RfM won't let me link to article, but have a look at HuffPo right now.

"Some Mormons Are Raising Holy Heck Over New ‘Deadpool’ Promo
They’ve launched a petition against a new image promoting “Once Upon A Deadpool.

The poster for “Once Upon a Deadpool” ― a PG-13 recut of the hilariously crude “Deadpool 2″ ― appears to be a parody of “The Second Coming,” a Harry Anderson painting commissioned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:”

The petition, which has received more than 35,000 signatures in about a week, called for filmmaker Tim Miller to change the image, claiming it was a form of “religious discrimination.”

Miller, however, directed the first film but not the second, nor was he involved in the “Once Upon A Deadpool” recut.

Patrick Mason, chair of Mormon studies at Claremont Graduate University in California, told Fox 13 in Salt Lake City that the painting was “one of the most beloved and produced images of the Second Coming.”

He said it was frequently found in Mormon homes and churches.


“Deadpool” has inserted characters into religious art before. One of the promotional images for the original “Deadpool 2” placed the film’s anti-hero and villain into “The Creation of Adam,” the iconic Michelangelo masterpiece on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel"

Seems like the Catholics have a better sense of humor than Moflakes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2018 03:53PM by koriwhore.

I don’t like seeing someone else’s artwork hijacked—-no matter what the subject.

Not even for good clean parody? How do we know Jesus doesn’t look like Deadpool? Or that heaven doesn’t have bubbles?

In the name of Deadpool, amen.

I understand. For me having a masked man in place of Jesus makes it less of a hijack and more of borrowing ideas from the other work. Also, it is a religious->commercial transition. Most great works are based on borrowings.

If it were apples to apples I would agree with you. It is terrible to see a work of art stolen, degraded, tainted with destructive and abusive motives.

This that is not...in my opinion.

What am I missing? What makes this image particularly LDS? It looks like an absolute ton of Angel/God posters to me..??

It was painted by mormon artist, Harry Anderson. So, of course, Mormons think it is exclusively LDS art.

Ha! Actually. Harry Anderson is a Seventh Day Adventist. I always assumed he was Mormon... oops!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Anderson_(artist)&ved=2ahUKEwii4OTc0J7fAhXtHjQIHfMpCbIQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1GSP7p0RAHsOmLhRYzkFQZ

If they happen to be sued, it should not take much effort to find oodles of paintings of "heaven" made up of white clouds with God, Christ (Mormon Swedish-looking or otherwise) or some other diety standing in the middle, some dating back to the Rennaissance.

Someone started another petition to ask the Mormon church to redo their poster to make it more ethnic diverse. Unless, of course Mormon heaven is all white.

I'd appreciate confirmation or correction. Thanks!

Parody falls under fair use in US law. The deciding factor in court has been whether the parody work is "sufficiently transformative" as to constitute a new work with a new meaning.

In The 2 Live Crew "Pretty Woman" case (Campbell vs Acuff-Rose Music), the Supreme Court set a standard that transformation - the intent of the parody work - was a more important factor than commercial concerns. Also, the more transformation, the better.

As with any high-stakes case, what counts as "sufficient" can vary by judge. But I don't think the Deadpool people have anything to worry about.

Any promo poster that has John Wick's dead dog in it can't be all bad.

Parody is extremely valuable. Dictators dislike it because it makes them look silly; it is the equivalent of freedom of speech, a way to question institutions and ideas and peoples. So in oppressive states, particularly totalitarian ones, parody gets a person thrown in jail or executed.

Artistically, it is a way in which people can make highly offensive--or, put differently, inspirational--points. Leonardo's Vitruvian Man, for instance, is parody. The great artist took an established medieval image of the universe with God in the middle and replaced God with a self-portrait, meaning that man was the height of creation and the master of his own fate. In short, it foreshadowed the Renaissance.

Most parody, like most art and most speech, ultimately fails. But if it succeeds, later generations forget the original stimulus and treasure it. So no one questions Vitruvian Man.

Forgive the bathos inherent in saying that in a discussion about Deadpool 2.

Bwahahaha..(snort)! :D

https://photos.app.goo.gl/SfwQqWGAXYkQecHh6

OK. You guys win! Those ARE funny!

OK, someone owes me a new monitor!!!

Serious Question: Are brass instruments even allowed during Mormon services?

If not, then the original artwork should not be claimed by the LDS Corp.

There are other second coming paintings with a similar theme:

https://www.pulse.ng/communities/religion/end-times-god-shows-signal-of-jesus-second-coming-in-israel-video-id5721750.html

Boo hoo.

They are not that similar.

Christ with a handheld bar code scanner checking everyone for a valid, current Temple Recommend?

I have absolutely no problem with any and all religions being parodied. All bogus...all with a bulls eye on them IMHO.