TLDR; this isnt a post actually about Batman and especially not wolverine, instead it's about how there aren't enough short fighters and main characters/protagonists throughout media, how canonically and metacontextually ninja-inspired characters tend to rarely if ever truly be ninja or satisfy my yearning for ninjutsu.

With that said, I believe the best place to start is where my love of ninjas began: the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, their 87 and original live action incarnations specifically, which might sound like the punchline to a bad joke. How could these version of the characters, the least ninja inspire a love of ninjutsu? Well the answer to that is that they technically didn't, I just fell in love with the TMNT franchise as a little kid which meant any and every TMNT thing and show I could get my grubby hands on(yes even next mutation) I hungrily and happily watched until 2012, probably a month or two before my 7th birthday when I would get the best gift I could hope for that year, a brand new incarnation of my favorite foursome. So it is in 2012 where my love for ninjas began and this makes a bit more sense, no? While still not as Ninjas as 2003, or you know actual Ninja characters, TMNT 2012 is where many young boys like myself at the time fell in love with the idea of ancient, mystic, smart, yet strong and extremely skilled super duper powerful warriors. And I was hooked, from a TMNT obsession I quickly grew and developed an obsession with ninjutsu, which wasn't helped by discovering the Gaijin Goomba a year later, beginning my true ninja fandom. See this love for ninjas was no longer remotely attached to my four favorite turtles, I liked those characters because of their personalities and adventures, but as a true ninja nerd at this point and from then on they never really satisfied me.

Hell, when I went back and watched the extremely ninja iteration of the turtles from 2003 I was still not satisfied by the display of ninjutsu even though the show was good, same could be said for Rise, and Mutant Mayhem all good things and all good turtles media, but hardly a very fulfilling Ninja. Even Japanese versions of Ninja characters didn't quite scratch that itch as Naruto was a just alright shounen in my book, so I kept on consuming media, criticizing some of it, you know the drill until I decided enough of this pussy footing and waiting around. Why don't I just make a Ninja character of my own? I have a decade of ninja fanaticism under my belt, that many years of expertise, I had just recently watched Batman 2022, and I was researching dozens of fighting styles and whatnot. So, there I was about to make my own ninja character when I decided hey why not consume a bunch of batman projects and media to see if I can't get some hot nasty inspiration for this guy and that's where/when I do my Batman 2004 review, you get the idea I was once more scorned by a supposedly ninja character except this time I was a bit more fed up than usual. I mean Batman is supposed to be THE icon of western Ninjutsu, we literally have a whole squad of turtles who call themselves ninjas explicitly, trained by ninjas on screen, and whose main enemy is a ninja who leads a ninja clan, so why is it that he particularly offended me?

Batman is too damned tall and big to be a ninja, have you seen takes on Batman like the Absolute universe where the fucker is even fucking bigger yet still bothers to wear Black as if it is hiding anything. This is a major problem for the TMNT and their enemies too to be honest, all of these characters get way too big, the things they wear while effective for sneaking around today aren't historically accurate which means anytime these characters go to the past and fight ninjas, they are fighting bad Ninjas who are wearing Black in what should be a navy/dark blue sky. A lot of these characters use some absolutely terrible Ninja weapons like fucking Chinese glaives or whatever, those big fuck you swords, you know katanas already shouldn't technically be a part of a ninja's armory, but then Rise Leo uses a fucking nodachi. EVEN A LOT OF SAMURAI DIDNT USE NODACHI!!! Do you know how big you would have to be to use a nodachi like a regular katana or remotely efficiently enough to be remotely ninja and sneaky with it? Approximately 8 feet tall, and you might think that's ridiculous. However, Japanese people on average are shorter than 6 feet tall, especially in ancient times when the nodachi originated. It should only take one or two more feet to use one like a katana, right? WRONG! What people who don't know a lot about the nodachi fail to consider is its weight and the massive curve/bend in it, which makes using it for an unintended purpose practically fucking impossible.

Nunchucks are frequently listed as ninja weapons and whatnot, but as far as I can tell there is very little historical truth or precedent to this, it's just a trope and idea created/popularized by the TMNT, same kind of goes for sai as far as I can tell and know these two weapons are just popular, compact, martial arts weapons. While there certainly were Ninja who probably did use they, they aren't as represented among ninja ranks as you might want to believe, which is why I prefer when raph uses tonfas, tonfas are also underrated. Anyways, back to batman he particularly cheeses me off because this is a character that is so extremely well written and in terms of ninjutsu his implementation of tech makes him a perfect ninja, but this man has no tool kit outside of his utility tools and whatnot, sure he and especially the modern TMNT have been good about using good ninja claws(aka tiger claws) that assist them in climbing and shit, using gauntlets occasionally, but god I am starting to get sick of how these guys over rely on shurrikens for their ranges option. I get it, characters like Batman have to use shurrikens in order to stand out as a ninja and he's not allowed to use bows because other characters have that as their entire gimmick and kit, but jesus christ if I see another forced batman shuriken instead of a regular old, perfectly ninja batarang I will lose it. And yes while Ninja didn't use boomerangs, if they could make ones as effective and powerful as the ones that Batman is known for they would just use them, likely over shurikens due to how easy it is to collect them. I also just think Batarangs make more sense for batman's character, shurikens, and kunai(which are woefully underrepresented among ALL western ninjas) are deadly weapons even if you throw them in places that are nonlethal because if some dumbass pulls them out they just cooked themselves.

Now, while we're back to Batman I get it okay, I know why this character cant be and wont ever be portrayed as short, he's kind of famous for having kid/teen side kicks, he's one of the most popular super heroes, so many of his villains are the average American height and even taller some times, and Superman one of the other DC characters who Batman is frequently compared to in and out of canon is 6 ft tall and sometimes even taller, isn't Henry Cavil like 6'3, he's like a head taller than Michael keaton I think. So yeah it's a pipe dream and hyper specific request to demand Batman be short, DareDevil less so. I genuinely, sincerely believe DareDevil to be the best western Ninja character for one extremely simple reason, that man's pain tolerance, and the amount of suffering he endures both in and out of the mask are sometimes leagues above his contemporaries. Batman, the turtles, so many other ninja can be broken and it makes sense IRL the whole point of Ninjutsu tactics and whatnot is the complete opposite of being one man armies, as a Ninja you are supposed to work with a four person Squad(mainly) and you are supposed to avoid fights. Even the attention of one Samurai in a prolonged fight is end game for a ninja, I mean the point of short, easily transportable weapons is to be great assassins and sneak fighters which ninjas are, but the second you put them in a head to head fight against even a single combatant, those martal arts/ninja weapons we were talking about earlier lose their advantage, so when you give them oodles and oodles of opponents they slowly lose that advantage.

