|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 11, 2019 22:02:43 GMT
That doesn't mean anything. LOL Even "Blade Runner" had the same problems (low box office, critics against) within the same period range (1982) - I'm not saying that "Apocalypse" is an "universal" masterpiece like "Blade Runner", but surely it's a superhero masterpiece. Oh, and it was a smash hit anyway at the box office. Of course it matters, as those are metrics used to judge whether a movie is good or not. If almost everyone thinks a movie is bad and only a few people (like yourself) consider it good, then it's considered a failure, since a movie's objective is to please the majority of its target audience which Apocalypse clearly failed to do so. So if you like it, good for you. Just know that that is simply your opinion. To the rest of the world, it's mediocre at best. Not the rest of the world LOL. Where do you live? It was a smash hit. A good portion of comic book fans and movie goers loved it. It's just that... the vast majority of kids had been totally "absorbed" by the MCU TREND at that point, and they just ignored the rest. X-Men were not fashionable and "trendy" anymore for kids. Said that, the movie managed to gross THREE TIMES its budget and being #1 in the home video market.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 11, 2019 22:04:41 GMT
Dark Phoenix...this is where it gets interesting. My expectations were so low of the franchise and the real world situation of Disney acquiring Fox meaning this would be their last outing liberated me from the obligation to treat it seriously. Therefore, surprise! I did not feel off put by this movie. I wouldn't call it good or high quality, but I enjoyed it more than the technically better Apocalypse.
Dark Phoenix is an all around better movie than Apocalypse. It has a cohesive narrative and structure with a clear vision, better effects and fight scenes. Apocalypse has a great cohesive narrative and terrific effects/fight scenes. I like "Dark Phoenix", and I think it's a great movie despite its flaws, but I must say that Apocalypse is obviously far better.
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Nov 11, 2019 22:20:09 GMT
Dark Phoenix is an all around better movie than Apocalypse. It has a cohesive narrative and structure with a clear vision, better effects and fight scenes. Both films set a low bar. Dark Phoenix set it lower since it was done with an inexperienced director biting off more than he could chew and was produced by a studio that never had a clear vision or direction for the franchise and basically just said screw it. They ran out of gas long ago and were basically throwing things at the wall to see what would stick. The problem wasn't the marketing. It was the fact that they chose to adapt Dark Phoenix again in the first place, knowing full well that they could never do it justice with their limited imagination and lack of faith in the source material. They should have just called it quits with Logan and end things on a high note. That wasn’t the problem at all. They did Deadpool’s origin story twice, remember? Wade went from a side-villain that Wolverine had to kill(like Jean in X3) to an anti-hero and protagonist of his own movie. They did the same thing for Jean, making her an anti-hero protagonist. Dark Phoenix was originally envisioned as a two-parter before Days of Future Past even came out according to Chris Claremont. I also read a Screen Crush interview from 2014 before DOFP released where Simon Kinberg said that he used it as a second chance to do Dark Phoenix. Jessica originally signed up to play Lilandra but the studio forced into one movie in late pre-production and Kinberg took her out because he didn’t want to take focus away from Jean.
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Nov 11, 2019 22:33:09 GMT
Of course it matters, as those are metrics used to judge whether a movie is good or not. If almost everyone thinks a movie is bad and only a few people (like yourself) consider it good, then it's considered a failure, since a movie's objective is to please the majority of its target audience which Apocalypse clearly failed to do so. So if you like it, good for you. Just know that that is simply your opinion. To the rest of the world, it's mediocre at best. Not the rest of the world LOL. Where do you live? It was a smash hit. A good portion of comic book fans and movie goers loved it. It's just that... the vast majority of kids had been totally "absorbed" by the MCU TREND at that point, and they just ignored the rest. X-Men were not fashionable and "trendy" anymore for kids. Said that, the movie managed to gross THREE TIMES its budget and being #1 in the home video market. Are you talking about the same Apocalypse where Bryan Singer basically abandoned the film due to his behavior, leaving Kinberg to fill in? The one that barely grossed more than Ant-Man and was largely dismissed by critics as a bloated mess? That masterpiece and smash hit of a film?
