The Official "Get Marvel's Rights Back!" Thread

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by Project862006

so your argument is box office? even tho 353 WW is nothing to sneeze at

Gesundheit!!!

i guess everyone loved the transformers films am i right since it made such a killing at the box office?

Not me personally but the GA did obviously. I will say that though TF had no plot, silly characters/dumb humor and such but it was a non stop action film and the effects for DOTM was top notch!! The movie was meant to sell toys and it did.. Nothing about XM-FC was that exciting and thats what it failed. Charles and Erik characters were well performed but thats about it. My problems with it are as a CB fan. The GA, I'm sure just found XM-FC boring rather lacking that epic movie experience that a Sci-Fi/Action movie should have. Like watching The Kings Speech with mutants (or something)

So hence they didn't show up. XM-The Dull Class

[Project862006]

yeah that 87% on RT and a B+ Cinema Score yeah they really hated it lol

yeah lets not factor in it's piss poor marketing campaign with those awful posters lol

lack of wolverine in the forefront who is basically the tony stark/jack sparrow of the x men franchise

not to mention 2 piss poor x men movies that it was following they lost good will with audiece it happened with TASM aswell

i am sure DOFP is gonna make great money since it will be a sequel to a critical and financial success

hell x men 1 only made 296 WW to be followed by a much better X2 with a 496 WW

[xeno000]

Originally Posted by Whiskey Tango

It's pretty clear she meant Rose Byrne. C'mon guy

I did mean Byrne, of course. Thanks. I just couldn't remember if Moira was played by the wan brunette who dated Marilyn Manson or the other wan brunette who didn't.

[Moridin]

Originally Posted by Project862006

so your argument is box office? even tho 353 WW is nothing to sneeze at

Originally Posted by Project862006

hell x men 1 only made 296 WW to be followed by a much better X2 with a 496 WW

BO success is relative to budget. That's difference between X1-2 & XFC.

X1 was made for $75m and took in $296, that's nearly quadruple the budget.
X2 was made for $110m, took in $407m. Again, nearly quadruple it's budget.

XFC on the other hand, budget of $160m, BO $353m. That's just scraping past twice it's budget.

I'm sure DOFP will gross a good deal more than XFC, but it'll also have a bigger budget.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Moridin

BO success is relative to budget. That's difference between X1-2 & XFC.

X1 was made for $75m and took in $296, that's nearly quadruple the budget.
X2 was made for $110m, took in $407m. Again, nearly quadruple it's budget.

XFC on the other hand, budget of $160m, BO $353m. That's just scraping past twice it's budget.

I'm sure DOFP will gross a good deal more than XFC, but it'll also have a bigger budget.

And don't forget that studios only get half of that ticket, and that budget doesn't account for marketing costs. I have my doubts that First Class broke even at theaters.

[S. Grundy]

Clearly it was successful enough to greenlight a sequel, so who gives a ****.

[xeno000]

Fox needs to keep churning out X-sequels to keep its rights, so they were going to greenlight another one no matter what XFC made. The last FF movie cleared about $1.50 after expenses and Fox is trying to get a reboot off the ground in spite of that.

[Shikamaru]

My opinion on First Class was always that it sucked as an X-Men adaptation and as a prequel to the X-Men trilogy but was pretty good as a stand-alone movie.

However, regardless of what my opinion on First Class was, the arguments I hear both against it and supporting it are some of the stupid arguments I have ever head. You do not use box office numbers and Rotten Tomatoes to back up your opinion on a movie regardless of whether your opinion on the movie is good or bad. EVER. Box office numbers mean literally nothing in most cases. I can pull out a laundry list of tons of bad movies that did well at the box office and tons of good movies that did poorly. The only time when box office numbers are evidence to show that a movie was either good or bad is in a case where you have movies like The Dark Knight and The Avengers, where a huge number of people reported that they saw those movies at least 3 - 5 times in theatres. In a case like that, then maybe I'll give it to you that box office numbers show that the movie is good but even then, it's still not exactly the best argument one can use to prove that a movie is either good or bad.