Which is why I like DareDevil, he is a sadiomasochist a man who is equal parts happy and wanting to drag himself over hot coals, broken glass, and freshly squeezed lemon juice just so he can deal out some punishment and save people and a character who likes and intelligently tackles an army of goons. Compare his tactics to Batman and the turtles and very swiftly you'll see Batman and the turtles have the absolutely massive advantage of being super humans basically. Batman and the turtles are frequently, practically bulletproof, with one swing the turtles can send one guy flying into a dozen other guys, and with all of his tech and gear batman can essentially do the exact same thing even if he isn't as strong as the turtles sometimes. DareDevil even though if I remember correctly, he is considered a mutate, as in the same thing or a similar thing to the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man, so at the very least he is peak human which as we can see with Batman that's a title that can get stretched pretty far, but in the sole piece of Daredevil media I've consumed: his tv show he's barely peak human, he is on the very low and shallow side of the peak human spectrum. So for DareDevil to clear a hallway of dickheads it takes him a good five minutes or so, whereas for Batman and the Turltles we would just skip the fight and see them instantly bust through the door on the other side, which let me say here not a bad thing. It might sound like I am shitting on Batman and the turles, but I love these guys especially the TMNT, I just find it a little annoying as a ninja guy. Anyhow, yeah Marvel make A DareDevil a short king, just for an elseworld story, or in the Ultimate universe or something, please I think this character who already has so many hurdles to overcome and deal with whenever he wears the mask so it would be even cooler and more effective if he was a short king who had an even harder time to stand toe to toe with the likes of Wilson Fisk and his other villains.

Actually fuck it, more short kings in action media in general and no Ted "Mission Impossible" Cruise does not count because I've never watched those movies and I don't think many people know how short Ted Cruise is. Anyways, if you've read this far and now confidently think I am insane for complaining about this thank you and if you wanna know how I designed my Ninja OC I referenced earlier I might describe in comments, but you know I don't think it's important enough to elaborate on it in the post.

The only argument that Wonder women should be on there is that she is the first female hero. That's it.

Wolverine sells more, is more liked, is more well known, represents the X men, one of if not the most famous "hero" team.

Also it would be two dc heroes and two marvel heroes.

Wolverine carried hard between 1990 to 2010. Wonder women only slightly got a resurgence after her movie.

Also stupid error in the title, it should be superheroes.

The third act of the film has out titular heroes assisted by Blade, Elektra, and Gambit, alongside x-23 in the final stretch of the film. Not just those characters, but the actors who once portrayed them from the films (and on one cast an actor casted to be a character but whom never got that chance. Of all cameos Deadpool made in its films these are the best used because of their significance to the themes of the film, representations of an era people would rather pretend didn't exist anymore.

But no, this film brings them back for one last chance to actually be cool, and it was the most satisfying heroes team up fight I've seen in film in a very long time. And when the credits role, we see highlight reels of the making of past X-Men films to give a sincere goodbye to films that for those of use who were there was our crop of comic book adaptations to fawn over and love, or good or ill.

I think no-kill rules are a very good idea. In fact, I happen to have one myself. Yet the fact that the likes of Batman and Spider-Man have them is a source of near-endless debate among comic book readers and authors alike, with entire characters like the Punisher and the Red Hood existing essentially just to challenge the idea of having a no-kill rule. There are even those who take the position that such characters are "right" and in fact morally superior to their no-killing counterparts.

However, I don't think this is because no-killing rules are actually a bad idea, but moreso because comic books tend not to make a very good case against killing people. In the comics I have read, at least, the argument against killing supervillains/criminals tends to boil down to "everyone deserves a chance at redemption" or "we're supposed to be better than them". These arguments aren't wrong, per se, but they're very focused on the morality of the individual characters involved rather than what the consequences of killing the person will be.

Ignoring the consequences makes the arguments feel unconvincing because the most obvious consequence is that the supervillain/criminal will be dead, and thus no longer able to commit wanton acts of violence and destruction. But other, more negative consequences do in fact exist; you just don't see them very often* in comics.

Where are the comics in which the Red Hood kills a prominent supervillain, only for Gotham City to become even more dangerous because the remaining supervillains now refuse to surrender under any circumstances since doing so could mean death? Or comics where a vengeance-crazed Wolverine kills a member of an anti-mutant organization, causing the X-Men to be unable to track down the rest of the group because their only potential source of information is dead?

How about a story where the Punisher gets a tip about a vicious criminal, so he goes and guns him down, only for it to turn out the man was completely innocent and the person who gave him the tip just had a bone to pick with him? How about a story where the Punisher kills someone who's completely guilty, but his brutal and sudden death sends his wife into a depressive spiral that gets her fired from her job and now she can't support her children? And even though the guy was a criminal, all the regular, law-abiding citizens are terrified too, because who's to say the Punisher won't make a mistake next time?

All this isn't to say that killing people is "objectively" always wrong. You could still argue that certain people are bad enough that killing them is better than the alternative. But if the potential negative consequences of doing so aren't acknowledged, the debate seems a lot more one-sided than it actually is.

*Given how many comic books there have been, I'm sure some do in fact exist where one or more of the things I discuss happen and probably some where another negative consequence I didn't think of happens. I'm speaking generally about what I see most often in both comic books and comic book discussions.

A few years ago the official US government policy was to either drive the mutants off the planet or send them to concentration camps using giant genocide robots. Every American law enforcement agency was collaborating with Orchis, a rabidly anti-mutant hate group that almost ended the world via construction of evil robots. Xavier's mansion has turned into a prison that brainwashes innocent mutants into self-hating henchmen. Government agencies form covert death squads that ambush mutants in their homes. What do the heroes do about this?

Nothing, essentially. This makes all the other heroes seem like jerks, if they're just standing by while concentration camps are being built. If Spider-Man is attending ESU while one building away the science department is researching genocidal weapons then Spider-Man seems like a terrible guy. Meanwhile, the mutants seem absurdly passive for not doing anything about this. "Oh no, Joe Biden is sending robots to kill my family, I guess this is going to make me feel bad when I vote for him again".

"When the villain has an understandable reason to hate the hero, but they choose to act in the most destructive way possible: Lex Luthor (DC) believes the existence of one all mighty figure will build complacency in humanity and undermine societal innovation brought by self reliance, but he also has a massive savior complex and believes he should be at the forefront of innovation." - Some Guy

Brother in Christ, that's not true. It's not an "understandable reason" if it has absolutely no basis in reality. At that point, you're just saying that if a villain can articulate sentences, they are understandable. I'd rather you say Killmonger and Magneto have points - at least racism against Black people and the Holocaust are real things in their stories.

There is no such thing as humanity complacency and reliance on Superman!

I genuinely don't understand people who think that Lex's argument that he's fighting for self-reliance against Superman makes sense. Superman never reverse engineered Kryptonian technology for Earth. He's not the key to sustainable world energy. The DC Universe doesn't officially having him be a key player in any big historical events or wars, not like how Marvel has Namor, Wolverine, Captain America, Bucky, and the original Human Torch and Nick Fury being WWII veterans. (Individual DC comics and movies have taken place during big cultural moments in the real world, but that's not canon to any continuality to the DC comics I've ever known, and even then, the first movie that comes to mind to me, Justice League: The New Frontier, had Supes scared to do anything too political and Diana calling him out on that.)

