Days of Future Past News and Discussion - - Part 11

[Gianakin_]

Originally Posted by GuestStar2004

we don't know how long they trained for or how long they stayed at the mansion so thats a silly thing to say

2 weeks. Xavier tells it to the X-Men at some point before the climax.

[psylockolussus]

Promotion is promotion. Yeah The Lone Ranger flopped even if it had a SuperBowl ad, but other successful films such as Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z, Oz the Great and Powerful and Fast & Furious 6 - all of them earned more than 200 million in the U.S. alone had a SuperBowl ad. And the price tag for a SuperBowl ad wouldn't reach $4 million if its just for nothing. Other studios are willing to spend millions of money to market and promote their films by buying a Superbowl ad spot, I don't see why FOX shouldn't do the same thing with their X-Men movies especially X-Men is one of FOX's most profitable movie franchises at this point. Not releasing a superbowl ad is just one of the issues with FOX's marketing campaign for The Wolverine. I also don't know why FOX isn't releasing their tentpole films in IMAX theaters while other studios like Disney/Paramount/WB release their tentpole films in IMAX.

And if The Wolverine is a movie that people don't want to see, then tell me why did the film got more than $50 million at the opening weekend. I believe if they marketed earlier and better, it would have earned more money.

And there was a lack of early awareness with The Wolverine, you don't think there is because you visit this site regularly. But the Ga didn't know there was a Wolverine film this year until the late of March.

[BMM]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

Promotion is promotion. Yeah The Lone Ranger flopped even if it had a SuperBowl ad, but other successful films such as Iron Man 3 and Fast & Furious 6 had a SuperBowl ad.

And both Iron Man 3 and Fast and the Furious 6 followed what? The Avengers, the third highest grossing movie in cinema history, and Fast Five, the then highest grossing movie of The Fast and the Furious franchise--both incredibly well received movies. What was The Wolverine seen as a sequel to? X-Men Origins--the worst X-Men movie to date.

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

And the price tag for a SuperBowl ad wouldn't reach $4 million if its just for nothing.

Just because it's expensive, doesn't mean it's worth the cost.

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

Other studios are willing to spend millions of money to market and promote their films by buying a Superbowl ad spot, I don't see why FOX shouldn't do the same thing with their X-Men movies.

Because in the case of The Wolverine, it probably wouldn't have been worth it.

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

And there was lack of early awareness with The Wolverine, you don't think there is because you visit this site regularly. But the Ga didn't know there was a Wolverine this year until the late of March.

No, I know there was a lack of early awareness with The Wolverine, but I also know that seeing a trailer in March instead of January isn't what is keeping people out of theaters now.

[psylockolussus]

So you're saying that the only films that should get a superbowl ad are the guaranteed hits and the follow-ups to well-received films? With that, you're limiting smaller films/ffranchises that had a bad film in the past including X-Men to get more exposure.

And instead of spending 4 million to a Superbowl ad, what things should have been done differently with the marketing of The Wolverine?

And I didn't get an answer to this:

And if The Wolverine is a movie that people don't want to see, then tell me why did the film got more than $50 million at the opening weekend. I believe if they marketed earlier and better, it would have earned more money.

And if there was a SuperBowl ad to The Wolverine, it could have been really simple, like a 1-minute teaser trailer just featuring a few scenes from the movie or a 30-second ad just to let the public know that there was an upcoming Wolverine movie.

[JP]

No, he's saying that a Superbowl spot does not equate to success.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by JP

No, he's saying that a Superbowl spot does not equate to success.

It doesn't.

But if there was a SuperBowl ad, that would have improved the weak marketing that The Wolverine received from FOX. It would have been THE beginning of the actual marketing of the film. Plus it would have shown that FOX had a big confidence with the movie and that they really wanted the movie to perform big at the box-office and to be seen by a lot of people.

[JP]

Not really. The first trailer for The Wolverine did not look great. So getting 30 seconds 2 months earlier would have looked worse.

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Originally Posted by JP

Not really. The first trailer for The Wolverine did not look great. So getting 30 seconds 2 months earlier would have looked worse.

I thought the first trailer looked great.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by JP

Not really. The first trailer for The Wolverine did not look great. So getting 30 seconds 2 months earlier would have looked worse.

Then don't show the bullet train sequence, if it doesn't look great yet and the VFX aren't done yet.

Like I said, a very simple 1 minute trailer or a 30 second ad would have been great for the start of the marketing of the film.

And if the trailer looked awful, then blame the editor of the trailer. Have you seen MOS? The trailers of that movie looked great but the movie isn't.