Reviews and ratings on Rotten Tomatoes don't mean anything either. They're definitely more justifiable than box office numbers but they're still not fully justifiable (at least in most cases). Many critics are very biased, extremely nitpicky, and have a very flawed view in general. Take Roger Ebert as an example. Although he has his fair share of good reviews, he is also very biased towards many movies and brings politics into almost everything. He is a very anti-war liberal and any war film he sees that doesn't address the issue of war being bad, he gives it a negative review. Another example would be all the conservative critics that bashed Batman Begins & The Dark Knight's portrayal of Batman simply for having a no-killing rule and praised the portrayal of Batman in the Burton films because he killed left and right even though the Nolan films were more faithful to the character by having him not kill, or the critics that criticized Begins for the Joker not being the killer of Batman's parents. Or how about the critics who bashed The Amazing Spider-Man for Spider-Man being a wisecracker that toys and pokes fun at the criminals he fights despite the character doing that all the damn time in the comics, and calling Webb unoriginal for "changing Mary Jane's name and making her blonde"? (I've seen someone say that). Or how about the notorious Confused Matthew who, despite having good reviews in general, usually tends to over-analyze the crap out of everything?

[metaphysician]

If the general audience liked a movie, as evidenced by them spending money on it, and the critics liked a movie, as evidenced by them rating it highly. . . while there are certainly definitions of quality that exclude that, its dubious if they have any relevance. A bad movie that everyone likes and makes a lot of money is, by definition, not a bad movie. Its a successful movie, that you ( the commentor ) doesn't like.

[Shikamaru]

What about movies that blind people from their suckiness due to the fanboyism and the hype behind them? I have seen movies with a very thin paper plot and with characters whose motivations make no sense that were praised by everyone because they did a good job at hiding those problems from the general audience through overly-detailed dialogue. Those movies are generally liked by everyone but however, when you tell people that like those types of movies to sit down and analyze the movie piece by piece without the hype & fanboy pair of glasses on, they will realize that the movie falls apart.

There was one specific comic book movie this summer that was exactly the type of movie I just described. It was very well received by both critics and the general public and made tons of money at the box office and did a great job at covering its thin paper plot with complex and very detailed dialogue. However, whenever I asked someone to sit down and to analyze the movie and really think about it and discuss it with other people, they changed their complete opinion of it. Everyone I asked to do this either said that yes, the movie was indeed bad, or they said that it was still a good movie but nowhere as good as they remembered it to be while watching it in theatres.

And what about movies that are critically panned by critics on websites such as RT but get mixed to positive reviews by the general public? Examples of this are the Transformers movies.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

What about movies that blind people from their suckiness due to the fanboyism and the hype behind them? I have seen movies with a very thin paper plot and with characters whose motivations make no sense that were praised by everyone because they did a good job at hiding those problems from the general audience through overly-detailed dialogue. Those movies are generally liked by everyone but however, when you tell people that like those types of movies to sit down and analyze the movie piece by piece without the hype & fanboy pair of glasses on, they will realize that the movie falls apart.

There was one specific comic book movie this summer that was exactly the type of movie I just described. It was very well received by both critics and the general public and made tons of money at the box office and did a great job at covering its thin paper plot with complex and very detailed dialogue. However, whenever I asked someone to sit down and to analyze the movie and really think about it and discuss it with other people, they changed their complete opinion of it. Everyone I asked to do this either said that yes, the movie was indeed bad, or they said that it was still a good movie but nowhere as good as
they remembered it to be while watching it in theatres.

I wouldn't say that ASM had complex and very detailed dialogue...

[Raiden]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

My opinion on First Class was always that it sucked as an X-Men adaptation and as a prequel to the X-Men trilogy but was pretty good as a stand-alone movie.

However, regardless of what my opinion on First Class was, the arguments I hear both against it and supporting it are some of the stupid arguments I have ever head. You do not use box office numbers and Rotten Tomatoes to back up your opinion on a movie regardless of whether your opinion on the movie is good or bad. EVER. Box office numbers mean literally nothing in most cases. I can pull out a laundry list of tons of bad movies that did well at the box office and tons of good movies that did poorly. The only time when box office numbers are evidence to show that a movie was either good or bad is in a case where you have movies like The Dark Knight and The Avengers, where a huge number of people reported that they saw those movies at least 3 - 5 times in theatres. In a case like that, then maybe I'll give it to you that box office numbers show that the movie is good but even then, it's still not exactly the best argument one can use to prove that a movie is either good or bad.