You wouldn't even say that Superman, as an alien, represents humanity to the intergalactic or multiverse community - you'd point to Wonder Woman, the Flash, and Green Lantern as speaking on Earth's behalf more than you'd think of Superman. The only exceptions I can think of are when aliens are drawn to Superman, but those are usually stand-alone stories, comics, and shows that don't feature other heroes and Clark is only speaking on Earth's behalf because the plot needs to wrap up in one episode. Not because its something he wants to do or that mankind knows he's doing it for them.

Superman has nothing in the DC Universe except cultural power. Like a constitutional monarch, ALL he has is the good will of the people (which is why so many of his stories explore that dynamic). It is IMMENSE AND INESCAPABLE cultural power. But that's it.

And do you know why that pisses off Lex Luthor? Because Lex has political, economic, cultural, and scientific power, in greater abundance than only a handful of other humans on this planet, making Superman the ONLY person in the world with the cheek, the nerve, the gall, the audacity and the gumption to arrest Lex if he does something wrong.

Because "Superman" doesn't have a home Lex can make unsafe. "Superman" doesn't have loved ones Lex can threaten. "Superman" doesn't have a career Lex can ruin. And it takes billions of dollars just to make one bullet that can hurt him.

Jesus, you can't even say that for most other JL members. Even if Lex doesn't know their identities, most human members still have a home. If, in story, you asked "Kal-El, the alien" where he lived, he'd smirk and say that he lives in the Arctic fucking Circle.

STOP FALLING FOR THE BULLSHIT that Lex has has ANY rational, reasonable, understandable motive for hating Superman. He just doesn't like being told what to do. Which is only rational to a toddler. Lex believes he is above the law and beyond human decency and it angers him like nothing else that Kal-El, this creature that actually is above and beyond humanity, can stare him down from 25 miles away, speed up to him, pick him up and - like a momma cat grabbing the scruff - shake him for being bad.

And that's humiliating.

But he can't say that, so he says he's a man of the people, fighting against humanity's overreliance on the super-being.

Even using the most circular logic argument that Lex believes himself and therefore that makes it more understandable because it's his perspective is sus, fam. Smooth brain logic there. It's entirely author and reader interpretation that he actually believes it. Many writers over the years have written Lex as either knowing what he's saying is bullshit or having a David-and-Goliath complex. So, to that point, you'd just be saying that Lex being mentally ill makes him understandable.

Because there is NO factual, actual reality to Lex's claim at all. Unlike Batman, Iron Man, and Mr. Fantastic, who own conglomerates and foundations that affect the world's development; Unlike Aquaman, Black Panther, Thor, and Namor, who are political and military rulers simply also willing to get their hands dirty; unlike the X-Men, Wonder Woman, and Luke Cage who use their cultural capital to be activists, ambassadors, and policy-makers.

Superman intentionally avoids using his persona to do ANY of that. He WANTS to enjoy the anonymity that leading two lives provides - if he does anything of substance, it will be as journalist Clark Kent. Lex paid someone to find out Superman's identity and when they accurately pointed to Clark Kent, Lex took one look at Clark Kent's discount suit and mediocre apartment and said, "That's a corn-fed All-American yokel from Kansas, not the most powerful man on Earth" and destroyed the investigator's career for wasting his time.

Don't you ever in your life say that anything Lex Luthor does is "understandable." Lex doesn't even really have a savior complex! Three different comic stories have had that man cure cancer to SPITE people. When no one was looking, Lex Luthor stole forty cakes. He stole 40 cakes! That's as many as four tens! And that's terrible!

(Rant over, who is looking forward to the new Superman movie? I'm so excited for Nicholas Hoult, I'm chomping at the bit.)

You probably saw this argument being made if you saw any discussion about Wolverine's height after the movie came out: "Short Wolverine works in the comics, but doesn't work in movies, Deadpool 3 proves it."

There's so much stuff wrong with that point that I don't know where to start. But some point must be made first.

This rant is not about the height of Wolverine, but to show how this argument makes no sense and how it effectively has no thought behind it, but to evidence this, a quick paragraph explaining Wolverine's height is important:

Wolverine's name comes from the animal of the same name, a rather small animal capable of preying on bigger animals. A very ferocious creature. Wolverine is just like a wolverine. Small, ferocious, and takes down bigger creatures, like Wolverine facing off Hulk. In the comics we often see Wolverine just quietly in a bar being underestimated due to his height. They often call him "runt". The result is Wolverine cuts them.

Understanding that, one thing already enters in question about the "doesn't work" argument. What doesn't work? Wolverine was designed to be underestimated and then show his ferocity besides his size. What people that make this argument think Wolverine is the screen is supposed to look like?

Wait, there's more. That scene is not an honest scene. Movie magic works there to make a short Wolverine into a joke. People that make this arguments ignore camera angles, effects, the scenario, the extras and that:

The body double for "comic accurate" Wolverine is 4'11"/1,50cm. While Wolverine is 5'3"/1,60cm.

This part can be skipped due to being a little bit off-track: Can it really be called comic accurate? See, if we got a recurring 1,50 Wolverine, we would probably call it comic accurate in relation to his height right? Even tho it's not exact and it's more than 5cm off. But I think for the context of this movie, it's insincere to call him comic accurate. For an one-off appearance, that the character is called comic accurate in relation to 1 specific characteristic, there's no reason not to get body double with the same height or roughly it. For a cast, we understand the demands are more complicated, and that somethings may be off due to all the different things that must be attended for such a role. So for a long lastign actor with that height, sure we would say he's comic accurate as far as being short. But Deadpool 3 does this as a joke, and not due to not being reasonable to restrict the height of who they would cast for a body double more. Do you agree with this? I do already have some counter points against this, because this is really something I'm questioning, can it really be called comic accurate?

With that the movie exaggerated his height for comedic effect. And it would be no problem at all if they brought a 1,50cm Wolverine to the screen, but they did that for a cheap joke.

Here's another thing you notice at the scene with Wolverines from the multiverse: Deadpool gets cut violently by all of them, except the one in the cross and "comic accurate" Wolverine.

Remember X-23 in Logan? https://giphy.com/gifs/xUA7bcVA6VKDBoBmtG . That's Wolverine. It works when they want to work don't they. Did you know that Dafne Keen is 1,60 currently? Did she look off in Deadpool 3?

The scene with "comic accurate" Wolverine was designed with ill-intent. To convince people that a short Wolverine wouldn't work. They do that by getting a body double shorter than Wolverine(and who knows what other tricks they do in that scene that we don't know about), getting him to be the only Wolverine that doesn't cut the shit out of Deadpool. Well, I think the crucified Wolverine didn't get to do that too(correct me if I'm wrong), guess a short Wolverine is as powerless as a crucified Wolverine. That's the message they were trying to send I believe.

I guess the creators of the movie, and those that use the "doesn't work" argument all are just like the guys that underestimate Wolverine in the comics because of his height.

EDIT: Other thing in question is, a common argument is that a short man with his body is impossible. And I think like, so the solution is to stick with a tall man and lose the core of the character? Is this body type more important than his height? No, right? The height has much more meaning than whether or not he weights 195lbs(without adamantium). Ok, stop here, not going to get into he doesn't need to be so big(muscle wise) and talking about gymnasts like Arthur Zanetti for big in muscle and being short. It's being the main point of the rant. But it's kinda hard to to mention it.

