Dark Phoenix Anybody else notice that Jean’s monologue in the beginning is EXACTLY the same as Xavier’s in DOFP

[Hand Banana]

I caught that on the second viewer. Not exactly the same but Jean asking:

Jean Grey: “Who are we? Are we simply what others want us to be? Are we destined to a fate beyond our control? Or can we evolve, become something more?”

The narration is very similar to the opening narration of X-Men: Days of Future Past.

Charles Xavier: “The future: a dark, desolate world. A world of war, suffering, loss on both sides. Mutants, and the humans who dared to help them, fighting an enemy we cannot defeat. Are we destined down this path, destined to destroy ourselves like so many species before us? Or can we evolve fast enough to change ourselves… change our fate? Is the future truly set?”

It’s subtly alluding to time being like a river.

 

[SumT]

repeating things is something pretty common from Simon Kinberg.
maybe after that 23% score and opening weekend he got the memo, and will learn for his future projects.
sadly the Fox XMen franchise wont ever learn from them anymore.

 

[Hand Banana]

repeating things is something pretty common from Simon Kinberg.
maybe after that 23% score and opening weekend he got the memo, and will learn for his future projects.
sadly the Fox XMen franchise wont ever learn from them anymore.

Repeating stuff isn’t really much of a problem with this film. Jean doesn’t really became Dark Phoenix in this(the worst she does is accidentally kills somebody.) It’s a bait and switch. You think she is going down the villain again but instead is able to control power instead of letting it control her. Even the trailers misdirect the audience thinking this.

 

[X-Maniac]

In all honesty, I don't think the repeated dialogue did this film any favours.

For instance, when Xavier described Jean as full of 'joy and rage', it made my eyes roll, it was too much of an echo of X3.

 

[Legion]

Repeating stuff isn’t really much of a problem with this film. Jean doesn’t really became Dark Phoenix in this(the worst she does is accidentally kills somebody.) It’s a bait and switch. You think she is going down the villain again but instead is able to control power instead of letting it control her. Even the trailers misdirect the audience thinking this.

And you see this as a plus? Kinberg's great plan was to make us think anyone can die but really the stakes were going to be really low and barely worth mentioning? Is that what he pitched to Fox?

"The movie didn't ruin the Dark Phoenix story because Jean didn't really become the Dark Phoenix. It's just the title of the film".

 

[EnDz0n3]

I also noticed the monologue (when it was first revealed in one of the clips/ads) was similar to Xavier's from a previous movie.

It's Kinberg copying X2's Famke's Jean echoing X-men 1's Stewart's Xavier's monologue and thinking he's being clever.

 

[psylockolussus]

Worst monologues in the series.

 

[Hand Banana]

And you see this as a plus? Kinberg's great plan was to make us think anyone can die but really the stakes were going to be really low and barely worth mentioning? Is that what he pitched to Fox?

"The movie didn't ruin the Dark Phoenix story because Jean didn't really become the Dark Phoenix. It's just the title of the film".

Speaking of what was pitched:

Kinberg back in 2014.

The end of Days of Future Past in 1973 does change the timeline of the established film universe. But one of the things we posit in the film is the immutability of time. So what you see at the end is a future that has been shifted but not completely transformed. Our characters are back in the mansion, as we saw them in X1-3, with some obvious changes (like certain characters being alive). So the answer is yes and no. Yes it changes the timeline. No it doesn’t completely erase everything…

Singer back in 2015.

So what I’m doing with these in-betweenqueels is playing with time’s immutability and the prequel concept, meaning that yes we erased those storylines and anything can happen. That means the audience goes into the movie thinking that anything can happen. I mean anything, anyone could die. Any possibility could occur, but characters are still moving towards their immutable place. Jean and Scott, are they meant to be together? Is Scott this guy who hates schools, who ahtes authority, destined to become a leader? You don’t know. Is Jean ever going ot disover the full potential of her power? You don’t know, but we move in those direction character wise but then we have the freedom story wise to do whatever the **** we want because we erased those three movies.