Reviews and ratings on Rotten Tomatoes don't mean anything either. They're definitely more justifiable than box office numbers but they're still not fully justifiable (at least in most cases). Many critics are very biased, extremely nitpicky, and have a very flawed view in general. Take Roger Ebert as an example. Although he has his fair share of good reviews, he is also very biased towards many movies and brings politics into almost everything. He is a very anti-war liberal and any war film he sees that doesn't address the issue of war being bad, he gives it a negative review. Another example would be all the conservative critics that bashed Batman Begins & The Dark Knight's portrayal of Batman simply for having a no-killing rule and praised the portrayal of Batman in the Burton films because he killed left and right even though the Nolan films were more faithful to the character by having him not kill, or the critics that criticized Begins for the Joker not being the killer of Batman's parents. Or how about the critics who bashed The Amazing Spider-Man for Spider-Man being a wisecracker that toys and pokes fun at the criminals he fights despite the character doing that all the damn time in the comics, and calling Webb unoriginal for "changing Mary Jane's name and making her blonde"? (I've seen someone say that). Or how about the notorious Confused Matthew who, despite having good reviews in general, usually tends to over-analyze the crap out of everything?

Of course neither the box office nor RT rating are perfect indicator for a film's success nor its quality. But how else are you going to objectively prove that a movie is successful both critically and financially? And they're alot better than gauging fans' opinions here in the forum for measurement of how good a movie really is, since everyone has their biases.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by Raiden

Of course neither the box office nor RT rating are perfect indicator for a film's success nor its quality. But how else are you going to objectively prove that a movie is successful both critically and financially? And they're alot better than gauging fans' opinions here in the forum for measurement of how good a movie really is, since everyone has their biases.

To prove a movie is financially successful, you just have to look at the numbers (both the budget and box office numbers).

I'll admit you have a good point about how to look at films from a critical objective point of view. However, I didn't argue that critics are never right but that you can't always say that a movie is good just because it was critically successful or say a movie is bad just because it was critically panned even though that applies if not most of the time, then a lot of times. However, there still are exceptions of movies that are bad but are praised by critics and movies that are good but bashed by critics.

Originally Posted by R_Hythlodeus

I wouldn't say that ASM had complex and very detailed dialogue...

Not talking about ASM.

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

To prove a movie is financially successful, you just have to look at the numbers (both the budget and box office numbers).

I'll admit you have a good point about how to look at films from a critical objective point of view. However, I didn't argue that critics are never right but that you can't always say that a movie is good just because it was critically successful or say a movie is bad just because it was critically panned even though that applies if not most of the time, then a lot of times. However, there still are exceptions of movies that are bad but are praised by critics and movies that are good but bashed by critics.

I totally agree with you and the bottom line for any movie studio is BO returns on the budgeted investment. Critics just give educated opinions or have a following of trust in their opinions to the audience. So, as I see it, a movie like the Avengers was the perfect plan. Market individual movies (Make a profit from them) and each movie market the Avengers like at the end of credits "Captain America will return in the Avengers" and the ensuing End credits scene. Brilliant. Now I've argued with people on here how continuity doesn't matter. Just make a good movie and thats all thats needed but the Phase 1 of MS proves that continuity sells the next movie. If your past movie, based on the same characters or universe, isn't selling the next movie then nobody is excited to see that next movie based on the same name and characters..

I also say that when It come down to the FF, Fox are idiots to not actively pursue a role in the MCU and utilize that universe to directly sell their reboot. PURE DUMB IMO. Spider-Man OTOH can just make easter egg references to his existence in the MCU based that he's already a tent pole character and has his own rich character based (on a more grounded street level as well as Daredevil).

X-Men, if FOX if TW and DOFP aren't the most brilliant spectacles on the silver screen it a tragedy. The X-Men has such a rich universe and characters that have just been squandered by their own limitations. Thats why folks want the X-Men universe at marvel because the X-Men could be as big the Avengers but because of the mess of continuity (And some bad movies overall) which results in the current movie not selling the next movie, people don't go see the movies. So say what you want about the theatrical merits of some of the Marvel movies but they did what Fox didn't and succeeded where FOX failed. And it starts with a simple marketing strategy called Continuity

[Project862006]

like avengers? MY GOD i dont want x men to be anything like that film don't get me wrong i liked it a nice fun action blockbuster but thats about it

it had a paper thing story line,had no depth,no theme or message layered through it ,had no meat on it's bones ,it was a fun enjoyable action blockbuster like i said i liked it and will see sequel but lets not overrate it now

it seems alot of people who want x men at marvel just want a team up action spectacle like avengers and if thats what they want they dont truly get x men at all