You do realize that the studio doesn't get to keep all of the box office gross, right? Some of that actually goes to the theaters. With China, they keep most of it. And most big budget movies, especially comic book movies, hit #1 when they first hit home video. It's nothing to brag about. The film made some money, but not much.
Take off those rose-tinted glasses and try to be objective for once, as hard as it may be. You may view these films as cinematic gold, but you're kidding yourself if you think that extends beyond your own opinion.
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Nov 11, 2019 22:56:35 GMT
Both films set a low bar. Dark Phoenix set it lower since it was done with an inexperienced director biting off more than he could chew and was produced by a studio that never had a clear vision or direction for the franchise and basically just said screw it. They ran out of gas long ago and were basically throwing things at the wall to see what would stick. The problem wasn't the marketing. It was the fact that they chose to adapt Dark Phoenix again in the first place, knowing full well that they could never do it justice with their limited imagination and lack of faith in the source material. They should have just called it quits with Logan and end things on a high note. That wasn’t the problem at all. They did Deadpool’s origin story twice, remember? Wade went from a side-villain that Wolverine had to kill(like Jean in X3) to an anti-hero and protagonist of his own movie. They did the same thing for Jean, making her an anti-hero protagonist. Dark Phoenix was originally envisioned as a two-parter before Days of Future Past even came out according to Chris Claremont. I also read a Screen Crush interview from 2014 before DOFP released where Simon Kinberg said that he used it as a second chance to do Dark Phoenix. Jessica originally signed up to play Lilandra but the studio forced into one movie in late pre-production and Kinberg took her out because he didn’t want to take focus away from Jean. That's because the first attempt at Deadpool's origin story was HORRENDOUS, so they had to re-do it completely. If X-Men: Dark Phoenix was envisioned as a 2-parter film, it could've ended up like The Divergent Series: Allegiant, where the second part never got made because the first part was so terrible, and based on the fact that Kinberg never directed anything, I'd say that the chance of that scenario happening was quite strong.
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Nov 11, 2019 22:57:14 GMT
Both films set a low bar. Dark Phoenix set it lower since it was done with an inexperienced director biting off more than he could chew and was produced by a studio that never had a clear vision or direction for the franchise and basically just said screw it. They ran out of gas long ago and were basically throwing things at the wall to see what would stick. The problem wasn't the marketing. It was the fact that they chose to adapt Dark Phoenix again in the first place, knowing full well that they could never do it justice with their limited imagination and lack of faith in the source material. They should have just called it quits with Logan and end things on a high note. That wasn’t the problem at all. They did Deadpool’s origin story twice, remember? Wade went from a side-villain that Wolverine had to kill(like Jean in X3) to an anti-hero and protagonist of his own movie. They did the same thing for Jean, making her an anti-hero protagonist. Dark Phoenix was originally envisioned as a two-parter before Days of Future Past even came out according to Chris Claremont. I also read a Screen Crush interview from 2014 before DOFP released where Simon Kinberg said that he used it as a second chance to do Dark Phoenix. Jessica originally signed up to play Lilandra but the studio forced into one movie in late pre-production and Kinberg took her out because he didn’t want to take focus away from Jean.
I'm not talking about what may or may not have been envisioned at one point. I'm talking about what we ended up with, which was a steaming pile.
Whether that was due to the studio's meddling or Kinberg's lack of experience/failure to understand and respect the source material or a combination of both, they shouldn't have tried to adapt something (a second time no less) if they weren't up to the task of doing it properly.
Kinberg, in his limited ability does seem to try, but in the end, the whole thing just comes off as a big "whatever, it's the last one, who cares" stamped across the screen.