For this film, the sake wasn’t “anyone could die”, but “is Jean meant to turn to the dark side?”. They set up the X3 parallels to make you think that’s the case and even the trailers created the misdirection that Jean is trying to kill them all and is the one attacking the train.



To answer your on whether it is a plus for me? Yes and no. I like the idea but the execution is far from ideal. With the way it’s executed it’s something hardcore fans are going to catch(like myself) but will fly over the heads of causal viewers.

 

[Hand Banana]

For instance, when Xavier described Jean as full of 'joy and rage', it made my eyes roll, it was too much of an echo of X3.

I think that was the point.

 

[EnDz0n3]

So for over a year, since we've heard and seen pictures and footage from Kinberg's set, you were trying to tell people that they're wrong: "Dark Phoenix isn't repeating elements from X3. That's just dumb. You guys are seeing what you want to see!"

Now that it's here and we've all seen the movie, the new narrative is: "You guysssss...Kinberg was so clever! He set up the X3 parallels all along to make you think you've seen this storyline before and so you think you know the character and story beats but he's actually baiting and switching it up. You guys didn't see it but I did!"

So basically Fox gave Kinberg a second go at adapting Dark Phoenix, gave him $200Mil budget, allowed him to direct his own script, gave him the franchise's longest post production schedule and he didn't even make a Dark Phoenix movie? And you think he should be what? Commended for it?

 

[Hand Banana]

So for over a year, since we've heard and seen pictures and footage from Kinberg's set, you were trying to tell people that they're wrong: "Dark Phoenix isn't repeating elements from X3. That's just dumb. You guys are seeing what you want to see!"

Well, first off I have not been posting here for over a year. Secondly, we didn’t know about the X3 parallels until after the first trailer dropped back in September. Thirdly, I don’t think I said anything like that.

Now that it's here and we've all seen the movie, the new narrative is: "You guysssss...Kinberg was so clever! He set up the X3 parallels all along to make you think you've seen this storyline before and so you think you know the character and story beats but he's actually baiting and switching it up. You guys didn't see it but I did!"

It’s not new. I predicted this over two years ago when it was announced.

This is me right now:

So basically Fox gave Kinberg a second go at adapting Dark Phoenix, gave him $200Mil budget, allowed him to direct his own script, gave him the franchise's longest post production schedule and he didn't even make a Dark Phoenix movie? And you think he should be what? Commended for it?

Weren’t you and many people complaining about it being too soon to make a movie about Jean Grey’s fall from grace before her rise? Now that the movie revealed itself to be about her rise instead of her fall you’re like: “He didn’t make a Dark Phoenix movie? WTF!?”

 

[Hand Banana]

Also, it’s funny that you mentioned this:

Now that it's here and we've all seen the movie, the new narrative is: "You guysssss...Kinberg was so clever! He set up the X3 parallels all along to make you think you've seen this storyline before and so you think you know the character and story beats but he's actually baiting and switching it up. You guys didn't see it but I did!"

/jk

 

[EnDz0n3]

Didn't you also argue thru the post below, dated November 2018, that X3 wasn't a Dark Phoenix adaptation?

Just because X3 had a few nods to Dark Phoenix doesn’t make it an adaptation. That’s like saying X2 was an adaptation of the Phoenix Saga because had a few nods to the story. Jean only had 13 minutes of screentime in both films.

Phoenix wasn’t at the center of the plot of X3, despite X2 setting her story up as this huge deal through out the film, but it ended up as an underdeveloped subplot. So even putting the comics aside and just looking at it purely as a film the audience was cheated.

But now you're saying that thru Sophie's monologue at the beginning of the movie titled "Dark Phoenix" Kinberg cleverly "trolled" (your word) the audience into thinking she will once again become Dark Phoenix, like how Famke became Dark Phoenix in X3. But you just told us (thru your post above) that X3 wasn't a Dark Phoenix adaptation. Which one is it?