Wolverine’s costume exploding to reveal Hugh Jackman’s hairy abs is hilarious. And I’m sure there’s no reason to include this moment other than for cheap humour. Logan explains the suit is the only thing that ties him to the memories of his tragic past, and wearing it is the only way he can honour them. I was bummed this important piece of clothing just burns away for a comedic moment. Then I thought about it.

So in that moment he steps up to be the hero he always was, the suit breaks apart, redeeming him of his past sins and letting him start from a blank slate in a new universe. He doesn’t need that suit to honour his fallen comrades anymore, and in this new life he finds a family in DP and Laura.

I know what I said is a bunch of bullshit. But I found it funny how there were so many unserious moments that interrupted the plot. This one coincidentally drove the story forward.

I know he’s the farthest thing from the comics, but he’s still my favorite Marvel character. And honestly? It’s because the comic version and the 2016 movie version too is kind of annoying to me.

He never stops talking, every moment has to be a joke, and it just gets tiring. I get that people love that side of him, but for me, it’s too much. The Origins version might not be comic accurate, but he feels like what Deadpool originally was supposed to be. If you go back to his first few issues, he was a serious, skilled mercenary. Yeah, he had some humor, but it was toned down he wasn’t this constant stream of sarcasm and pop culture references.

I actually liked that the Origins version was quiet, efficient, and genuinely intimidating. The design was cool, the powers were over the top in a fun way, and he felt like a real threat. People gave it too much hate just because it wasn’t the Deadpool they were used to. But that’s the version I prefer. Calm, deadly, and not constantly trying to be funny.

I believe there is a Deadpool one, a Wolverine one, and a Punisher one. I just don’t care for or enjoy these comics, they read like edgy slop fan fiction and I don’t see why I would want to watch all of my favorite characters- children included get brutally and unceremoniously murdered.

The same applies to comics like “The Batman Who Laughs” it’s just more ammunition for annoying powerscalers and people who watch TikTok’s about comics instead of actually reading them. Same for Injustice.

True, he wasn't as popular as Spider-Man or Wolverine, but a C-lister? Really? Lets see:

He was one of the two protagonists of Civil War, two full years before the first Iron Man movie came out.

He had his own animated series.

He was a founding member of the Avengers, and was its leader at several points.

Multiple crisis events have had him as an important part.

His solo runs were in the top 10 best sellers during the 80s.

I could go on. Point is, he was never a C-lister. Just because he wasn't as popular before RDJ played him doesn't make him a C-lister. Like, by that logic Wonder Woman is a C-lister because she isn't quite as popular as Batman or Superman.

I’m going to give my fresh thoughts on the film after seeing it last night, and there will be spoilers below. Without giving anything away, I can safely say that this movie officially makes dunking on the MCU a mainstream position and would recommend seeing it for that aspect alone.

This is one of the rare occasions in a modern superhero movie where it did the multidimensional concept somewhat justice by actually utilizing the characters to their fullest and not just having them be included to hype up a major threat or to nostalgia bait. We see a lot of celebrities unexpectedly reprising their roles from not only the X-Men franchise, but other pre-MCU movies as well such as Jennifer Garner as Elektra, Wesley Snipes as Blade, and even Channing Tatum as Gambit whose entire arc is about how his Gambit movie never came out. There's even a bunch of fodder variants of villains from 00's capeshit including The Russian, Bullseye, Azazel, Toad, Juggernaut, Psylocke and Lady Deathstrike all played by extras. When asked how the heroes ended up in the movie’s setting, they tell them that the TVA (which serves as a stand-in for Disney) grabbed them and said their worlds were ending. The canon ending to all of the FOX stuff like Daredevil, X-Men, Punisher, and Fantastic Four is that eventually a time traveling multiverse person showed up and banished them to a desert where they would eventually be eaten by a 500 foot tall lion made of fire and the entire conflict of the movie is Deadpool trying not to end up in their situation. It’s funny yet also poignant in a way.

Wesley Snipes returning as Blade is especially funny to me because of the current day context of the new Blade movie taking such an unbelievably long time to release.

Originally I was worried that having Hugh Jackman return as Wolverine would sour Logan (2017) which served as a satisfying conclusion to this version of the character, but it thankfully didn’t. It actually used him and Dafne Keen (who also returns as Laura) pretty effectively, but there were still some hiccups. Wolverine’s whole reason for being in this adventure in the movie is the hope that he can reverse the bad ending of his world. But in the end, some literal who tells him that if they change his world using time hijinks, then he won’t be the man he is now. Despite undoing that mistake being such a big motivation for him, he doesn’t really react, other than move his eyebrows. For some reason he didnt seem to really mind, but in every other scene he seethes over it. He just gets put with Laura in the end and the film just hopes you don’t notice. It just seems like a pretty out of character thing for him considering the lengths he was willing to go in Days of Future Past to stop the apocalyptic future from happening. In terms of performance Jackman delivers possibly the most generic performance of Wolverine, but he at least redeemed himself with his Honda rant.

The biggest selling point for me throughout was that It had somewhat of a middle finger towards the MCU which I enjoyed a lot considering the quality of their films have really fallen off. A key element of the movie was the whole "keep your timeline alive" or "join the MCU". And Deadpool fought for the former, NOT the latter. Even the choice to have X-23 reunite with a "younger" version of the deadbeat Logan was part of the idea of having "a happy ending for the Fox Marvel".

But you might be wondering why couldn’t these characters be apart of the MCU?Wouldn't people want to see Deadpool in the Avengers? Well, and I mentioned this before - the MCU is not doing so hot. You have movies continuing to come out, but the general consensus is that the MCU pretty much ended with Endgame and has struggled to justify its existence afterwards. BUT, and at the same time - nobody likes "killing off universes". And that was overall the point of "this" movie. A more cynical approach to crossovers would be to kill off the Fox MCU for the sake of putting Deadpool in the MCU. But Deadpool is fighting to keep Fox MCU alive. Why? Well, for the same reason why alternate Spider-Man’s existed in No Way Home. Aside from the nostalgia factor, people just dont want to see things die needlessly. Even as a joke. So even having "one" living Wolverine, or even teasing Cavill Wolverine, helps give that hope that some form of the FoxMCU still exists.

There's a moment near the climax where the movie literally stops, Deadpool looks at the screen and starts talking about how tiring and boring the Multiverse has gotten, how Disney has had nothing but misses since Endgame, and how sad it is that they had to bring back a nearly 60 year old Hugh Jackman to try and salvage the franchise. The movie literally starts with him desecrating the body of Logan, literally and figuratively undoing perhaps the best superhero send-off ever, just to try and milk more money off of Logan's body. In that sense I would argue that it is VERY well written as far as deconstructing the modern obsession with cinematic nostalgia and how some things aren’t worth being unearthed.