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Nov 11, 2019 23:26:23 GMT
That wasn’t the problem at all. They did Deadpool’s origin story twice, remember? Wade went from a side-villain that Wolverine had to kill(like Jean in X3) to an anti-hero and protagonist of his own movie. They did the same thing for Jean, making her an anti-hero protagonist. Dark Phoenix was originally envisioned as a two-parter before Days of Future Past even came out according to Chris Claremont. I also read a Screen Crush interview from 2014 before DOFP released where Simon Kinberg said that he used it as a second chance to do Dark Phoenix. Jessica originally signed up to play Lilandra but the studio forced into one movie in late pre-production and Kinberg took her out because he didn’t want to take focus away from Jean. That's because the first attempt at Deadpool's origin story was HORRENDOUS, so they had to re-do it completely. If X-Men: Dark Phoenix was envisioned as a 2-parter film, it could've ended up like The Divergent Series: Allegiant, where the second part never got made because the first part was so terrible, and based on the fact that Kinberg never directed anything, I'd say that the chance of that scenario happening was quite strong. The first attempt at Dark Phoenix was horrendous too. That storyline made no sense what-so-ever. It was going to be a two-parter like the Kill Bill films and Infinity War/Endgame where they would shot the films back to back. That wasn’t the problem at all. They did Deadpool’s origin story twice, remember? Wade went from a side-villain that Wolverine had to kill(like Jean in X3) to an anti-hero and protagonist of his own movie. They did the same thing for Jean, making her an anti-hero protagonist. Dark Phoenix was originally envisioned as a two-parter before Days of Future Past even came out according to Chris Claremont. I also read a Screen Crush interview from 2014 before DOFP released where Simon Kinberg said that he used it as a second chance to do Dark Phoenix. Jessica originally signed up to play Lilandra but the studio forced into one movie in late pre-production and Kinberg took her out because he didn’t want to take focus away from Jean. I'm not talking about what may or may not have been envisioned at one point. I'm talking about what we ended up with, which was a steaming pile.
Whether that was due to the studio's meddling or Kinberg's lack of experience/failure to understand and respect the source material or a combination of both, they shouldn't have tried to adapt something (a second time no less) if they weren't up to the task of doing it properly.
Kinberg, in his limited ability does seem to try, but in the end, the whole thing just comes off as a big "whatever, it's the last one, who cares" stamped across the screen.
It only comes off that way due to the unusually short runtime, causing the film to feel rushed on the first viewing and so it’s easy to overlook the themes it explores. They cut out around a half a hour of footage to likely get more showtimes due to it being released in a crowded summer. Kinberg said in an interview with Collider back in October of last year that it was going to be over two hours and the cast talked about scenes that you see clips of in the trailer not make it in the final film.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Nov 11, 2019 23:32:54 GMT
Of course it matters, as those are metrics used to judge whether a movie is good or not. If almost everyone thinks a movie is bad and only a few people (like yourself) consider it good, then it's considered a failure, since a movie's objective is to please the majority of its target audience which Apocalypse clearly failed to do so. So if you like it, good for you. Just know that that is simply your opinion. To the rest of the world, it's mediocre at best. Not the rest of the world LOL. Where do you live? It was a smash hit. A good portion of comic book fans and movie goers loved it. It's just that... the vast majority of kids had been totally "absorbed" by the MCU TREND at that point, and they just ignored the rest. X-Men were not fashionable and "trendy" anymore for kids. Said that, the movie managed to gross THREE TIMES its budget and being #1 in the home video market. What metrics are you using to claim it was a smash hit or that a good number of fans loved it? It ranks 43rd out of the 50 highest grossing superhero movies. That's very unimpressive.
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Nov 11, 2019 23:47:19 GMT
That's because the first attempt at Deadpool's origin story was HORRENDOUS, so they had to re-do it completely. If X-Men: Dark Phoenix was envisioned as a 2-parter film, it could've ended up like The Divergent Series: Allegiant, where the second part never got made because the first part was so terrible, and based on the fact that Kinberg never directed anything, I'd say that the chance of that scenario happening was quite strong. The first attempt at Dark Phoenix was horrendous too. That storyline made no sense what-so-ever. It was going to be a two-parter like the Kill Bill films and Infinity War/Endgame where they would shot the films back to back. I'm not talking about what may or may not have been envisioned at one point. I'm talking about what we ended up with, which was a steaming pile.