[BMM]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

So you're saying that the only films that should get a superbowl ad are the guaranteed hits and the follow-ups to well-received films? With that, you're limiting smaller films/ffranchises that had a bad film in the past including X-Men to get more exposure.

I'm saying a studio should know its product and shouldn't mindlessly throw money around.

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

And instead of spending 4 million to a Superbowl ad, what should FOX have done with that money? Like marketing-wise?

Craft a better overall marketing campaign or just be thankful they didn't spend $4 million and probably saved the studio some money.

[psylockolussus]

Originally Posted by BMM

I'm saying a studio should know its product and shouldn't mindlessly throw money around.

If the SuperBowl ad will help the movie to get more attention/exposre then why not. If its a risk, then good for FOX for trying to risk 4 million just so more people would watch their newest X-flick.

And I'm pretty sure a lot of people here would love to see DOFP get a Superbowl ad next year.

[BMM]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

And if The Wolverine is a movie that people don't want to see, then tell me why did the film got more than $50 million at the opening weekend. I believe if they marketed earlier and better, it would have earned more money.

You're advocating earlier, not necessarily better... unless you think earlier automatically means better and makes for more success. In which case, I disagree.

As for the opening weekend, it's a summer movie starring Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Of course, it's going to draw some interest. That interest, however, is clearly underwhelming, so why don't you tell me why, despite inflation, 3D ticket prices, and having the second largest screen count of all the X-Men movies, The Wolverine not only opened the lowest but continues to gross the least.

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

And I'm pretty sure a lot of people here would love to see DOFP get a Superbowl ad next year.

And I think a lot of people here recognize there is a night and day difference between Fox's expectations for The Wolverine and Days of Future Past. Getting word out early on a mega blockbuster, starring some of the biggest names in Hollywood that has general summer blockbuster appeal, is very different than getting word out on a low key, Japanese centered X-Men spin-off that stars Hugh Jackman and a handful of unknown actors. And I don't think you disagree, given how much you like to argue that spin-offs aren't as successful as the team movies to the extent you want Fox to stop prioritizing them.

[def28]

Originally Posted by BMM

That interest, however, is clearly underwhelming, so why don't you tell me why, despite inflation, 3D ticket prices, and having the second largest screen count of all the X-Men movies, The Wolverine not only opened the lowest but continues to gross the least.

It didn't look as big as IM3 or MOS, had a more adult vibe with no other recognizable characters, it's coming off a bad flick from 4 years ago and plus was out late in the game this summer. The main thing I think is blockbuster fatique has been brutal this year. Tough to name a film in the action or Sci fi category that actually performed well in July or August.

Compared to the other Sci-Fi/Comic/Action Flicks at the end of summer Wolverine did really good. Domestic audiences seem to be growing sick of these blockbuster flicks in general. I think TW will actually boost more interest from the character. Alot of positive word of mouth on it. This put him back on the map.

[BMM]

Originally Posted by def28

It didn't look as big as IM3 or MOS, had a more adult vibe with no other recognizable characters, it's coming off a bad flick from 4 years ago and plus was out late in the game this summer. The main thing I think is blockbuster fatique has been brutal this year.

Agreed, and I think all of these factors would have ultimately drowned out any reaction to a 30 second Super Bowl spot by the time mid July rolled around. I pretty much expect Fox's approach to Days of Future Past to be the complete opposite. In fact, it already is, which is why it should be really interesting to see how it performs comes May.

[EnDz0n3]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

Like I said, a very simple 1 minute trailer or a 30 second ad would have been great for the start of the marketing of the film.

In hindsight a Superbowl ad for TW would have been a waste of $4 Mil (is it $4 Mil now?)

[SuperT]

Yes - Superbowl spots are insanely expensive and often times not that great of a marketing boost in the first place. The price to run it far outweighs most of the benefits.

Not to mention, it would have just been stupid and a waste of money to do a Superbowl spot for a movie that didn't come out until mid/late July.

[danoyse]

It's also worth pointing out that the story of the most recent Superbowl was the power outage that stopped the game for 34 minutes, which overshadowed all of the expensive commercial spots they ran this year.

Didn't we already have this Superbowl discussion a few months ago? None of the previous X-Men films have had one, and there was certainly no reason to have one for The Wolverine, which was a smaller-scale spinoff that wasn't opening in theaters until the end of July.

Like others have stated, take the ridiculous amount it costs to run one 30-second spot during the Superbowl and put together a better marketing campaign. The time where the Superbowl was the biggest method of promoting a summer tentpole is long past when you can advertise more effectively online and elsewhere.