Despite talking shit about the franchise it probably has the most respect and love put into it out of any modern superhero movie in nearly a decade. It lacked cynicism and was weirdly optimistic. I was dreading them humilliating Blade and Elektra and Gambit, but they were pretty respectful with them. People will pearl-clutch over Logan’s grave being desecrated while ignoring that you were supposed to find that distasteful. What I’m bothered by more are the plot holes.

While I enjoyed her as a villain (I honestly had no idea bald women could be this hot) Cassandra was clearly more powerful than Wade and Logan but loses simply because of plot armor and plot-induced stupidity. She showcases telekinetic abilities capable of snapping necks or just ripping people’s skin off, but when she encounters a main character all she can do is rag doll them by tossing them around a little.

They also use the broken multiverse logic of the MCU with the TVA which actively hinders everything. For instance it contradicted previously established rules on sling rings which can now make a portal both through time and to parallel universes. As established in Loki, The Void is actually the very end of time itself in the sacred timeline, with Aboleth consuming the universe and all existence, but the TVA uses this fact as a convenient dumping ground for everything since it cannot affect anything and will be inevitably destroyed. So when Nova uses the sling ring, she is making a portal through time, somewhere in the past and we know this because the void is the far far future, the end of time. On top of this, this isn't the end of time for every universe but instead of the sacred timeline universe. So on top of time travel, the portal moves to alternate universes since the Deadpool universe is not the sacred timeline. This is in stark contridiction to how Doctor Strange did this sort of thing which only allowed time travel with the time stone and forbade universe hopping outside of America's power and dreamwalking, both of which isn't done with a sling ring.

Another plot hole I noticed was how Deadpool was able to visit the sacred timeline but only has time travel at his disposal. I think this has to be technically possible because he can just shuffle through time and just got off on the various spliting events to eventually end up in the sacred timeline, however this seems like an awful amount of figuring out considering he has no TVA tech when he does this.

Another thing is that a lot of the characters don’t really have any clear motivation. The TVA guy wants to kill the timeline...just because! Deadpool's girlfriend leaves him because...he wouldn't let her share in his feelings of being inadequate? I guess? Never really explained, he just needs to win her back. Wolverine is sad because he vaguely thinks it’s his fault the x-men died and then he killed a bunch of humans (as if Logan Wolverine hadn't killed a bunch of humans as well and didnt become a bitch about it). The TVA put Cassandra in the void because...just because. In fact they put everyone in the void just because, there is no clear reason why they go there and arent killed or destroyed instead. Cassanda does a face turn and then heel turn again and decides to destroy all timelines....just because! The Deadpool corps are bad and crazy....just because! If you ask why the majority of characters are doing what they’re doing you just draw blanks.

Even though this is the supposed end of the trilogy, it felt like there was no proper closure. After all the crazy shit they just go back to eat, and again showing the DP team at his door at the end would've been a nice way to end it properly, or Cassandra surviving and appearing in front of Xavier's school, etc not a commercial for a direct sequel but showing a little bit to make the ending interesting. The last part of the movie remains the weakest for me, including the DP corps fight. That entire segment just felt stupid and unnecessary.

Again, the main appeal is the meta fuck you to Disney in its handling of the MCU. They thought the multiverse excuse was a safety net. Instead it is strangling them and dragging them to the bottom. The sentiment that you can kill a character and bring another one back from some other universe is just silly and is a testament to how poor the writers are specially when it comes to creating a cohesive story that runs across multiple movies. Calling it out on that front was nice, but the story otherwise was okay and could have been done better. But it at least wasn’t a desecration.

With the first Deadpool it was pretty fun to finally see Deadpool on the big screen and it introduced some new fun characters and cool action scenes. Other than that it was a pretty straightforward serviceable action movie.

Deadpool 2 was a certified filler movie, and the only memorable part for me was the drawn out death scene at the end. No real need for me to ever watch it again honestly.

With Deadpool 3 we get fan service with purpose and cameos, at least making it fun again. It was schlocky but fun.

What are all of your thoughts about the movie?

That title’s probably a bit inflammatory for X-Men fans. I want to make two things clear.

1) This is about the movies.

2) I’m not saying that they suck in general. This is primarily about the Cyclops, Jean and Wolverine trio.

Theres been a consistent narrative over the past 2 decades that Cyclops was a d-bag. That’s sort of true in the comics. He has many flaws... although so do a lot of other characters. But in the movies, he’s more of a straight edge good guy. Let’s look over the relationship between Cyclops and Wolverine.

• It’s starts with Wolverine and Rogue getting attacked by Sabretooth and Toad. Cyclops saves Logan’s life.
• He’s later formally introduced to Logan. Scott puts out his hand to shake Wolverine’s and he out right refuses. I don’t know. Maybe he’s a germaphobe or something. He then goes on to threaten to beat Cyclops up. Cyclops doesn’t try to fight back. He just looks to the Professor and asks for an intervention.
• Wolverine later flirts with Jean Grey. He knows full well that she’s dating (or married?) to Cyclops. He just doesn’t care. Jean doesn’t draw a clear boundary here, which is why she also sucks.
• Rogue runs away and Wolverine steals Cyclops’ motorcycle. Iirc, he also trashes it.
• Wolverine sets off the metal detector and then flips off Cyclops with his claw.
• Wolverine is later believed to be Mystique in disguise. He proves that he’s the real one by calling Cyclops a dick. These last two are relatively minor, but Cyclops really hasn’t done anything for people to dislike him aside from cockblock Wolverine from stealing his girlfriend.
• Wolferine ends the movie by stealing Wolverine’s bike again.
• In the second movie, Wolverine returns and almost immediately starts trying to fizz up Cyclops’ girlfriend. Cyclops asks if he found what he was looking for. Wolverine tells him that his bike needs gas and Cyke tells him to fill it up.
• Wolverine again flirts with Jean Grey while Cyclops is MIA. Jean tells him that girls flirt with the dangerous guys and marry the good ones. She’s clearly thinking about leaving that dork Scott Summers for Wolverine. More evidence that she kind of sucks and Cyclops deserves better.
• he then tries to sleep with her, although it turns out to be Mystique in disguise.
• Jean seemingly dies and Cyclops is torn up over it. Utterly destroyed. Wolverine is sad at first, but he moves forward anyways. In his defense, he does cover for Cyclops missing out on a danger room session and tries to console him over Jean. But by that point I think there’s just too much bad blood and Cyclops pushes him away.

The most twisted part of all this is that the movie frames things in a way that makes it clear that they want us to root for Wolverine to destroy Cyclops’ relationship. And yet for some reason, the narrative coming out of this movie is that Cyclops was a jerk (for some people). Cyclops deserves better. Wolverine and Jean both sucked in this specific area. But it could be worse. She could have been the Raimiverse Mary Jane.

When Mount Rushmore was created, there were four presidents specifically chosen:

1. George Washington
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. Abraham Lincoln
4. Theodore Roosevelt

These presidents were not solely chosen based on their popularity, but what they meant for the history of the United States

1. Washington represented the birth and creation of the United States
2. Jefferson represented the Louisiana purchase, and how it signified the States beginning to expand
3. Lincoln represented the civil war, the bloodiest battle in the history of the USA, and how the nation held itself together
4. And finally, Roosevelt represented the industrial revolution and how it contributed to the US becoming the global superpower it is now

so while these are very well known presidents, their faces are carved on the mountain for representation, not popularity.