Whether that was due to the studio's meddling or Kinberg's lack of experience/failure to understand and respect the source material or a combination of both, they shouldn't have tried to adapt something (a second time no less) if they weren't up to the task of doing it properly.
Kinberg, in his limited ability does seem to try, but in the end, the whole thing just comes off as a big "whatever, it's the last one, who cares" stamped across the screen.
It only comes off that way due to the unusually short runtime, causing the film to feel rushed on the first viewing and so it’s easy to overlook the themes it explores. They cut out around a half a hour of footage to likely get more showtimes due to it being released in a crowded summer. Kinberg said in an interview with Collider back in October of last year that it was going to be over two hours and the cast talked about scenes that you see clips of in the trailer not make it in the final film. It was going to be...
It was envisioned as...
Come on. You're just making excuses. It doesn't forgive what we ended up with. Any "themes" it explores are surface level and amateurish at best. The film certainly doesn't require or deserve a second viewing.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Nov 12, 2019 0:16:34 GMT
Without having seen a few in several years...
Deadpool 2 Deadpool XMen 2 Logan XMen DOFP XMen XMen First Class XMen 3 Wolverine Origins XMen Apocalypse The Wolverine
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Nov 12, 2019 0:32:31 GMT
The first attempt at Dark Phoenix was horrendous too. That storyline made no sense what-so-ever. It was going to be a two-parter like the Kill Bill films and Infinity War/Endgame where they would shot the films back to back. It only comes off that way due to the unusually short runtime, causing the film to feel rushed on the first viewing and so it’s easy to overlook the themes it explores. They cut out around a half a hour of footage to likely get more showtimes due to it being released in a crowded summer. Kinberg said in an interview with Collider back in October of last year that it was going to be over two hours and the cast talked about scenes that you see clips of in the trailer not make it in the final film. It was going to be...
It was envisioned as...
Come on. You're just making excuses. It doesn't forgive what we ended up with. Any "themes" it explores are surface level and amateurish at best. The film certainly doesn't require or deserve a second viewing.
Those aren’t excuses at all. You said they were just throwing stuff at the wall and they were lazy about it. I was just proving you wrong. Do you know how psychological trauma works for you to say it surface level or amateurish at best?
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Nov 12, 2019 0:34:49 GMT
Dark Phoenix is an all around better movie than Apocalypse. It has a cohesive narrative and structure with a clear vision, better effects and fight scenes. Apocalypse has a great cohesive narrative and terrific effects/fight scenes. I like "Dark Phoenix", and I think it's a great movie despite its flaws, but I must say that Apocalypse is obviously far better. I mean no offense but if Apocalypse has a cohesive narrative can you tell me what type of story structure it has?
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Nov 12, 2019 1:16:14 GMT
It was going to be...
It was envisioned as...
Come on. You're just making excuses. It doesn't forgive what we ended up with. Any "themes" it explores are surface level and amateurish at best. The film certainly doesn't require or deserve a second viewing.
Those aren’t excuses at all. You said they were just throwing stuff at the wall and they were lazy about it. I was just proving you wrong. Do you know how psychological trauma works for you to say it surface level or amateurish at best? How exactly did you prove me wrong? You can imagine a better envisioned movie all you want, but unless they release some kind of Kinberg-cut, what you see is what you get. And what we got was a poorly made film.
