Deadpool has amazing brand recognition in the direct comic community and good recognition in the wider general nerd community. The vastness of it's success came mostly from the re-watcher segment of the audience that dominates the nerd community (which lends to many comic book movies being more profitable than other similarly styled movies), with the added help of practically no competition and a very inexpensive but well received ad campaign.
I'm far from a defender. There were about 12 minutes worth of good movie wrapped in 2 1/2 hours of useless writing. It's .... maybe a solid C of a movie. Saying that a movie was profitable/more profitable than the previous installment does not equal saying it was a "good" movie.
I didn't pay either time, both were industry events. Bay makes interesting explosions and bad casting choices ... and that's about it.
____
Lets pull this back to the original issue at hand of "Comic based action movies always seem to share the same story of diminishing returns the more sequels they spawn" which is by and large the opposite direction comic book movies are trending. Comic movie sequels have a much better than industry average to exceed the box office of the original, and continue to do so over successive sequels.
So does that mean that Guardians of the Galaxy is a good IP for Epcot and is it viable long term? Many say no simply on the basis of more outside IPs going into Epcot, but that's already a moot point. Epcot has lost much of it's original "wide eyed wonder" factor and Guardians could display a better flexibility of theme than many other IPs (Marvel or not) if done correctly. A Guardians based attraction showcasing exploration and technology could fit right in and have the lasting power other "re-imagined" attractions at Epcot have lacked. Other options could be a disaster.