This is relevant to today where some individuals make their own Mount Rushmore on other niches (companies, pop-culture etc). The issue with this is that sometimes the choices seem to be soley on (current) popularity. Such as a Mount Rushmore of female artists being Taylor Swift, Sabrina Carpenter, Ariana Grande, and Billie Eilish. not only are those four artists in the same time period, they also roughly fit in the same genre, they don't really represent different things. This does seem a bit nit-picky, but I think the original prompt for Mount Rushmore really interesting, and I really hate to see it devolve into another half-baked popularity contest.

TLDR: Mount Rushmore should be about what the figures represent in their field, looking beyond just their popularity.

I cannot even begin to tell you how many times I have seen corrupt Christian’s in fiction. It’s to the point where every time a “Christian” character is introduced I automatically think they are evil because that is all we have gotten in fiction recent or otherwise

I understand why that is, corrupt morally decadent Christian’s are very common now a days. I mean how many times has the chief “Pope” of Catholicism turned out to be a kid diddler? All noticeable behavior from Christian’s only enters the public sphere when a Christian dose something bad. Which had jaded peoples opinions towards us. So as a Christian myself I can understand why it is the way it is.

However a true born and breed believer can be identified by his works not his words. A real Christian lives his life the way the Bible tells us to and dose not engage in the same behaviors everyone else dose. Honest to god, I would love to have a good believer enter the fictional lexicon. The only one that comes to mind is Kurt Wagner (night crawler) from the 70’s X-men and the TV show in the 90’s. That man was something else. He strait up converted Wolverine on screen which is more than I have ever seen in my lifetime from general fiction.

There’s nothing wrong with men expressing femininity and being vulnerable or what some would call those type of guys metrosexul like in sitcoms Phil from modern family or Hal from Malcom but the way gay guys are written is extremely obnoxious their never written a regular guys with individual personalities like Peter Parker, tony stark, John McClain or as rugged and mean as Wolverine or some Jason statham character even as the goofy lovable father Always gotta make gay references to being gay and lady gags, Britney every 5 mins or be the helpless victim in a fight and never learn to stand up for himself just waiting for the snarky/sassy Madonna chick to come save his cry baby ass.

I love comics and I'm a Marvel megafan especially of the X-Men but by God the status Quo is killing things. Nothing ever really changes permanently after so many stories and the characters never change either.

Lets take X-Men for example almost a majority of its stories are still centered around the same 10 or clasic characters that got really popular in the 80s/90s. Now I love me some Classic characters I'm a big wolverine and storm and prof X etc fan don't get me wrong but sometimes these characters need to actually die and stay dead or to actually age and settle down somewhere with a family or not but actually let the new generation of characters start to take over ,shine and do their own thing.

No more floating timeliness let stuff actually play out let characters age and get old and the only ones not or older characters sticking around should have an actual reason to still be there like wolverine and sabertooths healing factors or magnetos and Charles various de aging. Let the older characters retire or actually be left alone for a bit and actually try to use all the newer or younger characters that have been introduced over the years. Let the new mutants and academy X kids actually have characters arcs and storylines and actually grow into their own popular characters.

Stop soft rebooting stuff or just ignoring lore an prior events like they didn't happen or never allowing stories and events to actually change the internal world of the comics. Like characters will keep doing the same things over and over again. Allow the world to move forward. Show technology advancing. Stop blowing up or taking over the school. Stop revving every dead character. like the shiar practically murdered Jean's whole family tree and it's just kinda ignored.

Pre-Clarification: I’ve wanted to do Rants before, but never have, so please do forgive me if this isn’t properly formatted for the sub.

I just saw Deadpool & Wolverine last night, and while the movie was absolutely incredible (with it’s Visual Effects, Special Effects, and Cameos all being fantastic), the one thing that irks me is the ending.

What I am talking about is when Wade & Logan are in the Anti-Matter/Matter Reaction Chain. They created an excessively large buildup over several minutes, all dramatic, that one or both of them is going to permanently die, and honestly, I was really hoping that would be the case. Media nowadays is far too scared to kill any major characters anymore. It’s frustrating.

So when Deadpool 3 created this dramatic buildup to both characters dying, I was excited, because it would have been the perfect sendoff for both actors for their characters. A culmination of their stories thus far.

But no. Fucking no. They ‘survived’ because they both had done the chain reaction together, and thus they get to have their Shwarma Happy Ending.

Why? Why? Hugh Jackman seemingly will never do another MCU movie. And this was the perfect finale for Deadpool. It’s the same bullshit like with Quantumania where they didn’t kill off Hank Pym or Janet. It’s ridiculous.

I’m sure there are many people who will say that Wade & Logan getting their happy ending ‘is feelsgood’, and to each their own.

But for once, personally speaking, for once I would like to see a godsdamned conclusion to a series. It would have been nice. But no, characters can’t die, because Hollywood needs their Cash Cows.

Yes, I know that Deadpool references several times in the movie how ‘they’ll use [Logan] you until you are 90’, but them being self-aware doesn’t fix the problem. It just makes it all the more pathetic.

It especially doesn’t help that with RDJ playing Doom for Doomsday, that that might signal the MCU will be Soft/Hard Rebooted after Secret Wars, and if that’s the case,… why not allow Deadpool & Wolverine to die for good?

Let them rest in piece.

Hugh Jackman's a really good actor, but even good actors can fail at playing characters. Some actors just don't fit certain characters, regardless of how talented they are.

Hugh's height has been mentioned for years when it comes to complaining about his casting as Wolverine. People who haven't read the comics or at least watched the 90s animated series wouldn't care about him being tall because they don't really know anything about the original character. With that being said, people who have read the comics know he's supposed to be short. His height wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't a defining trait of his character. He's literally called Wolverine because he's short and ferocious, just like the real-life animal. If you're going to cast a tall actor and completely ignore that, why bother to call him Wolverine? That's not Wolverine. Hugh's also too lean to be playing Wolverine. He's naturally a tall, skinny man, nothing like Wolverine. I don't expect someone 5'3" and 200 pounds to be cast as Wolverine because that's too unrealistic of an expectation. However, I do expect someone who's at least 5'8", shorter than 6', who can bulk up a good bit, and is a decent actor to be casted.

I'll leave it at that with his physical appearance because people get sick of that getting mentioned. His personality and body language as Wolverine are very off to me. Now, part of the reason why Jackman's variant of Wolverine is so comically inaccurate is due to the way he was written. Fox's version of Wolverine was written very differently from the comics. They wrote him to be the heroic leader who's also a cool douchebag pretty boy who gets angry sometimes. I know the director and the writer play a part in why a character gets portrayed badly on screen, but the actor is still in charge of bringing that character to life. The actor should also be held responsible, especially since actors can sometimes sway the director to let them play their characters in a more accurate manner. Along with all of this, Jackman just doesn't fit the character of Wolverine.