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by Project862006

like avengers? MY GOD i dont want x men to be anything like that film don't get me wrong i liked it a nice fun action blockbuster but thats about it

it had a paper thing story line,had no depth,no theme or message layered through it ,had no meat on it's bones ,it was a fun enjoyable action blockbuster like i said i liked it and will see sequel but lets not overrate it now

it seems alot of people who want x men at marvel just want a team up action spectacle like avengers and if thats what they want they dont truly get x men at all

As usual you miss the point. The point wasn't the merits of the plot. It was the strategy of Phase 1 to make Avengers the block buster that it was based on simple continuity of the universes of the individual franchises (IM,TIH,CA,Thor)

[Project862006]

x men isn't a team up film they are a team from the on set and unlike avengers singer's x men were already matured and established heroes from beginning of x men 1

you cant do avengers strategy with x men they aren't solo heroes like cap,thor,im,hulk,etc.

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by Project862006

x men isn't a team up film they are a team from the on set and unlike avengers singer's x men were already matured and established heroes from beginning of x men 1

you cant do avengers strategy with x men they aren't solo heroes like cap,thor,im,hulk,etc.

No,but you can have continuity in the X-Men universe to sell the next X-Men movie like a story line. That continuity will sell the next X-Film whether its Deadpool, Gen X, X-Caliber heck I'd like to see Domino in her own film IMO. All I'm saying that the only time the first X-Film sold the second was X1 to X-2 as it was a true continuation. After that things went haywire and BO losses ensued for the franchise. focus on the marketing word CON-TIN-UITY.. Its sells tickets

[Project862006]

thats why i am glad singer is back the fans and general audience loved what he gave them and every film he wasn't involved in sucked x3/wolverine origins

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by Project862006

thats why i am glad singer is back the fans and general audience loved what he gave them and every film he wasn't involved in sucked x3/wolverine origins

Just hopefully Singer and/or Fox got off the anti spandex kick.

[Dr Tactics]

In fact if Fox wanted to they themselves could do 2 movies a year with the X related franchise alone. They just need to get serious about the CBM genre

[YoungPrime]

Originally Posted by xeno000

In my opinion, the exact opposite is true. I found the Marvel films immensely enjoyable, whereas XFC was one of the most disappointing comic book films ever. It squandered a great deal of its potential by screwing up the X franchise's timeline, the characterization was terrible, especially for female characters, and the action was as lame as always in Fox films. The only thing I enjoyed about it was Charles and Eric's relationship, but of course that followed upon what was established in the first three films.


Charles, unfortunately, came across as a very naive person who inadvertently betrayed his own race by giving the CIA too much information about mutantkind as well as the potential means to slaughter them all (Cerebro). He came across less like MLK and more like Uncle Tom, willing to do anything to appease humans up to and including stabbing his fellow mutants in the back. Yet he was willing to let the mass murdering Nazi psychopath Shaw live. When Erik killed Shaw he was thoroughly justified and Charles was just as thoroughly wrong.


The makeup jobs on Raven and Beast were atrocious and distracting. Raven's origin and personality were in complete contrast to the misanthropic loner she was portrayed as in the first three films. (How the hell did Charles convince/force his parents to "adopt" a naked, blue-skinned seven-year-old thief?) She was shown as a loving sister until the last few minutes of the movie, when she inexplicably decided to leave her critically wounded brother lying in the dust and run off with the man who crippled him. And this after merely speaking one-on-one with Erik a few times and making one of the worst seduction attempts ever. Raven's complete 180 degree turn was ridiculous in light of all that went before. How, exactly, she would eventually turn into the mostly-silent assassin she was in X 1-3 was left unexplained.


Shaw's ultimate plan to kill all the humans by causing a nuclear holocaust was pure stupidity. Even if we accept his assumption that he would survive, 99% of other mutants would not. The few who lived would have inherited a nuclear wasteland, with neither the food nor resources to support a mutant population of any size. That's why total nuclear war was referred to by the acronym MAD back in the day: Mutually Assured Destruction. Shaw was supposed to be some sort of genius mastermind so why couldn't he see that?


One other thing: Some of the acting was painfully bad. January Jones....well, what is there to say? Zoe Kravitz is lucky to have famous parents. Not that the script gave them much more to do than wear skimpy costumes and fail at being menacing. Rose McGowan was mediocre as Moira McTaggert, but the problem was that the character was inexplicably downgraded from a major player to an inept junior g-woman. The ultimate insult was having her mind wiped by Xavier at the end. Since Moira was shown utter disrespect all the way through I can't say that was surprising.