[danoyse]

Originally Posted by psylockolussus

Promotion is promotion. Yeah The Lone Ranger flopped even if it had a SuperBowl ad, but other successful films such as Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z, Oz the Great and Powerful and Fast & Furious 6 - all of them earned more than 200 million in the U.S. alone had a SuperBowl ad.

Iron Man 3 and Fast 6 made that money based on the strength of their franchises. World War Z had the current zombie fandom to thank for its success (it was also heavily promoted during The Walking Dead ). Star Trek Into Darkness underperformed in the US, and Oz was just a few weeks from release and was already being promoted on multiple channels.

And the price tag for a SuperBowl ad wouldn't reach $4 million if its just for nothing. Other studios are willing to spend millions of money to market and promote their films by buying a Superbowl ad spot, I don't see why FOX shouldn't do the same thing with their X-Men movies especially X-Men is one of FOX's most profitable movie franchises at this point.

You just answered why Fox has never needed to buy out a Superbowl spot for any of the X-Men movies. If its already a profitable franchise, why waste the money? They have their own networks to advertise on, which include sports that draw the same audiences that watch the Superbowl, for a whole lot less.

Not releasing a superbowl ad is just one of the issues with FOX's marketing campaign for The Wolverine.

No, it's not. If they were going to show a 30-second spot that was similar to the trailers and TV spots we did get, it wouldn't have made a difference either way. You don't have a previous X-Men Superbowl spot to prove that it would have been any different if they'd shown one now.

I also don't know why FOX isn't releasing their tentpole films in IMAX theaters while other studios like Disney/Paramount/WB release their tentpole films in IMAX.

The Wolverine didn't even need to be in 3D, much less IMAX. Now you're just wanting them to use a gimmick to sell their movies, instead of using a marketing campaign that sells the film on its own merit.

And if The Wolverine is a movie that people don't want to see, then tell me why did the film got more than $50 million at the opening weekend. I believe if they marketed earlier and better, it would have earned more money.

Because the trailers and TV spots were lousy, because it was coming after an already critically-reviled solo film, because blockbuster fatigue had already set in by the end of July, because reviews were good but not spectacular, because it was another solo film instead of a team film, because it had one recognizable star and an unknown supporting cast...

And there was a lack of early awareness with The Wolverine, you don't think there is because you visit this site regularly. But the Ga didn't know there was a Wolverine film this year until the late of March.

And a Superbowl spot would never have been the one difference that would have made the outcome any different.

[def28]

Originally Posted by BMM

Agreed, and I think all of these factors would have ultimately drowned out any reaction to a 30 second Super Bowl spot by the time mid July rolled around. I pretty much expect Fox's approach to Days of Future Past to be the complete opposite. In fact, it already is, which is why it should be really interesting to see how it performs comes May.

Yeah, pretty much. I've been impressed so far. I am curious on if they will keep the tone of the leaked trailer or market it with a lighter sense of fun to grab a wider audience.

[JP]

Is this a new description? From the facebook page.

The ultimate X-Men ensemble fights a war for the survival of the species across two time periods in X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST. The beloved characters from the original “X-Men” film trilogy join forces with their younger selves from “X-Men: First Class,” in an epic battle that must change the past – to save our future.

[marvelrobbins]

That's the first description of film I have seen.

Plus that description of having to change the past to save the future Is going to end up causing more of the them pulling an Abrams on series debate

[GuestStar2004]

it looks new but it doesn't really tell us anything we don't already know

[Angamb]

so the goal is to save the future.... as it should be. good.

next year we'll find out how its saved.

[Mr.M]

DoFP needs a SB spot, no doubt about it. You can't have Spidey run upshot over X-Men in terms of marketing. I think it will be a pretty epic battle at the box office, and God help whatever movie (ahem Godzilla) sandwiched in May 2014.

On a more pertinent note, all that synopsis implies is that Fassabender and McAvoy team up again. So I think we'll have the 6 mutants from the past taking on Trask for most of the film, and the Sentinel scenes will be undercut, as will the OT cast. I honestly think everyone from the OT is going to die or be captured in the first 20 minutes or so.

I don't see the alternate timeline changing the advent of the Sentinels, but I think they fortuitously change some outcome that seriously impacts the future, and we will see that change in the Third Act. Thinking there could be an after credit scene hinting at Age of Apocalypse, or perhaps a somewhat happier ending with no after credit scene. 40-50 minutes of future scenes, with half and half in the original and altered timelines.

[JP]

They're not really competitors.