Inverse⁠56%

Did Ryan Reynolds Just Confirm 'Deadpool 4'? ⁠66%

By Dais Johnston⁠61%

7/21/2026, 8:18:26 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Optimism Bias, and Anecdotal, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 19.1% saturation with 92 hits. Analysis detected 1,017 faulty-reasoning hits from 482 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠66% (7,160 of 20,495 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.10% of the article peer group.

Marvel has gone through so many changes over the years as it evolves from phase to phase and saga to saga, but for 10 years, there’s been one constant: Ryan Reynolds’ Deadpool, the former X-Men Origins: Wolverine star who languished in a pocket universe in two different movies before Deadpool & Wolverine ushered him into canon proper. 
But Deadpool & Wolverine did more than just bring Wade Wilson face to face with Happy Hogan, it also established multiple multiversal rules that will form the basis for Avengers: Doomsday . 
Now, there could be a fourth Deadpool movie on the way, and it could serve an even greater purpose to the franchise as a whole. 
Deadpool & Wolverine established the rules of the MCU multiverse. 
Could a fourth film do something similar after Secret Wars? 
According to The New York Times , during an appearance at Fanatics Fest, Ryan Reynolds teased there was another Deadpool movie in the works, and that he noticed “a few really deep cuts that I think are missing behind the movies.” 
It should be noted that he didn’t confidently announce the new movie. 
Instead, he merely said, “There’s stuff upcoming. 
There’s eventually, you know, remotely another Deadpool film. 
It’s going to be great.” 
So if there is a Deadpool movie incoming, it wouldn’t be for a while, perhaps not until all the announced MCU movies release. 
While that seems like a long wait, it could set up the movie for success. 
Deadpool & Wolverine , in its own way, set the stage for the upcoming Avengers: Doomsday with its introduction of different universes and anchor beings. 
Ryan Reynolds teased the possibility of a fourth film during Fanatics Fest, a sports fan convention. 
If the fourth Deadpool movie takes place after the events of the upcoming Avengers: Secret Wars , then Deadpool could be the one to introduce the world after that cinematic event as only he could. 
Something similar happened previously with the last two-parter Avengers saga: Avengers: Endgame was followed by Spider-Man: Far From Home , meaning the new status quo for the world after the Blip was explained to the audience by a bunch of high schoolers. 
It’s just lighthearted enough to deliver a lot of important information without seeming like an exposition dump. 
Deadpool has his habit of breaking the fourth wall, which would be perfect for laying out a new normal for the franchise, and he could poke fun at the obstacles along the way or the notorious “will return in Avengers: Doomsday ” meme. 
But in order for Deadpool 4 to serve a purpose for the MCU, there first needs to be Deadpool 4 . 
Back in 2024, Reynolds told The Hollywood Reporter that “A fourth time feels a little iterative and redundant.” 
But this is the man who brought Wolverine back — anything is possible. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.1%Dais Johnston: 4.4%Inverse: 4.0%Confirmation Bias13.1%This article: 19.1%Dais Johnston: 0.6%Inverse: 0.8%Anchoring Bias19.1%This article: 11.0%Dais Johnston: 3.6%Inverse: 3.7%Availability Heuristic11.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 1.4%Inverse: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.7%Dais Johnston: 2.5%Inverse: 2.3%Hindsight Bias8.7%This article: 6.2%Dais Johnston: 3.6%Inverse: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias6.2%This article: 1.5%Dais Johnston: 5.1%Inverse: 4.8%Framing Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.7%Inverse: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.8%Dais Johnston: 0.6%Inverse: 0.7%Status Quo Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.3%Inverse: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 16.6%Dais Johnston: 5.9%Inverse: 3.8%Optimism Bias16.6%This article: 6.4%Dais Johnston: 1.9%Inverse: 2.1%Pessimism Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 6.5%Inverse: 8.2%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.2%Inverse: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.9%Inverse: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.0%Inverse: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.2%Inverse: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Dais Johnston: 6.0%Inverse: 5.4%Halo Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.7%Inverse: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.0%Inverse: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Dais Johnston: 2.2%Inverse: 2.0%Recency Bias3.3%This article: 11.8%Dais Johnston: 1.0%Inverse: 0.8%Primacy Effect11.8%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.6%Inverse: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.5%Dais Johnston: 4.6%Inverse: 2.9%Appeal to Authority8.5%This article: 4.8%Dais Johnston: 2.2%Inverse: 2.2%False Dilemma4.8%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.3%Inverse: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 4.4%Dais Johnston: 0.7%Inverse: 0.5%Circular Reasoning4.4%This article: 7.9%Dais Johnston: 7.8%Inverse: 8.0%Hasty Generalization7.9%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.7%Inverse: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.0%Dais Johnston: 5.3%Inverse: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion1.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 1.3%Inverse: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.5%Dais Johnston: 2.8%Inverse: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.5%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.4%Inverse: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 8.9%Dais Johnston: 0.7%Inverse: 0.6%Composition/Division8.9%This article: 16.2%Dais Johnston: 1.5%Inverse: 1.2%Anecdotal16.2%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.6%Dais Johnston: 2.0%Inverse: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.6%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.0%Inverse: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.2%Inverse: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.0%Inverse: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 7.3%Dais Johnston: 0.2%Inverse: 0.1%Special Pleading7.3%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.0%Inverse: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.5%Dais Johnston: 2.0%Inverse: 1.5%Unattributed Quote8.5%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 1.0%Inverse: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.8%Dais Johnston: 20.4%Inverse: 20.8%Biased Writer Voice11.8%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 1.0%Inverse: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.0%Inverse: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 3.3%Inverse: 2.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

482 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers16%attributed speech403writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Reynolds • 7 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Reynolds • 8 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Reynolds • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Reynolds • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

The New York Times

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words52% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%The New York Times: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.1 ptsWriter: 14.1%The New York Times: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.