In short, X:FC was a mess of a movie and as such I wasn't surprised that it did so poorly at the domestic box office. A total haul of $146 million puts it in FF territory, which is a bad place to be. Fox got lucky with the overseas haul, otherwise they would be looking to reboot their non-reboot next year.

This is it in a nutshell...

And most of it is non-repairable at this point.

Yet instead of Fox-men fans acknowledging these obvious flaws they use lame diversions. Like "Well it was still better than Thor and Cap" or "There weren't enough Nazi's" as if that would warrant a reboot or something.

Fox fans and Sony fans are don't really have a leg to stand on. Sony's Spider-men films box office continue's to diminish and their Ghost Rider never lifted off the ground in the first place.

Fox is just confused. I have no faith in the Wolverine which is stated to be post X-3 so odds are the continuity woos will only continue to tally up. It's going to be a PG13 film so seeing wolverine extract his claws every 15 mins only to avoid showing him cut into people is going to stand out the most. Not that a Wolverine film has to be a gore fest, it's just that people wanna see more out this character. And I doubt Fox realizes that.

[YoungPrime]

Originally Posted by Project862006

why do you fanboys give a crap about continuity yeah because the comics based on any character is so high on continuity with how many characters get killed and brought back to life and relationship end with no rhyme or reason,etc.

These are the types of comments that put my opposers into perspective. First off I'm not a "fanboy" It wasn't until the films started rolling out that I felt the need to dive into comic books as a hobby in the first place. Which wasn't until 2004. It wasn't untill then that I started noticing the distinctions between comics and Fox's movies. I originally liked X-1 and X-2. But the more X-men comics I read the lower my opinion for those films progressed.

The continuity that creates the character's back story makes for a more interesting film. Fox's reason for dismissing continuity was strictly due to neglect and not caring about these characters. As a result their continuously writing themselves into corners thus doing more characters more harm. Plus despite your apparent sternness of this studio their continuously declining box office revenues beg to differ.

I'm going to assume that you're just frustrated with that fact that we make a point and can't find a easier way to retort since you should already know better than to make such a wild irresponsible comment.

Originally Posted by Project862006

who cares about continuity i just want good films

Fox is 3 out of 9 and that's only if you like the 3 that you're praising which I found to be rather disappointing. But even if I loved them that's still 3 out of 9 by Fox sir!

Originally Posted by Project862006

i could care less if it follow previous films honestly directors having to follow continuity of previous films they didn't direct just cripples their creative integrity

like vaughn and even mangold have said they don't want to be a slave to previous films they want to make good films first and foremost

Yet they're front office is begging Marvel to be a part of their shared universe. Funny how that works.... Vaughn can't commit to a franchise to save his his life the slavery point is a given...SMH.

Originally Posted by Project862006

yeah continuity doesn't bother me and i dont see how it hurts a film for some reason everyone here hates x men 3 but somehow get mad when first class doesn't sit in that terrible film's continuity lol

It was only good to the few who saw it. Most were just happy it wasn't as bad as the last 2 x-films. Which is why word of mouth didn't fan any flames? Magneto saved that film but w/o him it wouldn't have been much of a film at all.

Look your dismissal of continuity wont change this thread so dismiss it all you wish.
All you've done is was diminished what little credibility you've had by admitting that you enjoy films that crap on their own continuity let alone what the comic illustrated.

It doesn't take a fanboy to realize that something isn't right. So spare us your continuous "grasping of straws".

If you don't like continuity how about sparing us from yours. LOL!

Originally Posted by KangConquers

And don't forget that studios only get half of that ticket, and that budget doesn't account for marketing costs. I have my doubts that First Class broke even at theaters.

Plus Marvel's 10% of box office revenue. LOL!

[S. Grundy]

People keep blaming Fox for "dismissing" continuity, but doesn't that fall more on the writers/directors/producers and not some studio executives.

[Dr Tactics]

Originally Posted by S. Grundy

People keep blaming Fox for "dismissing" continuity, but doesn't fall more on the writers/directors/producers and not some studio executives.

Because Fox bears the final responsibility for their product just as if a child breaks a vase in the store, the parent is responsible to pay for it. Ignorance of the proper presentation of CBM does not aquit them from blame