In the first movie, X-men (2000), Jackman's character was introduced in an underground fight club. He lets his next challenger punch him repeatedly, and then he proceeds to beat him up. In this scene, he moves ridiculously stiff. When he's taking the dude's punches, it doesn't even look real. It looks fake. When he starts walking towards him, he makes an angry face and cracks his bones, but it just feels comedic. He's not believable when he tries to act tough. The angry face he makes looks ridiculous. He looks more like he's constipated. You can tell he's acting, and he's trying too hard. His version of Wolverine is really different, but he still has his moments where he's supposed to be aggressive. He just can't portray aggression well, at least not the level of aggression Wolverine is supposed to have. Wolverine in the comics is always angry. He's very aggressive, and he has berserker rage. It doesn't take much for him to snap. He could just snap randomly, but when he does snap, everyone around him, friend or foe, gets killed. We don't see this Wolverine in the movies. Hugh's version of Wolverine tries to act like a macho, tough guy only to get his ass beat seconds later. All throughout the movies, when he gets angry, he gets beat up. His fits of rage feel more like temper tantrums than murderous rampages. That's not cool, badass, or intimidating. That's pathetic.

Jackman's portrayal of Wolverine grew worse in each movie. In Days of Future Past, he looked way too made up. He looked way too clean, and his haircut was normal. He didn't resemble or act anything like Wolverine by this point.

Even Jackman's voice didn't match Wolverine's. He tried to lower it and put on a Canadian accent, but it didn't work. Wolverine's voice is much deeper and much rougher than the one Hugh uses, plus Hugh's Canadian accent was pretty bad. Wolverine should sound like he's growling when he speaks. Hugh's screams or roars aren't convincing either. They sound bland and lack ferocity. They should sound monstrous and intimidating.

I don't like the dynamic he has with Scott and Jean, either. While their dynamic more or less matches the comics, they try to portray Wolverine as the good guy and Scott as the bad guy in the movies. Wolverine's the asshole trying to steal a taken woman from her boyfriend. From the moment he arrived at the X-mansion, he was a dick to Scott while Scott was cordial to him. The movies try to play it off as Scott being an uptight jerk who looks down on Logan when that's not the case. I've heard people who watch the movies call Wolverine badass because he can steal your girl from you. That's not badass. It's desperate because Jean loves Scott. I hate that they have Jean give him more attention than she does in the comics. She's attracted to him, but she won't choose him over Scott. Jean doesn't take Logan's feelings that seriously.

Hugh Jackman is very committed to his role as Wolverine, and he attempted to portray Wolverine more comically accurate in The Wolverine and Logan. I could tell he was trying to play him more accurately, but he still missed the mark to me. The fighting choreography he does in the later movies is even more stiff than it was in the earlier movies. It looks ridiculous. Now, it's true that Wolverine wasn't written to be a skilled fighter in the Fox movies, but Hugh still looked way too stiff and artificial when he did the choreography. The way Hugh moved looked very unnatural because portraying that kind of character didn't come naturally to him. The fact that his version of Wolverine didn't know how to fight at all and his acting as Wolverine was, in my opinion, very unintimidating and unbelievable, made him hilarious to watch. He felt very comical. When I watch his fight scenes in the movies, I just can't help but laugh because I can't take it seriously. This is unfortunate because I grew up with these movies, so I still get nostalgia when I watch them.

Hugh can portray the positive personality traits of his character very well, but when it comes to his negative personality traits, like his murderous rage, he just fails at it to me.

I'd love to know other people's thoughts on this. Was Hugh Jackman believable as the Wolverine to you? Did you like his portrayal? Did you dislike his portrayal? What do you think his portrayal of Wolverine will be like in Deadpool & Wolverine?

The movies had Logan be the lost, wandering old man with no path until the X-Men found him. Not gonna diss this version. No way.

"We lost Scott. We lost the Professor. If we don't fight now, everything they stood for will die with them. I'm not gonna let that happen. Are you?"

But one thing I always like to see explored about Wolverine is that he has been through the ringer again and again. He's seen the worst of humanity, slavery, internment, and even then, the worst was yet to come (to this day, I STILL want to see what happened between Wolverine and DOFP brought to life)!

All of this can really add a lot to him being a mentor to the other X-Men. Look at Evolution! He had great dynamics with the students! I like when his toughest, "meanest" moments come when the students are being reckless and stupid, like when they lured Sabertooth out despite his warnings.

I love that this show actually bothered to touch on what his backstory actually MEANS! (too bad the show never followed up after that episode)

He fought in World War 2.

AU, I know, but I LOVE when they make it so he and Steve Rogers saved Magneto from the Holocaust when he was a child! It adds something personal between the two, whereas the movies just made him something for Magneto to throw around.

"There was a small boy in Poland who owes you that much."

Imagine Magneto thinking about this. The man who saved him all those years ago has become his enemy.

Anyway, I just like seeing this side of Wolverine a lot.

There are few animes that use this power in an interesting way and I wouldn't know how to list them for you, but for the most part, the use of regeneration only impairs the stakes of the fight and can also completely remove them.

Jujutsu Kaisen's Gojo × Sukuna is criminally guilty of this, the characters seem to have unlimited cursed energy. They regenerate at no cost and because of this, the fight boilled down to two immortal puching bags exchanging attacks with no real weight. MHA also has it rough.

For regeneration to be used in a way that does not harm the work, it MUST have costs or exploitable weaknesses that prevent characters from using them without moderation (a good example are trolls, they have great ability to regenerate but fire may prevent it ).

Another way to use this device is when only one of / or select few characters in the story have such abilities (such as Wolverine, Zombieman or Deadpool)

I’m tagging this as anime and manga since this is more about Vegeta.

So if you watched Dragon Ball Z you’d know that Vegeta is short but that doesn’t stop him from being one of the most intimidating and badass characters in the show however I specifically say Dragonball Z because in Dragonball super, he has not seen as short, in fact, he’s just slightly shorter than Goku… Vegeta is 5’5 in fact he’s only just taller than Krillin to the point that he can rest his chin on Krillin’s head and that was in the Freeza saga. At the end of DBZ he’s clearly seen being shorter than his wife but come Dragon Ball Super not only is he taller than Bulma but sometimes he’s portrayed as a tall boy he’s also just a bit shorter than Kakarot Goku and in this scene in the anime even though Goku’s noticeably taller.

And as if the changes to the prince of all Saiyans wasn’t enough Wolverine gets the same treatment. He’s 5’3 but dude is the most intimidating man in the room yet more often than not he is portrayed as a tall intimidating man. I can excuse it in the movies because Hugh Jackman is just almost a full foot taller but I have to ask why did the X-men anime (yes there’s an anime) make him this tall? dude towers over the tsa lady and I have to ask how tall are the rest of the cast if Wolverine is this massive? (also why is he shirtless?) but it doesn’t stop there as the midnight suns game has him as a tall man in that as well. He short, and there’s nothing to be ashamed of, because he can still be the most intimidating man in the room because guess what how many motherfuckers can say they have fought the Hulk, not only lived to tell the tale but have even won against him a few times without prep time, help, or special equipment? This guy can.