It’s not new. I predicted this over two years ago when it was announced.

Let's assume you were right (>.<), it clearly didn't "work." The movie has a 23% RT score, it's being called the worst X-men movie, and it won't even make $100Mil in North America.

Weren’t you and many people complaining about it being too soon to make a movie about Jean Grey’s fall from grace before her rise? Now that the movie revealed itself to be about her rise instead of her fall you’re like: “He didn’t make a Dark Phoenix movie? WTF!?”

So for Kinberg, the solution to fans' complaints that it's too soon to do a Dark Phoenix adaptation is to troll them into thinking they're getting a Dark Phoenix movie but really what they're getting is a meta commentary on X3?

 

[Hand Banana]

Didn't you also argue thru the post below, dated November 2018, that X3 wasn't a Dark Phoenix adaptation?

But now you're saying that thru Sophie's monologue at the beginning of the movie titled "Dark Phoenix" Kinberg cleverly "trolled" (your word) the audience into thinking she will once again become Dark Phoenix, like how Famke became Dark Phoenix in X3. But you just told us (thru your post above) that X3 wasn't a Dark Phoenix adaptation. Which one is it?

Well first off, that’s off-topic. But I still stand by what I said. Jean becomes Phoenix in X2, but would you call that a Phoenix Saga adaptation?

Let's assume you were right (>.<), it clearly didn't "work." The movie has a 23% RT score, it's being called the worst X-men movie, and it won't even make $100Mil in North America.

A large part of the reason is that the marketing’s selling point was that Jean Grey is the X-Men’s greatest foe. I’ve seen reviews of people complaining about the movie not committing to Jean going to the dark side and going all out such as the ScreenJunkies review. Hell, even some people on this site have that complaint, even I did until I watched it a second time.

Misleading marketing can damage a film’s reception.



Even this critic had that complaint. Watch his review.

So for Kinberg, the solution to fans' complaints that it's too soon to do a Dark Phoenix adaptation is to troll them into thinking they're getting a Dark Phoenix movie but really what they're getting is a meta commentary on X3?

I think he was aiming at basically making Days of Future Past 2.0 with a meta X3 commentary.

 

[EnDz0n3]

Well first off, that’s off-topic. But I still stand by what I said. Jean becomes Phoenix in X2, but would you call that a Phoenix Saga adaptation?

I was wondering why you were making all these different pages for topics that essentially can be discussed in any number of the already existing threads. You just answered my question: you want to control the narrative. Any discussion you don't want broached you deem "off-topic." But how is it off-topic? Look back at all eight of your posts ON THIS THREAD. You were the one who mentioned that this movie thru its marketing set up the X3 parallels. You were the one that talked about Sophie's opening monologue. Sorry. By your own posts, my post isn't off-topic.

A large part of the reason is that the marketing’s selling point was that Jean Grey is the X-Men’s greatest foe. I’ve seen reviews of people complaining about the movie not committing to Jean going to the dark side and going all out such as the ScreenJunkies review. Hell, even some people on this site have that complaint, even I did until I watched it a second time.

Misleading marketing can damage a film’s reception.



Even this critic had that complaint. Watch his review.



I think he was aiming at basically making Days of Future Past 2.0 with a meta X3 commentary.

It's a no from me dawg.

 

[Hand Banana]

I was wondering why you were making all these different pages for topics that essentially can be discussed in any number of the already existing threads. You just answered my question: you want to control the narrative. Any discussion you don't want broached you deem "off-topic."

What? We wouldn’t even be having this discussion if wasn’t for SumT’s post and I’ve only made two topics on this board. You’re twisting things because you want to be combative, again.

But how is it off-topic? Look back at all eight of your posts ON THIS THREAD. You were the one who mentioned that this movie thru its marketing set up the X3 parallels. You were the one that talked about Sophie's opening monologue. Sorry. By your own posts, my post isn't off-topic.