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Nov 12, 2019 1:33:44 GMT
Those aren’t excuses at all. You said they were just throwing stuff at the wall and they were lazy about it. I was just proving you wrong. Do you know how psychological trauma works for you to say it surface level or amateurish at best? How exactly did you prove me wrong? You can imagine a better envisioned movie all you want, but unless they release some kind of Kinberg-cut, what you see is what you get. And what we got was a poorly made film. That was meant to a response to your claim here. Both films set a low bar. Dark Phoenix set it lower since it was done with an inexperienced director biting off more than he could chew and was produced by a studio that never had a clear vision or direction for the franchise and basically just said screw it. They ran out of gas long ago and were basically throwing things at the wall to see what would stick. The problem wasn't the marketing. It was the fact that they chose to adapt Dark Phoenix again in the first place, knowing full well that they could never do it justice with their limited imagination and lack of faith in the source material. They should have just called it quits with Logan and end things on a high note. My point is that there was a clear vision. Days of Future Past and Apocalypse were building up to Dark Phoenix. That was their vision and direction. Also, you didn’t answer my question about your knowledge on trauma.
|
|
|
Post by bud47 on Nov 12, 2019 1:42:04 GMT
How exactly did you prove me wrong? You can imagine a better envisioned movie all you want, but unless they release some kind of Kinberg-cut, what you see is what you get. And what we got was a poorly made film. That was meant to a response to your claim here. Both films set a low bar. Dark Phoenix set it lower since it was done with an inexperienced director biting off more than he could chew and was produced by a studio that never had a clear vision or direction for the franchise and basically just said screw it. They ran out of gas long ago and were basically throwing things at the wall to see what would stick. The problem wasn't the marketing. It was the fact that they chose to adapt Dark Phoenix again in the first place, knowing full well that they could never do it justice with their limited imagination and lack of faith in the source material. They should have just called it quits with Logan and end things on a high note. My point is that there was a clear vision. Days of Future Past and Apocalypse were building up to Dark Phoenix. That was their vision and direction. Also, you didn’t answer my question about your knowledge on trauma. The clear vision that had the Jean possessing the Phoenix force in Apocalypse and then ignoring that in the next film as if it didn't happen? Yeah, you can tell they really put a lot of thought in that. I have some personal knowledge in mental trauma, but that's not something I would discuss here or brag about. Can you say the same?
|
|
|
Post by Agent of Chaos on Nov 12, 2019 2:28:11 GMT
That was meant to a response to your claim here. My point is that there was a clear vision. Days of Future Past and Apocalypse were building up to Dark Phoenix. That was their vision and direction. Also, you didn’t answer my question about your knowledge on trauma. The clear vision that had the Jean possessing the Phoenix force in Apocalypse and then ignoring that in the next film as if it didn't happen? Yeah, you can tell they really put a lot of thought in that. I have some personal knowledge in mental trauma, but that's not something I would discuss here or brag about. Can you say the same? Jean didn’t have the Phoenix Force in Apocalypse. She had that fiery aura since X2 and it was stated to be telekinetic energy from her mutation. You don’t remember X2? 2:50 X3 said that was telekinetic energy. X2 and X3 Zak Penn co-writer said it wasn’t a cosmic force. www.comicmix.com/2008/04/15/interview-zak-penn-on-the-grand-x-men-fans-and-co-writing-hulk/Yes, I can definitely say the same after suffering from social anxiety for well over a decade.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 12, 2019 13:04:43 GMT
It's funny people rag on this series, because the best ones are some of the most recent ones. There was a certain point where they gotta better as time went on. I love Logan and Days of Future Past. The best of the bunch imo. I really liked First Class, X1, and X2. The originals (of each series), but later ones surpassed them. I enjoy X3 and The Wolverine, but they are a notch below the best ones. Wolverine Origins is terrible. TERRIBLE. I didn't bother with Apocalypse or Dark Phoenix. The trailers and young replacements (the 2nd round, not the First Class crew) did nothing for me. The reviews didn't help either. I don't do Deadpool. I simply don't like the character. Because they're far too inconsistent. For every X2 you have an X3. For every DOFP you have an Apocalypse. For every Logan you have a Dark Phoenix. Now if their worst movies were a thing of the past and they seemed to be getting better as time progressed then people might have been willing to forget the bad movies. Unfortunately, both Apocalypse and Dark Phoenix we extremely recent, which just goes to show that they still don't know what they're doing. X1, X2, First Class, DOPF, Logan, The Wolverine, Deadpool, and Deadpool 2 all have good reviews. 8 out of the 12 movies. That's a .666 batting average, which is insanely good. It's also the number of the beast, so I see your point.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 12, 2019 13:26:37 GMT
Not the rest of the world LOL. Where do you live? It was a smash hit. A good portion of comic book fans and movie goers loved it. It's just that... the vast majority of kids had been totally "absorbed" by the MCU TREND at that point, and they just ignored the rest. X-Men were not fashionable and "trendy" anymore for kids. Said that, the movie managed to gross THREE TIMES its budget and being #1 in the home video market. Are you talking about the same Apocalypse where Bryan Singer basically abandoned the film due to his behavior, leaving Kinberg to fill in? The one that barely grossed more than Ant-Man and was largely dismissed by critics as a bloated mess? That masterpiece and smash hit of a film?