This has gone on long enough, I want these men, no these KINGS to be returned to their natural height of 5’5 and 5’3 respectively. If my demands are not met the world will burn. These two are proof that you don’t need to be the tallest man in the room to be the scariest man in the room (I mean there’s also Freeza but he is consistently short).

Jesus fucking christ if i hear some moron say "Feige/MCU took a bunch of C-listers like the Avengers and turned them into household names!" one more time, i'm going to lose my god damn mind.

I see this sentiment every week on r/marvelstudios, any time someone questions why they're making a movie with an obscure C-list character "hurr durr well the Avengers were obscure C-listers too, and now look!"

So here's the fucking facts: Avengers have pretty much always been A-listers.

80s comic sale figures.

The Avengers were the 5th highest selling comics, beating out Archie, Conan the Barbarian, Starwars... Heck they even fucking beat Superman, Justice League, AND BATMAN.

With both Ironman & Hulk solo runs also being in the top 10, and Captain America & Thor solo runs being 17 and 18th.

Two fucking years prior to the start of the MCU (2008), we had the Marvel Civil War comic event) (2006) ... And it was the highest selling Marvel crossover event of all fucking time...

And guess who the two leads were? Fucking Ironman and Captain America. Get the fuck out of here with them being C-listers.

The death of Captain America following the event was in every newspapers for fucks sake (Newyork Times article), i remember seeing it in a local newspaper half way around the world in fucking asia. It was a big deal.

Now you might be thinking: "okay, so they were popular among comic readers, but they were still C-listers for the general movie-going audience"

Which is such a stupid thing to say, because EVERY FUCKING CHARACTER is a C-lister to movie going audiences until they get a successful movie then.

Fucking Spiderman was a C-lister then until the Raimi movie. Fucking Wolverine and the X-men were C-listers until Xmen 1.... Batman and Superman? Yeah also C-listers until Burton/Reeves.

See how god damn stupid that sounds? No shit movie going audiences won't know about a character until they get a movie... What a fucking braindead take.

The point is, the Avengers have always been quite popular. Hulk and Captain America in particular have been household names for a VERY long time.

Yeah they were never as popular as Xmen or Spiderman, but that's because Xmen and Spiderman were the tip of the fucking S-tier list. You don't just immediately jump from S-tier to C-tier lmfao.

Actual C-listers were like... Guardians of the Galaxy, and Gunn deserves a lot of credit for pulling it off. But the other Avengers? They were solid A-tier, and every sales metric proves it.

If there is one power that I think completely ruins a story through sheer OP-ness, it's super regeneration. I hate super regeneration with a burning passion, more than flying bricks, more than power copying, more than even unlimited reality manipulation, it's super regeneration, especially if it's costless. IT completely ruins the tension present, because we know that the author will bullshit the character into surviving everything. Think about how Wolverine (Marvel) regenerated from a single drop of blood, how Cell (Dragonball Z) blew himself up and survived because a single nucleus lived, or how Black Sperm (One Punch Man) managed to regenerate into millions of copies after getting diced into atoms. These of course are outliers, but the general gist is there: Why should we actually care about the damage a super regenerator takes if they are gonna regenerate the whole damage anyways?

The worst part is that authors will always use it as a crux, as a gotcha moment, just to take away the relief of victory from the characters and the readers. And very few times has it ever been a logical and good inclusion to a characters powerkit, only ever being a barrier that forces the protagonists, and it's always the protagonists because when a good guy has super regeneration they might as well be invincible, to use generic energy beam to vaporise the bad guy. Or better yet, it just suddenly stops working, like against Shigaraki (My Hero Academia), when the entire last 100 chapters he keeps regenerating every single attack thrown at him, from fire that should destroy the stem cells to actual nukes, but then randomly dies because Deku punches him really hard and it hurt his soul.

That being said, there are some good cases of it. For example, One Punch Man had a monster that was made of sand like particles, and regenerated every attack the strongest heroes threw at him. But then the most experienced of them notices that inside of his body there are these metal spheres, and when destroyed it weakens the monster, eventually killing him by destroying all of these spheres. Or in Bikini Bottom Horror, an apocalypse version of Spongebob, where Plankton uses a Mech suit to rip off the arm of a Giant Patrick, and then cauterizes the wound using a flamethrower. He then proceeds to cut of another Limb, but gets too damaged to finish cauterizing it, and realizing that letting him get back that limb would doom everyone, he self destructs the mech, cauterizing the open wound using the explosion.

TL:DR writers please, stop giving out super regeneration like candy, it just makes the villains boring punching bags

Well, with Deadpool & Wolverine making waves this past weekend, I thought now would be a good time to talk about the last time The Best There Is shared the screen with The Merc With The Mouth.

2009 was the year the box office felt the aftermath of the 2007 Writers Strike, and as a result, we got a lot of terrible movies that year. One such film was X-Men Origins: Wolverine. When the movie wasn't boring, it wasted fan favorite characters like Emma Frost, Gambit, and, you guessed it, Deadpool.

When we're first introduced to Wade Wilson, he was the highlight of a dull film. Sure, he wasn't wearing the costume, he wasn't bulldozing the fourth wall, and he was in a PG-13 movie and it showed, but in he still had the snark and he got to show off his skills as a mercenary. Despite the changes, he still had the essence of Deadpool. Unfortunately, like every other character that isn't Wolverine or Sabertooth, he's gone for most of the movie.

When he finally returns, he looks like a sideshow freak, they gave him a hodgepodge of powers, full-sized katana blades are somehow sprouting from his forearms, and they sewed his fucking mouth shut. In the year that gave us Street Fighter: The Legend Of Chun-Li and Dragonball Evolution, this took the gold medal for "Most In Name Only Adaptation." The former at least got the bare minimum of Chun-Li and Bison's characters right, and the latter had the characters look like how they did in the source material if you squinted hard enough. People believe that if Deadpool was more like how he was in the comics, it would have salvaged the movie. But, if you really think about it, would it have really?

The first issue is the tone. The X-Men movies have all had a grounded tone, this movie included. It was that time period where comic book movies were ashamed of their source material. It took 24 years for Wolverine to finally wear the yellow costume. A comic accurate Deadpool would have stuck out like a sore thumb, like putting Bat-Mite in The Dark Knight Trilogy. Even if they kept the more grounded portrayal of Deadpool from earlier in the movie, he isn't the kind of character that should be the final boss, which leads me to my second issue: why wasn't Sabertooth the final boss?

One of the few things XMOW got right was that Wolverine and Sabertooth actually have a history together, something the first movie lacked. The movie should have been about Wolverine going on a killing spree against his former teammates, with Sabertooth being the Weapon-X1 experiment. Maybe the experimentation was why Sabertooth was mute in the first movie. If the story really needed them to team up, Omega Red would have filled the final boss spot better than Deadpool. At best, Deadpool should have been fodder for Wolverine, but considering how popular Deadpool is, fans wouldn't have liked him being rust on Wolverine's claws for a quick fight scene.

In the end, putting Wade Wilson in the movie was a mistake, mouth or no mouth.