldwide in less than a week after its release, Variety reports. While it’s being praised for reviving both the MCU and a summertime box office that’s grown dependent on Marvel’s releases, you’ll have to forgive me for wondering if that hype is a bit premature.
Numbers don’t lie, and in an industry spooked by diminishing financial returns as streaming continues to upend conventional models, the numbers drive more decision-making than imagination.
“House of the Dragon” has spent two seasons maneuvering characters into place to ride said dragons without weaving emotional stakes or true individuality into their fabric. Such an estimation makes the Targaryen name the beast of burden hauling most of the narrative, which has so far amounted to half-empty crates.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
But what do I know? George R.R. Martin’s “Thrones” prequel is a huge hit for HBO and Warner Bros. Discovery’s streaming service Max. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is the highest-grossing movie franchise of all time, grossing nearly $30 billion worldwide.
My complaints may be mine alone, but I don’t think so. After all, we’ve all seen evidence of Marvel’s willingness to innovate. The success of “Deadpool & Wolverine” comes after a string of movies that struck out at the box office and low-performing TV series, some of which were perfectly entertaining and deserved more attention.
“WandaVision,” the MCU’s first foray into episodic content on Disney+, reached beyond the standard “save the planet” digital violence to explore the weirdness of grief and magical thinking. “Ms. Marvel” used its namesake hero’s origin story and adolescence to merge her teenage dreams with social media-inspired graphics and animation.
Regardless, some have theorized the issue is a matter of bloat, with Disney pushing for quantity of releases instead of holding out for quality.
But let’s not discount the impact 16 years of these movies dominating our cultural dialogue has had in recalibrating our definition of what movies can be. The target theatrical audience ranges between 14 to 34 years old.
That means an entire generation has never known a time without the MCU and its reliable narrative architecture, with its wash, rinse, repeat of clever rejoinders, conflict resolution through fist fights and celebrity cameos. It’s the stuff of popcorn binging and soda gulping, a classic summertime treat. I wouldn’t want a “Deadpool” movie to be otherwise. But I also want more from future efforts. A story with some weight and thought that it would be a good place to restart.
"Deadpool & Wolverine" is playing in theaters worldwide.
Read more
about this topic
Shares