You do realize that the studio doesn't get to keep all of the box office gross, right? Some of that actually goes to the theaters. With China, they keep most of it. And most big budget movies, especially comic book movies, hit #1 when they first hit home video. It's nothing to brag about. The film made some money, but not much.
Take off those rose-tinted glasses and try to be objective for once, as hard as it may be. You may view these films as cinematic gold, but you're kidding yourself if you think that extends beyond your own opinion.
I'm 100% objective and emotionally detached in my technical judgment. The movie is a brilliant superhero masterpiece. The X-Men movie we always wished to get. And it was a smash hit anyway and made some profit. That's undeniable. It's not my fault if you blindly follow the MCU trend, no matter how some movies are bad, juvenile and childish...
|
|
|
Post by Martin Brundle - Martinfly on Nov 12, 2019 13:36:42 GMT
Apocalypse has a great cohesive narrative and terrific effects/fight scenes. I like "Dark Phoenix", and I think it's a great movie despite its flaws, but I must say that Apocalypse is obviously far better. I mean no offense but if Apocalypse has a cohesive narrative can you tell me what type of story structure it has? Apocalypse's demise in Egypt is shown. Background for him. Moira is reintroduced. Apocalypse awakes. Erik suffers a terrible loss. His family. Apocalypse recruits the Horsemen, one by one. Storm and Magneto become his soldiers. Xavier leads the school, but he doesn't want to create the X-Men. He's reluctant. Jean has some problems with her "Phoenix" nature. Scott is welcomed to the school. Apocalypse causes Havok's death and destroys the school --- in the process, he abductes Xavier in order to conquer the world. Some pivotal mutants are captured by Stryker. They find a way to escape (thanks to Wolverine) and also find new jet and uniforms. They become the X-Men. Scott has a chance to avenge his older brother. The X-Men fight Apocalypse to save the world. Magneto breaks Apocalypse's influence and becomes an X-Man again. The team, united, join wills, forces and powers to stop Apocalypse. After a terrific mental fight, Xavier pushes Jean to become the Phoenix and thus annihilates Apocalypse. The X-Men are finally formed. Xavier has finally embraced his destiny. They prepare to fight new wars.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Nov 12, 2019 13:59:37 GMT
The clear vision that had the Jean possessing the Phoenix force in Apocalypse and then ignoring that in the next film as if it didn't happen? Yeah, you can tell they really put a lot of thought in that. I have some personal knowledge in mental trauma, but that's not something I would discuss here or brag about. Can you say the same? Jean didn’t have the Phoenix Force in Apocalypse. She had that fiery aura since X2 and it was stated to be telekinetic energy from her mutation. You don’t remember X2?2:50 X3 said that was telekinetic energy.X2 and X3 Zak Penn co-writer said it wasn’t a cosmic force.www.comicmix.com/2008/04/15/interview-zak-penn-on-the-grand-x-men-fans-and-co-writing-hulk/Yes, I can definitely say the same after suffering from social anxiety for well over a decade. Stop with the semantics. It's very clearly meant to be The Phoenix. They just chose a different origin. They ditched the space crap, because frankly there was no place for it in the film's version. There was absolutely no build up to it. To just suddenly throw it in in the last movie would have felt out of place.
|
|