This topic is about the monologue being similar to the one in DOFP and the meaning behind it. So how is what I said many months about what comic X3 was adapting on-topic?

 

[henzINNIT]

In one film "evolve" is a cute reference, foreshadowing the character arcs in the film and the goal of the heroes to improve the world by becoming better. It's about challenging destiny. In the other, "evolve" is part of a generic monologue about the confusing struggle Jean is going to face. But she evolves, get it? Kinberg is such a hack.

 

[Hand Banana]

In one film "evolve" is a cute reference, foreshadowing the character arcs in the film and the goal of the heroes to improve the world by becoming better. It's about challenging destiny. In the other, "evolve" is part of a generic monologue about the confusing struggle Jean is going to face. But she evolves, get it? Kinberg is such a hack.

DOFP’s monologue was foreshadowing Mystique’s destiny being changed. When Beast brings up the “river of time” theory it was a question of who Mystique was and the movie ends with a narration about the river of time while alluding to Mystique going down a heroic path.

Dark Phoenix’s monologue is also about challenging Jean’s destiny which according to Vuk was to become world eater(she literally said it was her destiny) that was alluded to in Apocalypse.

Both Mystique and Jean “evolved” as a result of Xavier having hope in them. This movie was pretty much trying to be DOFP 2.0.

 

[EnDz0n3]

This movie was pretty much trying to be DOFP 2.0.

And failing miserably to the point where the X-men is now a joke to the general audiences.

What? We wouldn’t even be having this discussion if wasn’t for SumT’s post and I’ve only made two topics on this board. You’re twisting things because you want to be combative, again.

If that was really the case, why didn't you call out SumT for being off-topic then? LOL

This topic is about the monologue being similar to the one in DOFP and the meaning behind it. So how is what I said many months about what comic X3 was adapting on-topic?

The Question that's the topic of the thread that you, yourself, started requires a 'Yes' or 'No' answer. Some said 'Yes' some said 'No.'

Now what? What's the point of this thread NOW that people have given their Yes or No answers? What's the point of this thread NOW if you are going to police what people can and can't talk about here, where people can and can't take the discussion?

 

[Hand Banana]

If that was really the case, why didn't you call out SumT for being off-topic then? LOL

Because his post is still about the monologue. Notice how I don’t say that henzINNIT’s post was off-topic.

The Question that's the topic of the thread that you, yourself, started requires a 'Yes' or 'No' answer. Some said 'Yes' some said 'No.'

Now what? What's the point of this thread NOW that people have given their Yes or No answers? What's the point of this thread NOW if you are going to police what people can and can't talk about here, where people can and can't take the discussion?

Dude, it’s not that deep.

 

[henzINNIT]

DOFP’s monologue was foreshadowing Mystique’s destiny being changed. When Beast brings up the “river of time” theory it was a question of who Mystique was and the movie ends with a narration about the river of time while alluding to Mystique going down a heroic path.

Dark Phoenix’s monologue is also about challenging Jean’s destiny which according to Vuk was to become world eater(she literally said it was her destiny) that was alluded to in Apocalypse.

Both Mystique and Jean “evolved” as a result of Xavier having hope in them. This movie was pretty much trying to be DOFP 2.0.

It's reductive saying the monologue was just referring to Mystique. The future coda implies a better future for everyone. Jean's reappearance at the end is the culmination of the lessons Charles learned about trying to control people. 'Apocalypse' follows through on this by allowing Charles to undo his mind-wipe on Moira and finding another way with Jean, encouraging her to embrace her power instead of trying to bury it.

Dark Phoenix craps the bed entirely following DOFP; trashing Xavier's progression since then and reinstating his mind-altering habits. It also ruins any sense of repeating history by arbitrarily changing Jean's history and the source of her power. There's little-to-no value in contrasting TLS and DP because things are circumstantially different and not because of the characters' actions.

 

[EnDz0n3]

Dude, it’s not that deep.

Yea the subject of this thread is not that deep lol There was absolutely no reason for you to make a separate thread for it.